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

THE SUN LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 7, 1860.-

IiNIPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal assent was given by commission to the follow-
ing bills, viz.:—
Court of Queen's Bench Amendment.
Inclosure (No. 2).
University and College Estates.
Friendly Societies Act Amendment.
Isle of Man Harbour.
Dominica Hurricane Loan.
Local Board of Health.
Jews Act Amendment.
Census (Ireland).
Census (England).
Adulteration of Food.
Queen's Prison.
Highways (South Wales).
Manchester Cathedral Church.
Postage (Army and Navy).
Medical Act (1858) Amendment.
Highway Rates Act Amendment.
Burial Grounds (Ireland).
Criminal Lunatics Asylum.
Nuisances Removal Act Amendment.
Heritable Securities (Scotland).
Turnpike Acts Continuance.
Bank of Ireland.
Sheriffs Court Houses (Scotland).
Common Law Procedure Act Amendment.
Copyhold Inclosure Commissioners.
Turnpike Acts Amendment.
Municipal Corporation Act (Ireland) Amendment.
Augmentation of Small Livings.
Infant Marriage Act Amendment.
Bleaching and Dyeing Works.
Registration of Births (Scotland).
lonian Islands'Marriages.
Aylesbury and Buckingham Railway.
Hay Railway.
Horsham and Guildford Direct Railway.
Macclesfield Gas.
Athenry and Tuam Railway.
Bedford and Cambridge Railway.
London South Western Railway (Kingston Extension).
Wigan Water.
Lincoln's-inn.
Monklands Railway.
London, Chatham, and Dover Railway.
Fergus River Navigation Improvement.
Llangollen and Corwen Railway.
Highbridge Markets and Gas.
Burnham Tidal Harbour and Railway.
London, Chatham, and Dover Metropolitan Extension.
Boschetti's Estates.
Daniel Stewart's Hospital Estates.
The Royal Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor,
Viscount Sydney, and Lord Monteagle.
LAND LOAN AND ENFRANCHISEMENT ACT.
The standing orders were suspended in order to enable
this bill to be proceeded with.
INDUSTRIAL MUSEUMS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND
(IRELAND.)
On the motion that the report of the committee on this
bill be received,
Earl GRANVILLE moved an amendment relating to
one of the money clauses of the bill.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH denounced the bill as a
most unjust one, and said he should give it all the opposi-
tion in his power. He should oppose the insertion of the
clause.

After a short discussion their lordships divided, when
there appeared—
For the clause (contents)
Against it (non-contents)
Majority
The clause was then agreed to.
LANDED PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT
(IRELAND) BILL.
The committee on this bill was postponed till Thursday.
NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.
This bill was reported with amendments.
SENIOR MEMBER OF COUNCIL (INDIA) BILL,
The house went into committee on this bill, when it passed
through; as did also the Admiralty Jurisdiction (India)
Bill, and Superannuation Act (1859) Amendment Bill.
SYRIA.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY put the following ques-
tion to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
Was it to be understood that the forces to be sent to Syria
on the present occasion were to be employed solely for the
purpose of maintaining the peace of the country, and that
the authorities in command were not to interfere, directly or
indirectly, with the administration of the civil and religious
affairs affecting either Moslems or Christians of the Turkish
Government. He would not disguise that his desire for an
answer arose from the insuperable distrust he entertained
for his Majesty the Emperor of the French, and from the
great fears that he and others entertained that the wise and
vigorous policy instituted by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe,
arising out of his influence with the Ottoman Porte, in
matters of civil and religious liberty, might at the present
moment be disturbed. The policy, however, pursued in
these regions by the Emperor of the French was by no
means the policy inaugurated by Lord Stratford de Red-
cliffe. They knew that for many years past the activity of
the French agents in that country had been singularly great.
He had it from a gentleman who had resided for more than
20 years in the north of Syria that French agents in great
numbers were openly declaring that if the Moslems and
members of the Greek Church would but fall off to the
Latin Church they should receive full and ample protec-
tion both to their persons and property from the Emperor
of the. French. Six or seven months ago in the Island of
Candia nearly 40,000 persons fell away to the Latin
Church, and that was entirely owing to the solicitations
and promises of French agents. When these promises
were made so lavishly, and so fully responded to by this
falling away to the Latin Church, it might clearly be seen
how the French would establish their influence in the East,
and furthermore when they found the Emperor of the
French sending out 6,000 troops unattended by the troops
of any other Power it would create a strong impression as
to the extent of his power, and would add greatly to the
influence of the Emperor of the French in these regions.
