The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-09 00:00:00

IKE SUN, LONDON. FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH- 9, 1860.

tie ships, or by impregnable fortresses, that we could obtain
the security we sought—we could only do so by endeavour-
ing to enlist the sympathies of the French people in favour
of kindly relations between the two countries. He did not
believe that we were nearer the end we had in view now
that we were spending £30,000,000 on our armaments
than when our expenditure was only £20,000,000 ; nor
did he think that, by the gallant display thathad been made
in the streets of London on the previous afternoon, we wei e
likely to enlist the sympathies of the French people so as
, to influence the policy of the Emperor ix the direction of
peace. He placed himself no trust in the Emperor, but
that was not the question with which he had now to deal.
What the house had now to consider was, how they could
lead the people of France to see that their interests were so
much in favour of friendly relations with this country that
it would not be in the power of the French Government
to cause a rupture with us P (Hear, hear.) It was not right
to blame the Emperor for not going further than he did in
the treaty, for he had to deal with the most obstinate and
impracticable people in the world—the monopolists and
protectionists. (A laugh) It had been said that Ireland
would not benefit by the budget, but he (the hon. member)
denied the justice of that remark, Ireland had already
benefited enormously by free trade—not so much indeed
from the advantage she had reaped to her manufactures,
but from the higher prices she had obtained for the produce
of her soil. (Hear, hear.) Take the important article of
butter, of which a million and a half pounds' worth passed
every year through Cork market. Well, the prices obtained
at Cork on the sth inst. were £6 10s. per ton for the first,
and £5 15s. for the third quality—higher prices, in fact,
than it had fetched during the war. (Hear.) Wheat, toe,
was selling at more than 505. per quarter, which was a far
larger sum than the protectionists had ever expected to get.
Free trade had saved thousands—he might say hundreds
of thousands—of human lives. In 1848 the coarsest India
meal fetched £2l per ton. He knew a parish in Kerry
where, till a supply of it was received, there had been no
food whatever for 24 hours. In that case it had cost 134
per ton, whereas it had since been imported at from £6
to £7 10s. If they had not had open ports, it was hardly
an exaggeration t) say that the people must have perished
by millions. (Hear, hear.) To show how things had
changed, he would mention a district in Cork from which,
in 1856, £70,000 worth of produce was sent to England ;
whereas now, not only was nothing exported to Eng-
land, but £lOO,OOO of articles were actually imported from
England. (Hear, hear.) The farmers and the gentry of
1 Ireland were never so flourishing; nor were rents ever bet-
ter paid than at this moment; and the reason was Irish in-
dustry was remunerated. (Hear, hear.) An hon. friend of
his had unwittingly endeavoured the other evening to im-
pose upon the house the notion that Ireland would have a
very small share in the contemplated remission of duties. He
-(Mr. Maguire) held in his hand an able article in the Irish
Review, in which it was shown that Ireland did not get
credit for the whole of the amount which she contributed to
the imperial exchequer. In fact, it was proved that she
paid a million a year more than she was supposed to do.
The hon. member for King's County (Mr. Hennessy) said
that out of £300,000 charged on the article of currants only
£720 was paid in the Irish custom-houses ; and then he
argued that the gain to Ireland by the reduction of the duty
would be infinitesimal. But was it reasonable that Ireland,
which contained a population of six millions and ahalf, con-
sumed less than a four-hundredth part of the currants im -
ported into the United Kingdom ? (Hear, hear.) The ex-
planation was that the wholesale grocers of Dublin, Cork,
Belfast, and other towns in Ireland, traded with the mer-
chants of Liverpool. and thus Liverpool got the credit of all
the duties on those trades. In the article of refined sugar,
£150,000 worth of it was imported into Ireland, for which
all the customs duty was paid in Plymouth and Liverpool.
(Hear, hear.) 'I hen, again, with regard to ladies' wearing
apparel and artificial flowers, for which Ireland was set down
at an infinitesimal portion, he could state that the ladies of
Ireland were even fonder of dress than English ladies, yet
while England got credit for paying a duty. of £20,452 upon
those articles, Ireland was set down as paying only £2 duty.
(A laugh.) Pis assertion was that those articles paid duty
through the great houses in London, and were Afterwards
sent into Cork and other towns in Ireland. Therefore he
said that the people of Ireland would have their fair share in
the advantages of the remission or total abolition of duties.
