The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-26 00:00:00

political empyrean. Dame COBDEN'S pupil had
after all, it seemed, _hut very indifferently learnt
his lesson—might yet have to be crowned with the
pyramidal paper-crown of disgrace. The recipro-
city of this boasted Treaty, in point of fact, we

had all along scouted in the columns of The Sun,
from the very first moment that the Treaty had
been done, or rather that England had been done
in the Treaty—we had all along denounced this
much-talked-of reciprocity as " a mockery, a de-
lusion, and a snare " on the part of the French

EMPEROR, as,- in truth, no reciprocity at all,

unless it might be . the reciprocity proposed
by Box to Cox (when offering to toss up)—
Beads I win, tails you lose! France was to
come into possession of the fruits of the treaty at
once, while England was to rest satisfied merely
with something very like what the lawyers call a

contingent remainder ! It was so, we maintained,
throughout the whole mass of the provisions of the
treaty. And here—coming to details—was at once
proof positive of the onesidedness of this wonder-
ful system of French reciprocity—we were to
accept French paper and to be denied French rags!
The differential duty imposed by us upon the im-
portation of French paper into England was to be
abolished altogether. The restrictive impost levied
by thelmperial Government upon the exportation of
French rags was to be simply lowered, but not by
any means removed. All this was just in so many
words not less than the veriest dodgery done upon
the sly by the French EMPEROR and his Govern-
ment.

Notwithstanding the glaring injustice of the
whole of these most discreditable proceedings, the
more specious organs of France have of course their
" case" to make out in the way of justification, or
at any rate of extenuation. The Siecle in this
manner not long since elaborated an ingenious, but
not by any means can we say an ingenuous article,
justifying, or attempting to justify, the course pur-
sued in the vexata quastio of rags and paper. The
article began with a little rhodomontade and
affected smartness. " Rags !" said the Siecle,
" they are vile things ; are they not ? You dis-
dainfully throw them away as rubbish. The rag-
picker himself will only touch them with his hook
to throw them into his basket. And yet these
things so vile, these miserable rags, by means of
human labour undergo a transformation, and
become one of the glories of France—the vehicle
of thought, the confidant of our affections. Yes-
terday, they were less than nothing ; to-day,
transformed by the hand of industry, they attain
the highest honours. The book which instructs or
amuses us was once rags ! The journal, now
one of the daily necessaries of life, rags also !
The deeds which represent or guarantee your pro-
perty, rags again ! The bank-bill, rags ! the letter
you cover with kisses or bedew with tears, rags !"
Having indulged itself with which philosophic specu-
lations, the Sleds went on to observe that, whereas
the paper produced from rags in England amounted,
some eighty years ago, to a total that might be
represented as of the value of 3,000,000 francs—
the estimated value of the paper now produced in
England might, on the contrary, be stated empha-
tically as amounting to 150,000,000 francs ! Hav-
ing premised which, the Siecle avows, in regard to
the recently negotiated commercial treaty between
France and England—" An article of that treaty
suppresses the prohibitions on importation. Our
neighbours have strenuously urged that the prohi-
bition on exports should also be removed ; and, in
that, they had French rags in view. The expor-
tation of that article has always been forbidden.
France produces about 100 millions of kilogrammes
each year, but, great as that quantity appears, it
is not sufficient to supply her manufactories. If
the English paper-makers should be allowed to buy
rags in the French market, it would be a deathblow
to the paper manufacture in France. This asser-
tion is demonstrated with remarkable lucidity by
the proi,rietors of our principal paper-mills in the
letter which they have addressed to the Minister of
Commerce." And with a view to the clinching of
this very singular argument, the Sleds then adds
—" By labour we can increase the production of
all raw materials ; we can have more silk, wool,
cotton, flax, beet, coals, &c. Rags escape that
general law, and are an exception ; they are re-
fuse, worthless rubbish, which becomes once more
raw material. How can their production be in-
creased ? Were the paper-makers to offer $O,
40, even 60 per cent. more for rags than they now
pay, it would not induce any of us to let them have
our linen before it is worn out. Everybody pro-
duces this raw material involuntarily, and has an
interest in producing as little as possible. The
production of rags is therefore necessarily limited."
All which is really and truly just saying frankly in
other words, in words somewhat more roundabout
and circumlocutory what might be frankly
avowed in plainer terms thus—" We the French
people purpose through these shabby little dodges
of our Government to do in the most effectual man-
ner possible you our beloved and 'amiable allies—we
intend to do you, at least, as far as we can in the
matter of these dirty rags of ours whether manu-
factured or unmanufactured. Because our linen
rags are far more abundant than yours, precisely
because ' we' have here in France 66 per cent. of
linen to 34 per cent. of cotton, out of the apparel of
our 36,000,000 in France, whereas you' have 34
per cent. merely of linen against 66 per cent. of
cotton out of the apparel of your 26,000,000 in
England! We will for that very reason in the name
of Free Trade, through the machinery of Protection
preserve yet intact to ourselves the monopoly of
these joint advantages. You shall have as much as
ever you please of our abundant rags when we have
manufactured those rags into paper—but you shall
have none whatever of those rags as rags (unless
you pay dearly for the privilege) to the end that
you forsooth to our detriment may benefit your own
paper manufacturers !" Arguments like these are
as plainly " dodges " practised at our expense as
ever were Lord JOHN'S famous abstract Resolu-

tions.

It is about three weeks since GARIBALDI and his
band left the coast of Italy. Nearly a week they
spent at sea, probably mauseuvering to avoid both
the friendly-hostile Sardinian ships of war, and
the timidly hostile steamers and frigates of his
Neapolitan MAJESTY ; but on the 11th, as we have
now complete evidence, they landed in first rate
style at the small town and port of Marsala. Our
witness, happily on this occasion, was the very
best; the commander of a British ship in
her Majesty's service, who arrived just
in time to witness a sight which assuredly
thrilled the heart of Commander MARRYAT
himself, and of every British tar on board—the
landing of the great sailor and soldier GARIBALDI
with his little band of liberators of Sicily. We
have even been told that the commander must have
spoken to GARIBALDI himself; but, of course, for
this we cannot vouch.

It is almost amusing to look back and to recall
to memory how the obscure intimations of the
event, of which our own officer was soon to give us
the authentic details, were wafted to us ; and still
more, to remember the laughably contradictory
telegrams from official sources at Naples and from
Turin, the latter furnished doubtless by irregular