Lord WODEHOUSE said the main object of the con-
ventien was to send out 12,000 European troops to contri-
bute to the restoring of tranquillity in Syria. There was
not, however,:the slightest intention of interfering with the
civil and religious administration of those provinces.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE supported the views
which had been taken on this important subject by the
noble earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury). To limit
their interference to the purposes stated by the Govern-
ment would be utterly unbecoming the dignity of Christian
Powers—(hear, hear)--and he thought the Parliament of
this country ought to make known before they separated
that they were prepared to meet these constantly recurring
difficulties, and to exact substantial guarantees against the
repetition of the cruelties and disorders that had lately
come to their knowledge.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.--(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
NEW MEMBER.
Mr. ALDERMAN SIDNEY took the oath and his seat for
the borough of Stafford.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Lords' amendments to the following bills were con-
sidered and agreed to :—Border Counties and North Bri-
tish Railway Companies, Farringdon Railway, and Lon-
don Railway Depot aad Storehouses.
The Brandon Estate Bill and the Caithness Roads Bill
were read a third time and passed.
ROYAL COMMISSION.
Sir A. CLIFFORD, Usher of the Black Rod, summoned
the members to the Upper House to hear the royal assent
given by commission to several bills, for which see Lords'
report.

ternational copyright—that is to say, under treaties of con-
siderable standing, having no connection with _the legisla-
tion of the present year, we propose to leave liable to pay
the same duty as is now charged--15s. per cwt. Paper-
hangings are placed in this list at 14s. the cwt., that is
the duty to which they are actually subject by the law at
this moment; but it is a law of the present session, the ar-
rangement having been made under the commercial treaty
with France. The same arrangement applies to paste-
board, which is placed at 15s. the cwt., and which was fixed
at that rate of duty early in the session, with reference to
the commercial treaty between this country and France.
All the rest of the items will sufficientlyexplain themselves;
and it will be seen that they correspond to this general
view—that whereas the excise duty on paper chargeable in
this country is 14s. per cwt., with the addition of 5 per cent.,
bringing it up to 14s. Bd. and a fraction—we propose to add
to that sum about 153/4d., as compensation to the paper
maker for the disadvantages of the excise system, so far
as they can be appreciated, and for the advantages which
the foreigner enjoys under the existing law, so as to make
the amount as nearly as possible equivalent to the amount
of the excise duty. The committee will observe that the
original resolution has been divided into two resolutions.
Each of them is an exact counterpart of the other, except-
ing that they relate to importations taking place from
diferent countries. The first resolution relates to those
importations which might take place under the treaty
with France. The second resolution generalises the
particular covenants to which the treaty would bind us, and,
if adopted by the house, would establish one rule of impor-
tation for the whole world. The reason why the Govern-
ment have divided the proposi ion will, I think, be suffi-
ciently obvious. There are certain considerations of the
highest importance applicable to the first resolution exclu-
sively—l mean those considerations which grow out of the
recent treaty with France, and the steps which have been
taken by the house in relation to th it treaty. These con-
siderations have no bearing on the second resolution, which
is a pure matter of commercial policy, and does not arise out
of any treaty. In consequence of that difference in the
motives by which the votes of hon, members may be guided,
the Government thought that it would be most fair and
most convenient to the committee to have the subject sepa-
rately presented. The question which we have to discuss
to-night is, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the Go-
vernment, a very small and minute question as respects re-
venue, and as respects directly the trade with which it is
connected. As respects the revenue, only a few thousands
a year have been received from the duty upon foreign paper.
The effect of the diminution of that duty, inasmuch as it is a
differential duty, would, of course, be to increase the cus-
toms revenue and the general revenue from paper by stimu-
lating the consumption. At the same time, though the effect
is favourable to the revenue, I do not dwell upon that as a
matter of importance which need weigh materially in form-
ing the judgment of the committee. Neither as regards the
trade, so far as our investigations have led us, should we
be justified in representing to the committee that we are
going, by this change in the law, to effect any great or ma-
terial revolution in the price of this important article,
whatever the exaggerated anticipations of a particular class
may fabricate—and in speaking of them I speak of nothing
peculiar in that class—l speak of that tone of exaggeration
which has influenced, one after another, almost every class
of producers in the country, and which has led them into
such excessive delusions that nothing but experience has
served to dissipate them ; and when I speak of those anti-
cipations I admit that those cor cerned in the trade draw
dismal pictures of the ruin that is about to fall upon them.
