The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-07 00:00:00

imposed, and paraded as a differential duty by the Chan•

cellor of the Exchequer.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the hon. and
learned gentleman had addressed the committee with a
forensic ardour unusual in such an assembly, and the terms
absurd, ridiculous, and the like, were used as regarded the
able and lucid statement of his right hon. friend the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. But he (the Attorney-General)
rose to state to the house what, in his opinion, was the
t_ ae interpretation to be put upon the treaty. He begged
then to call the attention of the committee to the terms
of the treaty. By the treaty, power was given to the
British Government to impose a duty equal to the French
duty. All foreign articles were to be received into this
country on payment of a duty equal to the Excise duty
"which is or shall be imposed." The 7th article contained
those important words, " which is or shall be imposed."
The French proposed that some articles should be exempted
from an increased duty, which might be imposed if they were
exempted from the operation of the 7th article. IVith regard

to some articles there was a definite maximum stated. But
the French were in this position—they were exempted from
the operation of an augmentation duty, as stated by the
7th article, to which they might have been subjected by the
terms of the Bth. The paper manufacturer had this advan-
tage, that the French importer had a limitation placed on
him with regard to the weight of the raw material, and this
limitation would impose on him a larger duty than that im-
posed on the English manufacturer. For every exemption
mentioned in the Sth article there was a reason assigned.
The particular things mentioned in the Bth article were
enumeraled for the purpose of taking them out of the ope-
ration of the 7th article, but not for the purpose of limiting
the operation of that article. (Hear, hear, from the Minis-
terial side.) The maximum duty on paperhanging,s was