Neither was he afraid of any injury arising to Irish butter
from this measure. He believed that Irish honesty would
more than counterbalance the cheaper roguery of the foreign
makers.
Mr. DISRAELI—That is a part of the budget ; we are
speaking now of the treaty.
Mr. MAGUIRE—It was a provisional part of the treaty.
There was great apprehension expressed about coal, and
again about Irish linens. He believed that under the clauses
ofmtagu
hisirtree)atays Irishinlidinceantsioncoulthdamt otrheeythashnouicodmhpeatvee in
n
France with Belgium,, and he was informed that a steam
an
cuomnapeianmyewasasasaslerneat already
thebe addressinggot furperefothr
ethreeperoensveneytaatnivceesof
of
Irish linens from Belfast to France. (Hear.) He believed
the advantages of this treaty to France would be great, and
those to England would be no less. (Hear, hear.) He
hoped to see the day when they would not have war esti-
mates in a time of peace. (Hear, hear.) If the benefits of
this treaty were realised, no minister would have the cou-
rage to stand at that table , and ask for the same amount of
money which was demanded this year. (Hear, hear.) Why
was there such a close connexion between this country and
the United States ? Was it because they were of the same
religion and the same race ? No—it was because the two
countries were bound up by the ties of commerce. He be-
lieved this country would yet bless the man—would yet
bless Mrs' Cobd-m—for the promotion of this scheme, which
was calculated to effect vast good for ,France and for Eng-
land. He denied the truth of the assertion of the hon.
member for Malden (Mr. Peacock) that there existed any
antipathy to this country among the two great classes in
France—the clergy and the manufacturers. The French;
soldiers might want war ; but he maintained that the clergy
if the great church of France, though they might and did
feel the insults which diplomacy cast at their religion, were
nevertheless anxious for peace. He did therefore firmly be-
lieve that this treaty would confer immense advantages on
both countries.
Mr. RIDLEY rose for the purpose of giving his hearty
support to this treaty, and to the financial measures of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. He believed that in doing so
he was acting in accordance with the wishes of the vast ma-
jority of his constituents. He thought the house might look
upon the speech of the hon. member for Dungarvan (Mr,
the United Kingdom of England and Ireland. (Hear, hear.)
He was one of those who did not look for reciprocity in this
or any other treaty, but he looked at it as a great step on
the part of France in favour of free trade, which we so much
wished to extend. He had received a vast number of letters
from persons engaged in manufactures, who stated that
though they did not see any immediate or large advantage
to their own particular trades, nevertheless they gave their
assent to this treaty and the principles upon which it was
founded. Besides the iron and coal trades, there were other
trades in the north which would derive advantages from
this treaty. There were large proprietors of chemical
manufactures who were
,of opinion that this treaty was
only wanting to complete the perfect following out of their
manufactures, by admitting them at a low rate of duty into
the French markets. With respect to coal, he believed there
was considerable misapprehension existing as to the effect of
this treaty upon that trade. As regarded the extent of the
coal fields of England, a well-informed authority had as-
sured him that at the rate of 80,000,000 tons a year, there
would be a duration of 1,975 years. Perhaps the house was
not aware that the waste in. the coal fields of Durham and
Northumberland alone was no less than 500 or 600 tons
per day, a waste which would be to a great extent saved if
France took our coal in the manner proposed by the treaty.
It was said France wanted coal for purposes of war, but the
truth was she wanted them much more for the purposes of
commerce. Coal, some held, ought to be considered contra-
band of war, but by the same rule so ought the cloth and
' leather with which the soldiers were clad. (Hear, hear) He
' agreed with the hon. gentleman the member for Sunderland
`• that the shipping advantages between the two countries
ought to be mutual, and that our Government ought to im-
press upon the Government of France the negessity of alter-
ing their navigation laws. At the same time he did not think
it I ight to resort to the sy stem of reciprocity treaties. Per-
' haps he was too sanguine in his estimate of the treaty,
yet be could not help expressing a firm conviction that it
' would tend to the permanent interests of peace. (Hear.)
They had a habit of thinking that if a revolution broke out
' in Paris revolution must also break out in Berlin, Vienna,
Naples, and Rome. Then, he asked, why should not the
reverse be the case when France set so good an example ?
Why should not other states pursue a free trade policy,
and the advantages be made general throughout Europe ?