If that ruin were about to fall upon them it would only
prove that they have heretofore been taxing the public to
an enormous and unjustifiable amount. (Hear.) But in
point of fact I think that no impartial examiner of this case,
which has had the advantage of the light thrown upon it
by all previous discussions similar in their object, can pos-
sibly arrive at such a conclusion. Setting mere opinions
aside, there are facts, undeniable, indisputable facts, which
will support irrefragably the opinion I now state. But if
the Government be asked, "What, then, is the fiscal ad-
vantage that you expect from the disturbance which you
have given to trade—what advantage is the British public
to reap from the change in the law now proposed ?"—I say
we do not stand mainly or exclusively upon the advantage
which the British public is to reap from the change in this
particular law—at the same time that some advantage will
be reaped in certain branches of the trade, and particularly
at a time of special demand, when the purchaser and con-
sumer of paper in this country will have the very same ad-
vantage that the consumer of every other article has—
namely, the advantage of calling in aid of the productive
power of his own country the productive power of foreign
lands, and reducing an undue pressure upon the market by
a resort to sources where the article is to be had in greater
abundance. (Hear.) But, however small this question may
be when it is intrinsically regarded, it is great from its con-
nexion with principles of high importance. (Hear, hear.)
Those principles are, in the first place, obligations, which
we think to be of honour, in connexion with the treaty of
commerce which has been concluded with a foreign coun-
try. And not obligations only of honour, but obligations of
policy, for this question will be a test of the real opinions
and convictions of the present House of Commons in regard
to that system of commercial legislation which, triumph-
ing over all resistance, has now become established in the
country, and has held out a noble example to the world.
(Hear, hear.) And again, in connexion with the applica
tion of those principles to policy, I shall have to refer to
certain considerations of justice—justice to a particular
class of interests which will suffer, not under the legisla-
tion of foreign countries, but under your legislation, unless,
listening to the plea of the Government, the committee
shall think fit to adopt the resolutions which I now propose.
I come first, then, to consider this question as it arises out
of the commercial treaty with France ; and I therefore
speak of it as most important, both on account of the deli-
cate nature of the considerations it involves, and likewise
because it has undoubtedly been the immediate occasion of
making at this particular moment the proposal which is
now before the committee. It was only a very short time
ago that the entire world heard with great surprise that
there were gentlemen in this house who doubted whether
the treaty of commerce concluded between Great Britain
and France bound her Majesty to propose to Parliament
that the customs duty upon foreign paper should be re-
duced to a level with the excise. I will not encumber the
question with any reference to the small addition which
may be charged in consequence of the indirect expense of
the excise. But I confess it was with surprise I heard
that we could have so entirely failed to convey into the form
of direct stipulations the manifest intentions with which
the negotiations with France were commenced and con-
cluded. I shall first refer to the articles of the treaty them-
selves ; and, secondly, to such indirect and collateral evi-
dence as can be brought to bear on them. The articles in
the treaty relating to this question are the 7th, Bth, and
9th. By the 7th article her Majesty's Government pro-
mises "to admit into the United Kingdom merchandise
imported from France at a rate of duty equal to the excise
duty which is or shall be imposed on commodities of the
same description in the United Kingdom." And then it
goes on to make provision for the augmentation of that
amount on account of the indirect excise charge. I will not
venture on the dangerous ground of French scholarship,
but for those who wish to enter upon that ground it may be
well to inform them that there is a French version of the
treaty, aco -ordinate version, which is as much binding upon
us as the English version. 66 Merchandise" is used in the
English version, without any epithet which qualifies or
limits it, but in the French version the definite article is
used, which evidently points towards the particular class of
commodities to which the article refers, namely, those
which are subject to duty of excise. The words themselves,
therefore, may prima facie be taken as bearing clearly ewe
that class of articles which are subject to excise duty. In
the Bth article we find an enumeration of five particular
commodities, and with regard to these more specific provi-
sions are made than by the 7th article of the treaty. When
we come to the 9th, we then find new stipulations, which
provide that if either of the two high contracting parties
shall think it necessary to establish an excise tax on any
article, such article may be immediately liable to an equal
duty on its importation. That is the meaning of the 9th
article. It refers to a long list of commodities contained
in the prior articles of the treaty with regard to which we
had made definite stipulations that they shall be admitted
into this country free of all duty whatever. If the treaty
stood thus, as these articles are not now subject to excise, it
may appear that we were precluded from charging duties of
excise on any of those articles and balancing it by any
countervailing duty. Therefore the 9th article was intro-
duced, which gives protection and liberty to the Imperial
Legislature in this respect ; and the very fact that it was
introduced is a distinct witness to the meaning of the 7th
article, and shows that it refers to those commodities that
are now liable to duty of excise, whereas the 9th article re-
serves the right to bring into that category articles that are
not now comprehended in it. But I am told that the 7th
article precedes the Bth, and that the Bth article enumerates
exciseable commodities to which the 7th refers. But let
us see what those commodities in the Bth article are.