given in the Bth article (and this applied to cardboards)
amounting to 15s. per cwt., and at that duty we would be
compelled to admit French cardboards into this country, so
that instead of its being true that the rule was given in the
7th, and the subject matter for the application of it given
in the Bth article, both the rule and application of it were
given in the 7th article. There was a common observation
that an ounce of fact was worth more than a pound of ar-
gument—certainly worth more than a pound of some of the
arguments heard that evening. (Laughter.) It was said
that the 7th article would adroit every description of mer-
chandise from France, including even tobacco, duty free,
provided those articles were not subject to Excise duty in
England. Now we had laid down this general principle,
that where there were home productions liable to an Excise
duty, the correspondent articles abroad might be ad-
mitted into this country on the same terms as our own.
There was, therefore, this simple and uniform rule that
all those things not liable to Excise duties were to be
admitted free of Customs duties, and those that were liable
to the Excise duty were to be admitted at a duty equal to
that which was imposed on the English producer. He
wished to impress upon the committee that if there was a
rule of honesty, it was this that they should adhere to the
interpretation put upon the treaty in the terms and condi-
tions of the contract. To frame an article upon the duties
to which articles were subject on importation from France,
the duty should be equalised as nearly as possible to that
to which they were subjected under the operation of the
Excise duty. Nothing could be more fair than the inter-
pretation of the 7th article of the treaty. There was an
alteration made in May in the duty on spirits ; but it was
agreed between the two contracting parties that if any
additional duty should be placed upon articles of a similar
description, an equivalent change should be made in those
of spirits. The hon. and learned gentleman here enume •
rated the articles, and said his view in having done so was
to show that the feelings and opinions of the two Govern-
ments were harmonious and uniform. He should, therefore,
looking at all the circumstances, be exceedingly sorry if the
House of Commons were not to act upon the terms of the
contract. Indeed, he should be ashamed if the House of
Commons were not to carry out its terms, and in relation
to the terms of an agreement he was sure he might appeal
with confidence to the hon. gentlemen now before him,
His right lion. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer
argued the question upon the ground of expediency, and
he argued it also upon the ground of distributive justice ;
but his hon. and learned friend opposite seemed to forget
the ordinary rules of the agreement, and argued diffe-
rently, doubtless because he did not know the facts. The
House of Commons, however, knew them, and the paper-
maker knew them, and as a legislative body the house was
bound by the conditions of the contract, and justice to the
paper maker and to the great body of the community of this
country required that they should put an end to the system
by voting for the resolutions. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NORRIS contended that it was rash to reduce the
duties on paper in this country until they had succeeded in
inducing other countries to adopt a principle of reciprocity.
The entire arrangement was an anomaly, and he ventured
to say that if the right hon. gentleman recognised the
principle of a customs duty, ls. 3d. was not by any means
an adequate compensation for the disadvantage at which
the British manufacturer stood in consequence of the excise
duty. The Englishman was at a considerable disadvantage
in his competition either with French, Belgian, or German
makers, which it was the duty of that house to relieve him
from. He did not at all agree in the position taken by the
right hon. gentleman, that we were bound by the provisions
of the treaty, but even if WO were, the 21st article of the
treaty aff rded them the means of making the necessary
modificati ns.
Mr. HENLEY said he had paid anxious attention to the
speech of the hon. and learned gentleman the Attorney-
General, to see whether he would reply to the argument of
the hon. and learned gentleman below him (Sir H. Cairns),
but he left the main portion of his speech unanswered ; for
he followed the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and did not show how exemptions could be
brought in under the expression "in accordance with."
Nor did he say anything on the subject of malt, which was
an exciseable article ; and if the 7th article of the treaty
were general, as the Government would wish to have it
understood, he (Mr. Henley) conceived that malt would
come under it, and it was not so small an item, being about
£5,000,000, that it could have escaped like hops, which the
right hon. gentleman told them was of no great import-
ance. Well, the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of
the Exchequer had looked hard at that (the Opposition)
side of the house, and said something about their acting in
conformity with the dictates of honour and dignity. That
was paying them a compliment, certainly, though it did
not appear at whose expense. (Hear, and laughter.) Then
they made the specification of things that were under the
treaty, and things that were not under the treaty. He
preferred the specification made at the time, and he did not
think that there was that clearness in the treaty which
would justify the housein doing what the right hon. gen-
tleman wished them to do. He thought the unfortunate
paper manufacturers had been so banded about this session
from pillar. to post, and from post to pillar, that this hard-
ship should not be put upon them, and he would vote for
the amendment.
Lord J. RUSSELL—The hon. and learned gentleman
the member for Belfast made, at the commencement of his
speech, a most extraordinary attack on the statement of my
right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said
that my right hon. friend had relied both on the obligations
of the treaty and the general principles of free trade as argu-
ments in favour of his resolutions, and that therefore there
must be a radical defect in my right hon. friend's argu-
ments. Now, it appears to me that this argument of the
hon. and learned gentleman was one of the most extraordi-
nary I ever heard. If my right hon. friend had said, this
is an article in the treaty to which we are bound to conform,
but which cannot be carried without injury to the country,
that might have been a point to take exception to. Or, if
he had said, this article is g od for the country, but it is not
within the scope of the treaty, the hon. and learned member
might also have objected; but when my right hon. friend
says that his resolution is not only conformable to the treaty
but is at the same time in accordance with all the dictates
of sound policy, for that reason the hon. and learned mem-
ber says that my right hon. friend's argument is unsound
and ridiculous. However, I was glad to find the hon. and
learned member for Belfast admitting that this was not a
question entirely for the lawyers, but one which any mem-
ber by adopting its plain interpretation might understand.
I take advantage of that admission to advance some argu-
ments founded on the plain interpretation, and, let me say
at first that if you have a treaty with another power, and
if you find that by some refinements, some subtle mode of
argument, you have deprived that power of the advantages
it might have gained from a plain interpretation, you are
not justified in persisting in those refinements and subtle
arguments. With respect to the points in the hon. and learned
member's speech, I find that although the principal question
in dispute had reference to Art. 7, yet that he avoided that
article for a long time and went into Art. 8. Theo, when
he had got the house completely entangled with Art. 8,
he referred to Art. 7, and went cursorily over it, as if it
were not the main article under discussion. The hon. and
learned member then resorted to this extraordinary !tater.
pretation ; either article 8 contains the meaning f article 7,
and you cannot go beyond it ; or else you are bound to ad-
mit all articles not subject to excise duty. Why, both these
interpretations are extreme, and are founded on a subtle
scholastic mode of deducing interpretations,
instead of an
u beg
appeal to the plain straightforward meaning. I must
the attention of the house to the few words at the beginning
of article 7, which seem to me to contain the whole mean-
ing of that which we are now discussing. It says that her
Britannic Majesty will recommend to Parliament to admit
into the United Kingdom merchandise from France at a
rate of duty equal to the excise duty which is impostd on
articles in this country. It seems to me the effect will by
that \there there is an article subject to excise, and that is
introduced to France, you will then have a customs duty
equal to that excise duty. You may say article 7 might be
better worded than it is; but the meaning is obvious.(Hear, hear.) With regard to article 8, it states the in-
stances where article 7 is to be applied. Article 7 lays
down general principles, and article 8 refers to the instances
where those principles are to be applied. The hon. and
learned gentleman opposite (Sir H. Cairns) argues that it
is not right at present to diminish this duty because the
French Government have not completed what they pre.
mised—namely, a removal of the prohibition on rags. But
there is this material difference—the one is an article in the
treaty, and is an engagement between the two Governments,
whereas the removal of the prohibition on rags was never
an agreement between the two Governments. (Hear,
hear.) It was merely a declaration of the French Govern-