Foreigners painted to our numberless statutes and asked us
' why we did not adopt the Code Napoleon. He thought it
would bo well for us if wo did, but when we consented to
this treaty we could return a triumphant answer by pointing
to the simplicity of our tariff.
Lord A, V. TEMPEST had waited to hear an enuncia-
tion of the policy of thosewho sat on the oppositionbenches.
He had felt it his duty to support the proposal of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, and did so because it was a con-
tinuance of that wise course of policy inaugurated by the
late Sir R. Peal, which had contributed so much to the
prosperity of the country. He coincided entirely in the re-
marks of the hon. gentleman the member for Newcastle as
to the benefits which the treaty would confer in developing
our coal trade. He wished as much as anybody to see the
commercial alliance between England and France esta-
blished to promote the prosperity of both countries, and
knitting together their sympathies of peace ' and goodwill.
(Hear.) He would that his thoughts were equal to his
hopes, but frankly confessed upon this head he could not
speak so sanguinely. It was very likely ho would be
charged with inconsistency in voting against this motion,
having on a previous occasion voted with the Government
in reference to the financial propositions of the Chancellor '
of the Exchequer; but he thought it was quite possible for
the Government to enter into commercial arrangements
with France which did not necessitate the conclusion of a
state treaty. He had been in doubt whether the House of
Commons ought to consider the treaty or the budget first,
but considered he was now fully justified in the vote he was
about to give, and that the British House of Commons was
entitled to say to the Emperor Napoleon —" Thus far shalt
thou go and no farther." The only two speeches he had
heard which seemed to express the feelings of the English
people were the speeches of the hon. members for Sheffield
and Horsham. He had heard them called indiscreet, but
believed they were true. His reasons for voting against
the motion of the hon. gentleman the member for Middle-
sntooeifxoentxwhpoe E
erfreteshs its
Emperor
English to be found in the despatches of the noble lord at
the liead of the Foreign-office. The noble lord then quoted
from the despatch of Lord John Russell, Jan. 28, 1860, in
which he said the Foreign Secretary expressed the opi
pogrilinisohofnpteohoi.eptl}he,er.
eeWnocnhatsi?et huiecsdotue
ffhledeteirieoen afpoerpnrtdehegaiotaoht
goodwill
the
high-sounding phrase of the Emperor about "barren con-
quests," and n moral influence,' when they saw he cared
neither for their protests nor their remonstrances, nor their
despatches, but threw )ff the Walewski mask and declared
his real cleswigns. Theaatt
Emperor of France might be on visit-
ing terms was no reason why we should
avow ourselves his affection
e friends or throw ourselves into
his arms. He wished to s
France ands England—a realee treaty of amity between
treaty of amity—he had no
objection to shako hands with a mail who had a glove on, but
(Hear.)o He begged
to
oe
pdriodpno
soet
thewish
followingit t o be aerimier
amendment
e nvteu.
theno) motion of the
d be glad
hon. gentleman the member for Middlesex
to withdraw it if the hon. gentleman the member for l'
Hors-
ham, or the hon. gentleman the member for Sheffierlaraad-
propos xl anything to a similar effect—after the word "that"
to add these words : this house approaches her Majesty with
great devotion and respect; whilst fully appreciating the
advantageous results to be obtained by increased commercial
intercourse between this country and France, and estimating
the present friendly connexion between Great Britain and
France, this house yet declines to express any opinion on
the treaty until such time as the Emperor of the French
makes known his final decision as to the annexation of
Savoy."
Mr. BOVILL seconded the amendment.
Mr. SLANEY hoped the noble lord would forgive him if
he did not enter into a discussion of the amendment which
he had proposed to the house, but he would simply say that
he should vote for the motion of the hon. member for Mid-

dlesex. He thought the treaty would be the means of giv-
ing great advantages to this country and the country oppo-
site to them, and he thought it would by degrees bind
* too•ether in bonds of amity and friendship the two peoples,
so that in the course of time they might be as one nation.

Sir H. CAIRNS said he did not rise im express dissent
to the motion of the hon. member for Middlesex. He

should regret very much if the motion were not carried.