The 7th article, be it observed, embraces all commodities
subject to duties of excise, and those commodities alone.
It may be said why have you the Bth article at all. Why
was it not enough for the French Government to accept
the 7th article and the general stipulations it contains ?
For the plainest possible reason. That Bth article is in
every case, or in the stipulations it contains, favourable to
the French, mere favourable commonly than the 7th. The
7th lays down the general principle, which was adopted at
our suggestion. The Bth article sets forth certain particu-
lar commodities with regard to which the French enter-
tained a special interest. The 7th article leaves the duties
of excise variable. The Bth article—not in every case, but
in most—reduces them to an absolutely fixed standard, or
to a maximum. The 7th article gives the French Govern-
ment the benefit of indeterminate stipulations ; for, under
that article it remained in the discretion of the British Go-
vernment to say, what was or was not the proper addition
to be made to the duties on excise on account of the excise
charge ; but the Bth article specifies what the positive amount
of duty shall be. It either disposes of what the French call
the surtax altogether, or restrains it within the amount of
a particular sum. Therefore, there was a particular and
specific reason in every single case why certain commodities
should be specified in the Bth amid, of the treaty, for there
is net one of them which does nel give the French security
and advantage over and above what they would have had
wader the 7th. Take for example the case of spirits. Under

the Bth article it is only in our power to charge a surcharge
of 2d. per gallon on spirits. Suppose the Bth had not ex-
isted, but only the 7th article P The distillers showed that
they were entitled to a surtax of 5d., and if it were not for
the Bth article we should have been authorised in charging
sd. or 6d., or whatever else we thought fit, provided it was
a bona fide charge. But as the Bth article binds us, it was
not in our power to do any such thing ; nor could we
make any alteration till after a distinct appeal to France,
while it would be in her power to decline if she
thought that we took undue advantage of her. The
next article is French colonial spirits. Here the stipule-
tion is that French colonial spirits shall be admitted at
a duty entirely and exactly the same as that on spirits of
the British colonies. The third article is paper hangings
imported from France. We stipulated there absolutely to
admit French paper-hangings at 14s. per cwt., which is a
duty lower than the duty of excise levied in this country.
I will not enter into that question now ; and I only mention
this as one of the articles in which France, having a consi-
derable trade, took this security on her behalf. The next
article is cardboard, and a similar provision is made with
respect to it. No duty is to be levied in this country upon
cardboard which shall exceed 15s. a cwt., so that if the
House of Commons should think fit to double the excise
duty on paper it would not be in their power, without the
permission of France, to • make any augmentation of tho
duty now chargeable upon cardboard. The last article is
that of gold and silver plate, which is again a commodity,
though not an exciseable one at all, with regard to which
France has a special interest. The French Governmeat
placed more clear and full reliance on these determinate
engagements and specific conventions of the Bth article
than they did on the comprehensive but vague stipulations
of the 7th : and, therefore, when I am asked what is the
object of the Bth article of the treaty, I have not the
slightest difficulty in replying. According to this, the 7th,
Bth, and 9th articles must be taken together. The 7th makes
provision for articles which are now subject to excise duty,
and lays down the principle on which competing articles are
to be introduced from certain countries. The Bth makes
certain stipulations in regard to some particular commodi-
ties imported from France more definite than they were by
the 7th, and the 9th makes provision for the liberty of both
legislatures with regard to the imposition of domestic or ex.
