The Sun.
London, England, 1863-02-18 00:00:00

could assure him that the Government were anxious to do
all in their power to enter into treaties of commerce on a
liberal footing with foreign countries, and the last complaint
which could be addressed to them was, that they wore not

fully aware of the vast importance of these commercial

treaties. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE asked whether the conditions of
the treaty with France were not such that the fifth article of
the treaty applied to the produce of all the world, and not
only to the produce of England and France. He also wished
to have the text of the Belgian treaty laid before the house,
that they might see whether in that treaty the danger he
had just alluded to, and which he had pointed out in 1860,
had been avoided or perpetuated. He thought it was unjust
to blame the Foreign-office for what had been done. The
hon. member for Rochdale was the independent negotiator
of the French treaty. Whatever credit bel .nged to it was
due to him; and if this country was so bound hand and
foot by it that we were incapable of negotiating subsequent

treaties, he must be held responsible.
Mr. HENNESSY said there was a variance between
the statement of the hon. gentleman the Under-Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs and the Board of Trade re-
turns—the former said our trade with Italy was in a most
flourishing condition, whilst the last Board of Trade re-
turns showed a decre•sse in every article of trade, and also
in the number and tonnage of shipping. He was inclined

to take he statement of thb Board of Trade as the most
correct on this point. The hon. gentleman then read from
the return the various articles of trade, with the amount of
business done, in comparison with the previous year, and
showing the amount of decrease. The decline arose in con-
sequence of the enormous customs duties imposed by Pied-
mont. That country was suffering from financial depres-
sion. There was a deficit of 17 millions sterling on the lain
year, and the Piedmontese Government were desirous of
negotiating a loan of 700 millions of francs. It was only by
putting on heavy duties, which would press heavily on our
trade, that she was able to raise a revenue. He instanced
the extinction of the mixed silk and woollen trade between
this country and Italy in consequence of that country, as
shown in the despatches that were printed last session.

Mr. S. A. BEAUMONT thanked the hon. gentleman
the member for Horsham for bringing this matter before
the house, but he was unable to go along with him in all
that he had said. He could not say that the interests of the
country had been neglected by the present Administration.
He had every reason to believe that the trading commu-
nity, as a body, were satisfied with the Belgian treaty.
_ _

Mr. LIDDELL said that nothing could well be more un-
satisfactory than the statement which they had heard that
night from the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He
had always believed that free trade could never be the act
of one man or one nation. It was not in the power of this
country at present to carry out the principle for which it is
so zealous. He accepted the. present commercial policy of
the country, and would admit that it had been attended
with advantages; but he believed that the Foreign Office
did not take suffici'nt opportunities of bringing the benefits
of a literal commercial policy before other Governments.
Mr. LEVESON GOWER said there was no use in ap-
pealing to feelings of generosity with reference to commer •
cial treaties. (Hear, hear.) He should like to know what
chance of success a statesman would have who came to that
house to advocate a measure unless he was in a position to
convince the house that it was for the interest of the country
especially that they were bound to legislate upon it. What
theylmust appeal to was the self-interest of other nations
—(hear)—and show that it would be for their benefit to
adopt a free trade policy. He would urge upon all who were
engaged in diplomacy to keep that in view.
Mr. DISRAELI—I think it very much to the credit of
this house that at last we have heard from the hon. gentle-
man who has just sat down a Free Trade speech. I shall