(Hear, hear.) The rejection of the motion would be the
overthrow of this treaty. He did not desire it to be
overthrown. Fearing his assent to the motion of the
honourable member might lead to the supposition
that he approved of the treaty, he would say of it that it was

unwise in its details and ill-considered in its provisions, and
that it was not such a treaty as the trade of the country had

a right to expect. He objected to it because it was acom-
mercial treaty, for he knew that commercial treaties were
likely to lead to difficulties and embarrassments, and no one

could have pointed that out better than the two noble lords
opposite. (Hear, hear.) To say that a commercial treaty
could not be justified would be to apply in an extreme and
violent manner a perfectly good and abstract rule. Commer-
cial treaties must depend upon their special circumstances,
and he would confess that any arrangement which would
tend to draw closer the commerce between the two countries
was desirable, and everything which had been said of the
relative positions of France and England for the interchange
of their products and the little trade which had hitherto been
carried onbetween the two countries, they all knew and felt
to be true. He could recollect when in 1840-41 they tried to
bring about a better state of things, and he knew that efforts
were again made in 1853, which only terminated by a re-
msval of the Government from office by which those efforts
were being made. In this respect he was entirely ready to
go the full length of giving credit to the Government for
their desire to increase the commercebetween the two coun-
tries. But he did not admire the bargain which the Go-
vernment had made for this country. It was said there had
been no bargain; but he would ask, if no bargain was made,
what was the use of a treaty at all ? What was the mean-
ing of the instructions given to the negotiators, which said
that, provided they could obtain certain reductions, they
might take off certain duties. Was not that a bargain ? His
objection to the treaty was not that it WAS a bargain, but
that it was a-very bad bargain for England. No doubt ar-
rangements had been made which would be beneficial for
certain branches of trade, but other branches were left out
of consideration. The house expected to hear from the hon.
member for Sunderland the ground. upon w Lida ha . wag
Prepared to move an amendment to the address, but the hon.
gentleman had deferred them to a future day, and therefore
be might perhaps be allowed to mention one fact upon this
subject. He had been shown the rates of freight on ships
loading at the Mauritius. English ships there loading, to
discharge at English ports, obtained freights at from 10s. to
20s. per ton; and side by side were French ships, which
would ly, at liberty to discharge at any English ports, or
French ports, and which were obtaining freights at 455.
per ton, or about 150 per cent. higher than English ships.
If this treaty came into operation, French ships would be
greatly engaged in the cotton carrying trade between the
United States and Liverpool. The Government said this
was not a treaty of navigation but of commerce. Then how
came it that there had been inserted in itan article of navi-
gation and not of commerce ? What right had their pleni
potentiary in negotiating a treaty of commerce to insert an
article of navigation ? If the Government said he had that
right, had he not also a right to ask for a reduction of these
differe .tial duties? Well, did he ask for and press for the
abolition of these duties ? (Hear, hear.) What he com-
plained of was that those who negotiated the treaty had not
shown that they made any suggestion on this subject, or
that they had that object in view. No effort had been made
to obtain any alteration of these duties, and apparently with-
out remonstrance and without a struggle, French shipping
obtained an indirect and tacit assent in an English treaty
to these obnoxious and excessive privileges. (Hear, hear. )
He would next refer to the way in which a very important
staple manufacture—the all-important staple of Ireland—
was dealt with in this treaty. The Chancellor of tke Ex-
chequer on the financial night described the importance of
this manufacture, and they might have expected that the
negotiators would have exhibited some proof that the cir-
cumstances of the trade were understood and appreciated
by them. (Hear, hear.) But this was what has happened
with regard to the linen duties, and it was a matter of a most
singularkind. In the firstdespatch from Lord Cowley which
referred to the subject, he said there had been a proposal to
establish a treaty of commerce, and that the proposal was
favourably entertained by the French Government, and he
desired to know whether the gentleman who had made the
proposal was to carry it out. (Hear, hear.) He said further
that the duties on British manufactures would be at a
maximum of 30 per cent., but that the duties upon linen
would be reduced from 30 to 15 per cent. That was
the proposal entertained by the French Government, and
subsequently the treaty appeared, and the maximum duty
was 30 per cent., and not 15 per cent. ; and he did not find
from the correspondence that the government had drawn
attention to what had taken place on the subject. (Hear,
hear.) He would ask whether they were aware of the
amount of duty, and did they think it would be such as to
lead to an extension of trade. He was assured that before
the treaty the duty on fine qualities of linen was not more
than 20per cent., and that in the case of linen yarns it was
still lower, and in some cases as low as four, three, and two
per cent. He was also assured that in future the French
manufacturer would compete with the British, and in this
way, take the linen manufactures of ordinary kinds, two-
thirds of the price of the article represented the raw mate-
rial, and one-third represented the capital, the cost of pro-
duction and profit. The raw material France could supply
and consequently the field of competition remained on the
one-third, which represented capital, &c. He was assured
that the duty of 30 per cent. would bo virtually a duty upon
the one-third part of the value of the article, and conse-
quently that would be a duty not of 30 but of 90 per cent.