cise duties on articles not now subject to those duties. When
I say that this is the reasonable construction of the Bth arti-
cle, I may go further and ask of what other is it suscepti-
ble
? Of what use is the 7th article of the treaty if all it
contains is in the Bth as some contend ? (Hear.) It is
rational to suppose that it is there without any sense or
meaning whatever ? But, further, we are not entirely
reduced to the necessity, though it is not a very hard one,
of looking to the plain and obvious meaning of the treaty
itself. We have, besides, the indirect evidence of the cor-
respondence between the two Governments as to their
intentions. I shall quote two very short passages from it,
one which lays down the general principle, the other which
explains distinctly and positively the policy and office of
the 7th article of the treaty. The general principle is this,
and it will be found in the middle of the third page of the
correspondence. On the French side it was "to be a general
transition from prohibition and high duties to duties of a
moderate rate." On the English side it was to be " the
total abolition of customs duties on French products wher-
ever fiscal considerations will permit, and a reduction to the
lowest practicable point, together with an entire abandon-
ment of any protective imposts on behalf of British and
against French commodities wherever fiscal considerations
will not allow total abolition." (Hear, hear.) I address my-
self to the candour, ingenuousness, and honour of an as-
sembly of British gentlemen, and I ask whether they will
not admit that, as far as the intentions of the two countries
are concerned, as far at least as the intention of Great Bri-
tain is concerned, it is beyond the possibility of dispute that
our intention and meaning was to part in every case with
every vestige of what may be called protected interests.
(Hear, hear.) That is the general principle ; but that is not
all, for in page six of the correspondence my noble friend
issues this instruction in paragraph C : "To frame an ar-
ticle by which her Majesty's Government shall engage to
propose to Parliament that the duty of customs generally ox
articles imported from France to this country, but which are
subject here to duty of excise, shall be reduced to a rate as
nearly as may be equal to the duty of excise, together with
reasonable allowance for the costs which such duty of ex-
cise may be shown to entail." I ask, would it be possible to
give a construction more accurately and absolutely corre-
sponding with that which I myself ventured to put on the
7th article, than by simply reading the very words in which
my noble friend recommended that such an article should
be drawn and inserted for the purpose of regulating the ar-
ticles of the treaty as far as the duties of excise in
general were concerned. (Hear, hear.) That is the
indirect evidence bearing on the subject immediately
before us as to the meaning of the treaty. But I have
spoken thus far of the treaty without reference to the ques-
tion whether another part of the treaty is or is not supposed
to bind us to the immediate execution of all its parts. After
the grossly erroneous misrepresentations which have gone
abroad, I feel bound to say that her Majesty's Government
have been careful to the best of their ability that this house
should in no respect be entrapped by general words into
giving a sanction to the arrangements of this important
treaty further than they were absolutely conscious of at the
time. This house has given a general sanction to the treaty
—it has given a specific pledge, entered into engagements,
and taken the steps necessary to give effect to that treaty.
When did it enter into that engagements ? Not in the
dark. The right hon. gentleman opposite recommended
the house to commence with the general affirmation or re•
jection of the treaty. One of the objections of the Govern-
ment to that course was that we felt it would be fairer to
the house to allow it to discuss one by one the stipulations
of the treaty than to challenge its general verdict on the
whole treaty at first. That was the course taken, and Ido
not know that, with the insignificant exception of hops,
there was a single stipulation of the treaty on which a dis-
tinct vote of the House of Commons was not taken before
my noble friend the member for Middlesex (Lord Enfield)
moved the address to the Crown approving of the whole
treaty. It had been said that at the time the house gave
its general sanction to the treaty it had been misled by the
general assurance of my noble friend that he French Go-
vernment was about to remove the prohtbition on the ex-
port of rags. (Hear.) There are many ways of making
mountains out of molehills, but there never was a more
signal example of the facility with which that operation can
under favourable circumstances be effected than in this
particular instance ',of the prohibition of the export of
rags. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) We believed
that the French Government used its best ability to carry
out a legislative measure for the removal of that prohibi-
tion, but the Protectionists of France had for the moment
proved too strong for: the influence and efforts of the
Government. I hope that the example which will be set by
this country on this occasion will, like the example which it
has now been setting for 20 years, afford no confirmation
and no encouragement to these French protectionists, but
that they will strengthen the hands of the Government of
France and of those enlightened leaders ofopinionin France
who have fought the:battle of free trade in that country.
(Cheers.) With regard to this question of the prohibition
of the export of French rags, there is none more insignifi-
cant to the British papermaker..(Hear, hear.) But ragged
as this whole case is, there is no part of it so hollow and so
trivial as that which relates to the export of rags from France.