not offer any observations in vindication of those rags and
shreds of Protection of which the house has just been re-
minded, but I think an opinion on that subject has been
expressed in a manner which cannot be mistaken, and our
sincerity as to the course of policy which it is the wisdom
of this country to pursue has been manifested by as great
a sacrifice as could be made by public men. But on the
other side of the house, where members either are or are
supposed to be in some degree advocates of Free Trade and
Parliamentary reform, I did not expect to hear this
discussion commenced almost by the Under-Secretary for
Foreign Affairs with a personal and violent attack on my
hon, friend near me, whom he accuses of being a late
convert to Free Trade, because he now advocates the policy
of commercial treaties. I never heard that commercial
treaties were at all connected with the abstract principle of
a free exchange of commodities between nations. I believe
there is nothing very modern in the invention of commer-
cial treaties, nor am I aware that the Tory party have ever
shown a disrelish to support a commercial treaty, if, as we
are told to-night by a member of the Government, commer-
cial treaties are to be accepted as a test of sincerity in the
belief of the principle of Free Trade. Commercial treaties
even with France have been negotiatedsuccessfully by Tory
Administrations many years before our own time. The
commercial treaty of Mr. Pitt was only a reproduction,
and an imperfect reproduction, of the commercial
treaty which Lord Bolingbroke, a Tory Minister, success-
fully negotiated more than 150 years ago for an in-
terchange of products between England and France, on
terms much easier than those which at present exist. In
what way was • that treaty—negotiated but not ratified—
defeated 1' It was defeated by the opposition of the Whig
party in this house. Mr. Addison, one of the most dis-
tinguished members that ever sat among us, who was
afterwards Secretary of State, exerted all his wit and un-
rivalled powers of humour and composition in ridiculing
the arrival in this country of that distinguished foreigner
called Count Tariffe, whose mission it was to introduce
habits of exchanging commodities between the two great
nations. And those powers of wit and humour exercised
by that considerable writer, and sapported by the inveterate
prejudices of the country, defeated that treaty. There can
be no supposition more unfounded than one which presumes
that we, at this side, who are in favour of commercial
treaties, are at all deserting those principles which have
been supported habitually—l might almost say for centuries
—by the Tory party. There can be nothing more opposed to
the abstract principles of Free Trade or unrestricted com-
petition than those regulations or conventions by which re-
ciprocal advantages are sought in the exchange of commo-
dities by different nations • It is you who are departing from
those principles which you take every opportunity of praising
—you who are quitting that ground of pure truth and inex-
orable logic, the moment that you consent to negotiate the
terms on which commercial exchange shall take place.
(Hear.) In the case of the French treaty we came forward
with certain advantages which we proposed to exchange for
others. I have always believed that anything which fa-
voured commercial exchange between England and France
was a policy that each country ought to favour ; but it was en-
tirely contrary to those principles of abstract exchange which
you have always upheld. Nothing therefore can be more in-
consistent than the reproach which has tonight been levelled
at a gentleman upon this side of the house. I remember a
great man years ago introducing into this house the subjec,
of commercial treaties. The hon. member for Rochdale
who shows, and has shown, on all subjects great capacity,
and for whom we have all high respect, at that time was
not yet a member of this house. Haying supported the
system of commercial treaties as one that would on the
whole promote and increase the commerce of this country,
I remember being attacked out of this house by the hon.
member for Rochdale. Ido not know whether the words
were uttered aloud, so that we can find them in the
authentic record ; but I know from experience that no less
a personage than Sir Robert Peel exclaimed, " Don't you
think we have heard the last of commercial treaties 2"
Well, we have not heard the last of commercial treaties.
(Hear, hear.) So shrewd, so sagacious, and so experienced
a statesman as Sir R. Peel, who was always so cautious
in expressing his opinion, was mistaken. That remark was
made probably in 1844, and since then a most important
commercial treaty has been negotiated. By whom ? Why,
by the hon. gentleman the member for Rochdale I (Cheers.)
Now, that is a lesson for all of us—(laughter)—and it
teaches us that, whatever may be the value of abstract
principles, it is in their wise and necessary application that
the prosperity of nations is involved. (Hear, hear.) I
think we are very much indebted to my hon. friend for
bringing this subject before us, and for the observations
which he has made. The subject of commercial treaties
has almost got into an impracticable state, but the in-
teresting debate which has taken place to-night will, at
all events, teach the country the position which it r• ally
occupies. It is most unwise, in my opinion, to hold out
generally that the Government has the power of negotiating
treaties of commercial advantage. The country has
accepted the policy of unrestricted competition. If it be
dissatisfied with that policy, let it frankly anneunce
its dissatisfaction. But it cannot have the advan-
tage of a policy of unrestricted competition and at the same
time enjoy the benefits, as regards commerce, of diplomatic
arrangement. The country now wants to have the double
advantage ; but warning enough was given. You were told
often and often by members of this house that you were
dealing too liberally with the privileges you possessed. It
is too late now to inquire whether you were right or wrong
in throwing these away ; the policy which you then sup-
ported was accepted, and by that policy, in my opinion, you
must stand. Why, in navigation alone, 1 remember how
constantly you were told that you were heedlessly giving
up a thousand points. (Hear, hear.) The constant answer
was, " Only make the surrender, only endure the sacrifice,
and you will see what your example will inspire." (Hear,
hear.) I am not aware what satisfactory returns those
sacrifices have attained. They appear to me, so far as
I can recall them at the moment, very slight and mean.
But the policy was adopted. It was adopted after great
discussions, after frequent appeals to the country, and!after
great political consequences. It is not for you tc find fault
with aGovernment because it cannot accomplish those results
by diplomatic arrangements which you expected from the
sacrifices you made for the sake of unrestricted competi-
tion. You have yourselves resolved that the means which
could alone bring about those results should be surrendered
at discretion. You gave them up without conditions, and
it is impossible to resume the position which you lost. If
we are painfully conscious, the Government, who are better
informed, must be doubly conscious of the difficulties
under which they labour in attempting to carry on negotia-
tions on this subject. They a e pretending to negotiate
commercial treaties, and they are holding out the idea
of Italian and Austrian treaties, which they must know
to be impossible, Having adopted a commercial system,