(Hear, hear.) He should like to know whether the Board of
Trade was consulted on this subject. In 1840 when the
Board was engaged in negotiating a _reduction of duties en
our linen manufactures, what not merely the French Go-
vernment, but even the French manufacturers, said at that
time was, that they would be perfectly satisfied with an int
port duty of 10 per cent. provided England would allow the
free exportation of machinery. The exportation of machi-
nery was now free, and yet the duty on linens imported into
France was to be 30 per cent. The Board of Trade, which
ever since 1840 had been in constant communication with the
linen manufacturers, ought to have laid before the negotia-
tors of the treaty the circumstances of the case, and pointed
out to them that a stipulation for a maximum duty of 30 per
cent. would be nugatory. The dates of the despatches af-
forded no explanation of the matter. The first communi-
cation to the Government on the subject took place on the
17th of January ; the treaty was concluded at Paris on
the 23d of the same month, and consequently no time was
allowed for the Board of Trade to interpose, or for the
right hon. gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) to apply his mind to
the question whether the proposed arrangement with re-
regard to the linen manufacture was a suitable one. (Hear.)
Tao manufacturers regarded 4t as mockery to tell them
they had obtained a bof.n, when all that was done was to
secure that the import duty should not exceed 30 per cent.
The other night the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the
Government entertained strong hopes that the Emperor of
the French would soon take measures for a return to the
moderate duties which prevailed some years ago. He
should be very glad to hear now from the right hon. gentle-
man that there was a prospect of those hopes being realised.
[Tbe CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER here made an ob-
servation which VMS inaudible in the gallery. He was very
glad to hear t hat remark. If, however, a few weeks after the
negotiation was closed the French Government had inti-
mated that they were prepared to reduce the duty on linen
manufactures, and to return to the low rates which for-
merly prevailed, why, he asked, was not that reduction in-
serted in the treaty ? (Hear.) Surely a slight remonstrance
on the part of the English Government would have ob-
viated the necessity for now giving assurances that might
never be realised. There were too reasons why he could not
feel sanguine on that point. In the first place he was struck
by the manner in which the 13 per cent. originally pro-
posed was exchanged for 30 per cent. That must, he thought,
have been done through the instrumentality of some of the
French manufacturers, and if so short a time ago they
had the power of getting 15 per cent. turned into 30 per
cent., it appeared very doubtful whether the 30 per cent.
would be at all reduced now. (Hear, hear.) Secondly, he
saw the other day a memorial addressed by French manufac-
turers to the Minister of Commerce, in which not only was
the French Government urged not to consent to any reduc-
tion below 30 per cent., but it was suggested that as there
was going to be a commutation of duties by a supplemental
treaty, the English Government should, if possible, be
over-reached and the duty on linen made somewhat higher
than 30 per cent. The reply of the Minister of Commerce
was by no means indicative of what the Chancellor of the
Exchequer now-anticipated. He said in effect,—Gentle-
men, your minds may be perfectly tranquil ; France will
always take care that the manufactures upon whom she re-
lies shall have full and ample protection. But the case
with regard to the linen manufacture did not rest there.
France was no doubt the greatest linen consumer in the
world. But the next greatest was Spain, and there was no
part of the world in which a Spanish settlement or colony
was founded where there did not immediately spring up a
demand for linen. How was it that the Government did
not offer Spain the same boon that it had offered to France,
stipulating for a reduction of the duty on linen? It might
be that Spain would have refused to assent to the terms,
but at all events the thing was worth a trial. As regarded
future negotiations—and this led him to another part of the
treaty—very great obstacles ware placed in the way of suc-
cess. It had been pointed out, and the objection had not
been answered, that in the arrangements with regard to the
duties on wine, the Govermment had virtually con-
stituted a differential duty against Spain. A certain duty
was to be applied to wines of low strength. Spain had no
wines of that class to send to this country, and the conse-
quence was that the reduction of duty was more favourable
to France than to Spain. Indeed, in a despatch of the Se-
cretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Lord Cowley, dated
the 17th of January, the noble lord took credit for that pre-
ference for France. He said, " A scale thus adjusted would,
it is hardty needful to observe, be eminently favourable to
the introduction of wines from France, as the lower wines
from that country would enter at a duty of ls." (Hear.) A
still more singular portion of the treaty was that part of it
which related to the duty on French spirits. The house
would recollect that the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) first
proposed a duty of 10s. and afterwards reduced it to Bs. 2d.