(Hear, hear.) Why, if you wish to reverse the free trade
market, and desire to go to the dearest market, by all means
purchase your rags in France. (Hear, hear.) France is by
no means a cheap country for rags. (Hear, hear.) And
though France might be able to export rags under peculiar
circumstances, that is no reason why it ought to be a cheap
market. The communications between the French andßri-
tish Governments with regard to the treaty of commerce
have been conducted in a spirit of mutual accomodation and
a desire to forward the great purposes for which that treaty
was designed. This is not the first time that the French
Government have given evidence of their desire to carry out
the treaty in that spirit, and I am persuaded that in exhibit-
ing that disposition they are doing that which is agreeable
to the enlightened opinion of both countries. (Hear, hear.)
This is not the first time that the treaty has been exposed
to these criticisms. If we go back to the month of February
last, we shall find there was an assault made with regard to
ships, under the daring leadership of my right hon. friend
the member for Stroud, and although the article of coal
called up such a storm, such a tempest,such smoke—(a laugh)
—yet the French Government made known to us that they
were willing to accede to the alteration we proposed in
order to secure by the treaty the immense advantages to
both countries which, in our opinion, that treaty was calcu-
lated to bring about. (Hear, hear.) We have the very
same liberal conduct repeated on these occasions. The pro-
tectionists have a faculty and power of making a very con-
siderable noise, and of giving an impression to those at a
distance that where there is so much noise there must be at
any rate some kind of reason for it ; but the French Go •
vernment have intimated to us now, as they did in the
article of coal, that they would not, if it was and esirable,
press for the immediate fulfilment of that part of the treaty.
The answer we made is the same. I must say, that the
fight which was made respecting coal has this ennobling
feature about it, that while my right hon. friend the mem-
ber for Stroud did not come forward as the advocate of a
class interest, and that he did not rest on those narrow
arguments which are meant to sustain a particular trade or
branch of industry as against the general public, he came
forward and said, with respect to coal, we were promoting
the undue interests of a class, as no doubt we were, but we
were sacrificing an important interest of the country. We
did not admit that representation, but I think it due to him
to notice at all events the difference between that case and
this, for even when he was able to urge that we were put-
ting in hazard an important interest of the country, and
when we were able to inform the House of Commons of the
disposition of the French Government not to press for that
article if it were likely to create any difficulty in giving
effect to the instrument as a whole, even then neither the
Government or the House of Commons would take advan-
tage of that handsome conduct on the part of France, nor
seek relief from an obligation which they believed to be
sound, right, and just. (Hear, hear.) Now, if it be true
that we have, whether advertently or inadvertently it
matters not—that with respect to this article of paper we
have involved ourselves in an agreement to do that which
is wrong, that which is oppressive, that which is unequal
as regards the great British producer, then, indeed, let us
accept the boon of the French Government; let us go to

them to request that we may be released from this pain-
ful at ad Anxious engagement, although I must con-
fess th at such a request is reasonable between the Govern-
ments of independent states, because they may tend to
compn omise that attitude of dignity which such states
ought to maintain. But still, if we have committed our-
selves to an injustice, then by all means let us beg to be re-
lieved from this painful and onerous obligation. But if, on
the contrary, the obligation we have contracted is one
agreeable to justice, agreeable to prudence, agreeable to
preced ant, agreeable to undisputed principles of legislation,
and demanded by the most absolute considerations of jus-
tice te. other classes of British producers, and if the release
that If as been generously offered to us would have no other
effect than the prolongation of a paralysis and an uncer-
tainty, so that, instead of being a boon and a benefit to
those for whose interest it might be intended, it would be,
in poi nt of fact, an injury inflicted upon them far greater
than can occur under the stipulations of the treaty—then I
say 'the offer of the French Government, although it may
deserve our acknowledgment, is no reason why we should
stop short in that path of beneficence and that path of wis-
dom along which we have travelled with so much advan -
tags to the country, and is no reason why we should not
be just in the case before us, as we have striven to be in
other cases. (Hear.) I have stated to you that in respect
to the comparative interests of a class nothing could be
more unfortunate, in our opinion, than that we should
avail ourselves of the permission of Francs, which we know
would be given to us, not to carry into effect at the present
moment the reduction of the customs duty on paper. (Hear,
hear.) We find that in every case of this kind the alarms
of the protected class have been awakened by the prospect
of an intended change in the law; that those alarms have
proved to be utterly groundless and grossly exaggerated
when they came to be tested byexperience, and that being so,
there could be no greater cruelty to the paper makers than if
the motion of my hon. friend the member for Hertfordshire
(gr. Puller) was carried—if it will be carried—namely,
that of keeping them in a state of suspense between
this late session of Parliament and the next, which I
hope will not be an early session of Parliament, for it is
during these few months alone that they could—shall I say
enjoy or suffer ?—the benefits of my hon. friend's protection.
