The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-18 00:00:00

EXPORT OF COAL.

Colonel P. HERBERT wished to ask a question respecting
the 11th article of the French treaty, by which they engaged
not to prevent the exportation of coal. That article was
drawn up with great simplicity of language. Sueh language
might be very suitable in their new plenipotentiary, but
those who did not believe in the immediate approach of the
millenniam might make objection to it. The terms in which
this article was drawn betrayed great carelessness or haste
on the part of the negotiators of the treaty, and reflected
great blame on the partof these who approved of it. As he
read that article they were precluded from prohibiting the
export of coal to France up to the day before the declara-
tion of war. He did not think the noble lord at the head of
the Government exercised that superintendence of the
Foreign Secretary which the interests of the country de-
manded, and supposed that for the sake of keeping
peace in the Cabinet he permitted him a wider
discretion and scope than the noble lord the Foreigi
Secretary permitted the noble lord at the head of the
Government when their situations in the Cabinet were
reversed. If they were engaged in a war, Rot with
France but with another country, they could not prevent
France from obtaining their coal and supplying it to that
other country. Again, if France was engaged in war
against a nation with which we were on friendly terms,
their coal ships might be employed by France, and there-
fore liable to capture by the nation which was at war with
France. They might thus, nolens voices, be dragged into
war either on the one side or the other. These were im-
portant points, which he wished to have explained before
the discussion of the treaty on Monday, as it was necessary
for them to understand the terms of the treaty betore they
entered into a discussion of it. (Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—The question which the hon. gentle-
man puts relates to that part of the treaty which does not re-
fer, as he has put it, to_commercial interests or trade regula-
tions, but to our political relations with France. Now, I
believe that that article, which has certainly met with a
great deal of comment, was inserted without any political
view whatever. (Hear, hear.) Nor did our negotiators
take any political view of it. I understand that the French
Government likewise have declared—and, indeed, I have
been assured of it—that they had no p.ditical view in
agreeing to that article. But the hon. gentleman, per-
haps, is not aware that it is cur policy generally not to
impose export duties. On this particular article of coal
Sir ROW Peal proposed an export duty, in which I sup-
ported him. It met with the concurrence of the House
of Commons, but it was found to be so extremely dis-
tasteful, so much opposed to the principles of free trade
that it created great discontent, and the duty had to be
abrogated. Therefore it may be said that our genera]
policy is in favour of not imposing export duties, and of
not prohibiting the export of coal. The hon. gentleman
then, I suppose, wishes to have the power of preventing
the export of coal to France whilst it is permitted to other
countries. It is either that case, or a general prohibition. I
take it that a general prohibition is so opposed to the inter -
eats of a great portion of our countrymen that no minister
would propose to put a stop to a considerable trade which
is increasing from year to year. Well, if you cannot have a
general prohibition, you may have one, the hon. gentle-
man would say, to the particular country of France. But
that, I submit, would be of itself rather a symptom of hos-
tile relations-, and of an intention to engage in war before
any long time, than one of commercial relations. (Hear,
hear.) If you say that you will permit the export of coal
to all other countries but not to France. you will produce
a state of things which will give France a right to in-
quire of you what is the intention of your Govern-
ment, and whether you do mean to enter with her into rela-
lations of a hostile kind. Therefore I conceive, apart from
all questions of the treaty, you can hardly venture on such
a measure unless you mean to place youreelves in a hostile
position towards France. The hon. gentleman, Rerhaps
may say, that after all, if that is the general policy of the
country, and if you must act in that way, it is still not
necessary to make your exports the subject of any treaty
whatever. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) Bat per-
haps the hon. gentlentan is not aware that stipulations
with regard to exports are Rot entirely new in Otis treaty,
which he seems to think Lord Cowley and Mr. Cobden
negotiated without sufficient attention and without sufficient
regard to the interests of this country. A treaty was con-
cluded last year with Russia under the direction of Lord
Malreesbuty ; and by an article of that treaty we agreed not
to forbid the export of any articles to Russia unless we for-
bade it to other countries. COal came under that provision.
Therefore we are under this restriction, that we cannot for-

bid the export of coal to Russia unless we prevent the export
of it to other countries, which would be a great injury to the
coal trade. Thet is a provision with regard to Russia ; and
we are quite as likely to go to war with. Russia as with
France. For the last forty-five years we have not been in a
state of hostility with France, but we have been with
Russia ; yet that is the prevision which Lord Malmesbury
made, and that is the treaty which he concluded. The hon.
gentleman says further, that this is the first time we have
put any restriction upon our power of restraining the export
of coal. Now, there are many articles more useful for war-
like purposes than coal. By another article of the treaty
we age toed to give France the advantage of the principle of
the most favoured nation. We could not, therefore, allow
the export to the United States or Spain• without at the
same time giving the same power to France. Consequently
our only choice was either to put a stop to the trade alto-
gether, or to allow it to France, as well as to all other coun-
tries. This being the state of the case, I imagine it is quite
a delusion to think there is any great importance in that ar-
ticle of the treaty. It is an article in favour of our exports,
and of a very valuable trade, and for our own interests. Then
the how. gentleman says we may be on the brink of war
with France. Why,• coal is an article used for manufac-
turing purposes in times of peace as well as an article used
in war. But there is an article which is used only for the
purposes of war—viz., rifled cailon, and we were informed
in the course of last autumn that a considerable order for the
rifling of cannon had been executed in this country. Now,
what an absurdity it would be if we allowed rifled cannon to
gs to Franee and prohibited coal from going there. (Hear.)
Of course, if you come to a state of things approaching hos-
tilities, it will not then be a treaty of commerce. You
would then take measures for your own security, and
openly avow that they were for your own security. (Hear.)
The treaty of 1787 was framed with the object of distressing
ft power that its framers knew would be their enemy, and
therefore they had no hesitation in prohibitingtho exporta-
tion of wheat. And so in like manner this whole treaty is
intended for the relations of peace. (Hear, hear.) The hon.
and gallant member may not value peace. (" Oh," from
the Opposition benches.) He has made personal reflections
on me, which he is perfectly at liberty to do, but the object
of this treaty is to maintain the interests of commerce while
we are at peace with France. (Hear.) But if unfortunately
we ever should be at war with France we should take mea-
sures to meet it, but this treaty does no more than the treaty
with Russia respecting contraband of war. This is my
answer to the hon. gentleman, believing that this article is
of no such importance as he states—the treaty is merely
placing France in the position of the most favoured nation,
and therefore the article itself is not of that importance
which has been atfzibnted to it. (Hear, hear.)
Sir H. CAIRNS believed that this 11th article of the
treaty was not overrated in importance. There was no con-
troversy on either side of the house as to the policy of an
export duty. He had not heard any person on either side of
the house say that they thought the time would cum() when
an export duty, even on coal, would be an objectionable
duty. Tha power of laying on these duties was defined
by act of l'aeliitment, and no later than 1853, when the
prosint Mihistry were in office, that power was defined to
include arms, ammunition, gunpowder, military and naval
stores, &c. Therefore, here was a power confided to the
Crown by Parliament at any emergency to prohibit to any
inlatoce navalthe ° xPtahn
Well,stores.
coal was, of all other
articles, the one without which all others would for naval
eo f
ofy thisg which might be convert c a
course,
Purposes be comparatively useless. (Hear, hear.) Now, he
apprehended that that power,which was committed to the
Crown ought to be exercised for the benefit of the State;
and it was not right for any Ministry to advise the Crown
to surrender for ten years or for one year that power with-
out the consent of Parliament, We did not wish for war