But what were the grounds on which the noble lord thought
that 10s. was the proper amount ? In his instructions to the
negotiators of the treaty he began by saying that the object
of the Government was to make an equitable adjustment of
burdens as between commodities which more or less directly
competed with one another in the general market. Having
set out with that principle, he said, " The feeling of her
Majesty's Government is that 10s. for any British purpose
would be the proper duty upon brandy." " But," he added,
" if you see, that is, if you should find that by making any
concession beyond what I have named you can obtain from
the Government an early reduction of duties on some im-
portant commodity, you are authorised to reduce the duty
on brandy to Bs. 2d." This was, he must say, a most sin-
gular instruction. They had all heard, no doubt, of rob-
bing one interest in order to pay another, but he, at all
events, never before saw so open and unblushing an in-
stance of that kind of robbery as this. (Hear.) The noble
lord admitted that the manufacturers of British spirits were
entitled to a duty of 10s., but if the negotiators could ob-
tain some concession, not in favour of that trade, but of
some other trade' they were to sacrifice the manufacturer
of British spirits and to reduce the duty, which, he said,
should be 108., to Bs. 2d. Accordingly, without any further
consultation with the noble lord, the negotiators consented
to a reduction of the duty on.. French brandy to Bs. 2d. The
question arose, what early reduction en an important
commodity did they obtain in return ? He had looked
in vain for any case of that kind except coal, and with
regard to that the noble lord remarked' in. one of his des-
patches that such was the extent of the market for it both in
this country and abroad that 119 public interest would be
)

excited by the amount of duty charged upon it in France or
by the postponement of a reduction of the duty. And now
let him see what equivalentsrwe had got in this treaty.
There had been an observation of some weight with regard
to our national staple, beer. It had been said that, whilst
tipulating: for a reduction on various beverages, why not
have stipulated for a reduction on the national beverage of
this country. (Hear, hear.) He knew it was said that hopes
were entertained on this subject, but he must add that he
never had heard of a negotiation so supported by hopes as
that of this commercial treaty. (A laugh.) When any point
was started tho answer of the Government was, "We have
the greatest hopes that something may be done." He did
not blame the Government so mnch for want of success as for
not baying exerted themselves to procure as fair an equivalent
as possible. Neat let him '0 )k at the way in which raw mate-
rial, upon the supply of which this country was dependent
for its manufactures, was dealt with. The noble lord the

Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had laid down an ad-
mirable principle in his despatch, when he said that the duty
of the negotiators was to make an equitable adjustment of
burdens upon articles in which the two nations competed in
the general market. There was no burden so difficult to be

dealt with as that which affected the supply of the raw ma-
terial to three cases of which he should allude. With respect
to the first (silk), the hon. member for Shrewsbury had
told them of the picturesque zones in which France
was divided, and which supplied the mulberry trees
upon the leaves of which silk worms were fed. Now we

admitted the manufactured silk of France free of duty,
whilst the Government knew that we had a manufacture of

silk in England which depended for the supply of its raw
material upon France. He wished to know if any question
had been asked the French Government respecting the
raw material. He saw no traces of it in the instructions
given to the plenipotentiaries. (Hear.) He took another
raw material respecting which there had been a very inte-
resting conversation in committee—he meant the article of
cork. He did not mean to say that we depended upon France
for cork, but at the same time we were negotiating the treaty,
one of the results of which was to be the admission of corks
free of duty, we were bound to have obtained some conces-
sion from the country from which corks were obtained—he
meant Spain—in return for our remission of duties on Spa-
nish wines. The third and last of the raw materials to
which he should allude was that from which paper was
made, and of course he assumed that when Government
commenced negotiating the treaty they had made up their
minds on the reduction of the excise and import duties.