(Hear.) And 'this engagement, which we should thus have
postponed, would come back upon us as all engagements are
apt to come back upon those who are not prompt to discharge
them, and nothing would be realised by my hon. friend except
the interposition between the present and the final settle-
ment of the question, or the prolonged stagnation of busi-
ness to be measured in its amount, not by the real conse-
quences, small and remitted, of the change we are now pro-
posing, but the enormously enlarged and extended, and
vague and visionary notions of those consequences which
are at present bewildering the imaginations of the paper-
makers, and have taken possession for the moment even of
the usually sound judgment of my hon. friend. (Hear, hear,
and a laugh.) Therefore, on the ground of huManity, if I
may say se, for it is humanity to save a man from being the
victim of his own cruel alarms—even upon the ground of
humanity to this protected interest—it is well this matter
should be speedily brought to an issue. Here I would say
to my hon. friend, that if by a favourable vote to-night he
could get rid of this stipulation, then I could understand
his course. But all that we shall gain by this handsome
proceeding on the part of France would be, in the first
place, the offer of a short respite, and, in the second place,
a distinction on the part of that country which is also an-
swered in our own bosoms, and sustained by the unani-
mous and undoubting opinion of all the legal advisers of
the Crown—(hear, hear, and a laugh)—that this question
is within the treaty ; and to those two or three gentlemen
who seemed to sneer when I referred to the opinion of the
legal advisers of the Crown, I may say that the question
of the interpretation of the treaty is not like the interpre-
tation of an act of Parliament, when the Attorney-General
that is in and the Attorney-General that is out may bandy
opinions to and fro ; but that the parties to constitute the
instrument are two Crowns, and the interpretation fixed
upon this treaty by the Crown of England, acting upon the
advice of its legal authorities, be the same as that of the
French Government. Of course Ido not enter into the
question of how far the House of Commons is bound by an
opinion of that kind with reference to the construction of
its own resolutions. That is a matter entirely distinct; but
I mention it as being material to keeping it in view by those
who approach the consideration of this question for the pur-
pose of advising any particular course. This, however, after
all, I suppose, is a subject which, independent of authorities,
turns very much upon considerations which have long been
familiar to the mind of every British Parliament—l moan
considerations of policy. I find that a kind of touchstone
is now going to be applied to the profession both of old
friends of free trade and the new friends of free trade.
At the commencement of this year free trade received some
illustrious accessions. Gentlemen on the opposite benches,
who had never before made any similar declarations, made
their profession of free trade faith in the months of January
and February last in terms the most unrestrained and
unlimited. There are gentlemen on both sides of the
house who for many years, and some of them
all their lives, have promoted free trade principles, but
somehow or other were always met with a tendency to
deny in particular cases that which is admitted in the
general. It is just like a confession of sins—nobody has
any difficulty at all in making general confessions of being
very unworthy, of falling greatly below the standard of
duty, but touch him by pointing out to him some par-
ticular act he has done that is wrong, and immediately he is
in arms for his own defence. And so it is with protection.
I admit there are some distinguished exceptions—that
there are men who would be free traders in their own case,
but they are the exceptions to the rule, and exceptions
which prove the rule ; for unquestionably the pdople of
Ragland have not been free traders- each man in his own
case. Those at any rate who have been connected with any
particular kind of industry have uniformly entertained this
originally respectable, but now I must say, after so much
experience, very chimerical apprehension of mischief, and
even of utter ruin that was to be brought upon them by
the enforcement of the free trade principle. There is
a certain kind of consistency and coherency to be found
even in the wards of a lunatic asylum, and in the arguments
of these gentlemen there is the same coherence and consis-
tency to be found ; but I never saw a class which was not
devoutly persuaded that its own case was in its nature a
special exception, and of course every trade has got some
feature or other that belongs to itself, and is not partaken
in precisely the same form by others. They uniformly fix—
that is the form the malady takes—they uniformly fix upon
that particular feature, and say that though free trade is
perfectly right in every other case, yet that by reason of
that particular feature it is not applicable to their case.