They were now told that the French Government meant to
remit the import duty; ha was glad to hear it, but he said
if France was so willing, why not have introduced the re-
laxation into the treaty as a matter of right, and not have
subsequently asked for it as a matter of favour ? (Hear,
hear.) How different had been the conduct of the French
Government with respect to the article coal, about which
there had been so much discussion. They had not trusted
to assurance but had asked our Government to come
under an undertaking not to prohibit exportation during
the whole period of the treaty. Why not have asked for
similar stipulations from France ? This brought him
to coal, of which he should merely say, in addition to
what he had before said, that up to the present moment
they had not had from Government any explanation of
their views with respect to the object or effect of the coal
article. The Attorney-General had certainly favoured
them with his view of the law of the question, but as
he (Sir H. Cairns) did not expect to hear the Government
endorse that view, especially as, iu another place, a view
directly opposite to that of the learned gentleman had been
pronounced, he presumed that the learned gentleman had
only been treating them with ohe of his usual interesting
disquisitions. He did not know whether the Government
were of opinion that the 11th article of the treaty permitted
the exportation of coal to France generally, but the differ.
ence was not material to his purpose, because he knew that
we could not permit the exportation of coal at all unless we
permitted it totally, and that any permission given now
amounted to a surrender of the whole restrictive power we
possessed. Now he said that the Sovereign had no commer-
cial power in the matter, but that house had entrusted to her
Majesty a high political power to prohibit the exportation
of coal whenever it was likely to become stores or munitions
of war. What right had commercial negotiators thus to
surrender a political power which had been solemnly depo-
sited with the Crown ? (Opposition cheers.) Had it ever
occurred to our Government to ask what was the object of
this 11th article ? A recent answer to this question had
made a material change in the situation. They had been
under the impression that the article was one to which some
importance was attached by the French Government, but
now they were told that that Government attached no im-
portance to it at all, but were ready to give it up. On the
other hand, they learned that her Majesty's Government
desired no alteration. He did not wish to pre-occupy the
ground which was to be taken by the right hon. member
for Stroud, but he said that now this was simply a domestic
question. The French Government were willing to modify,
whilst her Majesty's Government were unwilling; and
therefore it remained for them to hear why the latter per-
sisted against the concessions of France. (Hear, hear.) One
more observation on this point, and that was that he hoped
the House of Commons would express an opinion that this
article ought not to be inserted. (Hear, hear.) He did protest
against the doctrine that a power of this kind could be sur-
rendered without the consentof Parliament, and he protested,
on the other hand, against the supposition that if the sanc-
tion of Parliament were required it could be got in any
other way than by Act of Parliament. He had now gone
through those parts of the treaty on which he had been de-
sirous of making a few observations. He found in the case
of Mr. Pitt's treaty, that -statesman saying, with very
natural pride, "Here is my treaty, which was published in
September—(he was speaking in February)—it has been
in everyone's hands, and has been canvassed throughout
the country, and there has not been a single remonstrance
against it from any trade " He asked, could her Majesty's
present Government make a similar remark with respect to
their treaty ? Had the linen trade, the beer or spirit trades,
had the silk, or cork, or paper trades made no remon-
strance ? He must say that although the right hon. gen-
tleman opposite had spoken of the glory of his negotiators,
he (Sir H. Cairns) doubted very much whether it would
meet with the same success which had attended the treaty
of Mr. Pitt. The cases were not exactly parallel. Per-
haps a nearer resemblance might be found in one of those
Homeric legends of which the right hon. gentleman was so
great an expositor. It was, in fact, the treaty of Glaucus
and Diomed, it was gold for brass, a hundred oxen for ten.
At the same time, he believed that much greater risk
would be incurred by rejecting this treaty than by ac-
cepting it, and he, for one, should not advocate its rejec-
tion. (Loud cheers.) He hoped that they would never
again have to consider a treaty under the circumstances in
which the present treaty had been considered. There
was not merely a responsibility attaching to those who
would impede or thwart a treaty of that kind, but also to
those who entered into it, and who proposed its considera-
tion to the house in a way in which there could be no
free or unbiassed discussion of its terms. (Hear, hear.)
Whenever any member took an objection to any provision of
the treaty, however small, the answer invariably was—" If
you touch that clause you defeat the treaty entirely, and we
cannot answer for the consequences." The same line had
been taken by the French newspapers. In a letter of M.
Chevalier, he said :—" The rejection of the 11th article (re-
lating to coal) would be an unfriendly act, and it would be
taken as tuch by France. The cry would be raised of ' Per-
fidious Albion ; and this would be the case even were the
article struck out with the consent of the French Govern-
ment." (Hear, hear.) They had been called on to discuss
all the arrangements of the Chanceller of the Exchequer
under the same pressure. The right hon. gentleman had
told them that if they carried Mr. Du Cane's motion it
would be incompatible with the treaty with France. He
(Sir H. Cairns) had felt the force of that argument so much
that he had not voted for that resolution though approving
much that it contained. Formerly a budget was a measure
most domestic in its character. In the present year they had
literally been discussing the budget with the treaty round
their necks. (Hear, hear.) He was disposed to augur every-
thing favourable from the adoption of this treaty, but if its
benefits should prove unsubstantial and illusory—if the
price we were paying to draw closer the bonds of amity with
France did not produce the desired effect—if it should turn
out that this treaty, concluied with equal rapidity with the
treaty of Villafranca, should be equally rapidly forgotten—
if the measures of the right hon. gentleman should leave
behind them only regret for the revenue we had lost, and
irksomeness at the burdens we had to bear, it would then be
remembered, and remembered to the disadvantage of their
authors, that these measures were presented to the house
under circumstances which thwarted and checked all free
and unrestrained discussion. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. G IBSON—I am glad to hear from the hon. and
learned gentleman that, satisfied with criticising the treaty,
he intends to vote in favour of the address which has been
moved by my hon. friend the member for Middlesex. He
says he will throw no impediment in the way of this
treaty; he is a friend to commercial treaties ; he does not ob-
ject to a bargain in the abstract; he only objects to a bargain
which is not so good as it might have been. I agree with
the hon. and learned gentleman there are many things in
reference to our commercial relations with France which it
would be very desirable to obtain; but, at the same time, I
think what we have obtained is good in itself, is worth re-
ceiving, and will confer great benefits on the people both of
England and France. (Cheers.) The hon. and learned gen-
tleman is friendly to commercial treaties on principle. I
don't quite go that length myself, but I will not reject an
opportunity of encouraging our commercial intercourse with
France simply because the attainment of that object is
sought through the medium of a commercial treaty. He is
friendly to commercial treaties, but I cannot help thinking
he would never be successful in negotiating such a treaty
with any foreign country if he proceeded in the way he
thinks her Majesty's Government ought to have proceeded
with reference to the one now under consideration. The
hon. and learned gentleman would have had us enter into
minute adjustments of every particular duty ; he thinks we
should have gone into all the different classes of yarn and
linen, and attached to each the particular duty to be charged
on its import into France. I think if any person were to at-
tempt to negotiate a commercial treaty on the principle of
settling such minute adjustments of duty in every instance,
he would probably fail altogether. If the hon. and learned
gentleman had acted as the negotiator of the treaty.now be-
fore the house I don't think he would by this time have got
through the linen duty. (A. laugh.) He says the Board of
Trade made no representations on the subject of the linen
manufacture; that it could not have considered the import-
ance of that manufacture, or it would have used its influ-
ence to obtain a better arrangement in respect to it with the
French Government. I had the honour, not long ago, of
receiving a deputation from Belfast in reference to the linen
trade, which was introduced by the hon. and learned gen-
tleman ; and what did those gentlemen say ? They said,
if the Government would only put them on the same foot-
ing as the Belgians they would be satisfied. (Hear, hear.)
I say they are put on the same footing as the Belgians--
(hear)—from June, 1861. (An ironical laugh.) Until that
time the treaty obligations existing between France and
Belgium prevent the arrangement taking effect earlier—
(hear)—but the first moment it can take effect the linen
manufacturers of Belfast are to have an arrangement which
they state will be satisfactory to them. (Hear, hear.) It is
not to be assumed that because the maximum of duty is
mentioned in the treaty, every duty now below that maxi-
mum is to be raised to the maximum. (Hear, hear.) It is
unfair to tell the linen manufacturers of Ireland that, with
respect to some classes of linen now paying 2 per cent. on
being imported into France, theduty may be actually raised
to 30 per cent. (Hear, hear.) I think I may say nothing of
that kind will take place ; I am sure that all the correspon-
dence in reference to future arrangements breathes an en.
tirely different spirit. With regard to coal, that being a
legal question,..l don't profess to offer any opinion upon it.
I think it had better be left to be discussed by itself on the
amendment of the right hon. gmtleman the member for