(Hear.) I believe it would be perfectly possible for an in-
genious man to frame a schedule of those protectionist argu-
ments with blanks to be filled up, ono day with paper, ano-
ther day with corks, another day with shoes, another day
with silks; but still, fill up the blanks as you may, the ske-
leton of the argument—the bone and substance of the argu-
ment—is always precisely one and the same. Now, what
are the facts of the case ? We have been engaged for 20
years, or 40 years, in introducing progressive and extending
principles of free trade. Now, no persons, or very few, deny
the abstract truth of these principles ; but it must be ad-
mitted that in a country blessed or cursed as the case may
be, as ours has been by a highly protective system, when
yen first commence the application of free trade to a parti-
cular class, it operates rather harshly, because that particu-
lar class is exposed to a competition of what it produces be-
fore it gets the benefit of the competition of what it con-
sumes. But as you go on with the operation, as you proceed
from class to class, as you liberate one branch of trade after
another, that difficulty diminishes; and when freedom of
trade has become the general rule, then instead of its being
harsh to apply the principle to the remaining cases it would
be an enormous injustice to decline to apply it. And what
is now our condition ? Are we now at the commencement of
the process, or have we arrived at its close ? At the begin-
ning of the session I ventured to say that our old friend,
protection, was reduced to such extremities that, instead of
living in general fallacies, he was obliged to lurk in holes
and corners, and here is the last of his holes and corners.
There is not, I believe, an article with which it remains for
us to apply the principle of freedom and equality of trade,
except the article of paper, and what is the speciality of this
article ? The speciality of the case of paper is that certain
European countries have thought fit, in prosecuting what
they deem a wise, but what we deem an unwise, policy, to
prohibit altogether the exportation of rags. The paper
makers say, although I am bound to admit that this is not
the statement of the whole body, for there is a minority of
the paper makers who, instead of concurring in thedoctrine
of their brethren, are amongst the most energetic opponents
and remonstrants of that doctrine ; and these are the men
to whom we shall in the main ultimately owe the exten-
sion, the prosperity, and the power of what is to be this
great manufacture—but the majority of the paper makers
say, " We cannot go to Germany for rags, because they are
saddled there with a duty of £5 or £lO a ton ; we cannot go
to France for rags, because we there find the door shut in
our face, although we should not often have recourse to the
French market, even if the prohibition were remoaed, and
therefore we ask to be protected in the British market
against the competition of paper from foreign countries."
Now that is the principle they want the House of Commons
to adopt. But has that principle any ground in our legisla-
tion ? Have you given to any other class the benefit of that
principle ? (Hear, hear.) When you abolished the cheap,
compulsory, and servile labour of the West Indies, did you,
in consideration of your interference having made labour
dearer, continue to the West Indians a monopoly of new
markets ? When the West Indian pleaded that he was
about to be put in competition not only with slave labour but
with the slave trade itself, what was your reply ? Your re-
ply was that it was impolitic for the British Legislature
to regulate its commercial laws by a reference to foreign le-
gislation; steadily, unflinchingly, invariably, without
tion, and withoutexception, you have acted on t at principle.h
During a long course of years, at first with doubt, but ulti
mately with an absolute certainty founded upon a growing
experience, you have refused to take inviewth e legislation
lation.
of foreign countries, and you. have determined your n
commercial laws. You said, "It is unjust to the consumer
of a commodity that while he was liable to a competition
for what he produced a particular exceptionshould be made
against him in reference to an article which he consumed."
You said that the British consumer was entitled to every
advantage you could give him by the removal of fetters,
trammels, and taxes on his trade. What hays you done to

the paper maker? He seeing a country where it is so
disadvantageous for him to make paper, has not he the be-
nefit of the whole system of free trade ? Is there an article
to which it has not been applied ? In other countries the
machinery of the paper maker is subject to a heavy tax. In
this country it is subject to no tax at all. (Hear.) In fo-
reign countries the chemical appliances of the paper maker
are charged with taxes, not one farthing of which has to be
paid here. In other countries every commodity which the
paper maker uses is commonly charged with an enhanced
price arising from restrictive legislation. In this country
the paper maker wears shoes, and Northampton trembled
at the change in the tariff under which foreign shoes were
to be introduced. The paper maker wears gloves, and
Yeovil and Worcester trembled at the import ation of foreign
gloves. The paper maker drinks wine—(a laugh)—and
wine is now for the first time brought into cempetition with
British beer and spirits. Under these circumstances, un-
sustained by a single precedent, but with every precedent
against him, the paper maker comes to the Legislature and
says, " Reverse the whole principle Upon which you have
acted for the last 20 years in order to continue to me an ad-
vantage which is necessary for my existence, but which in
every other-class of producers has turned out be a delusion
and a snare." Let us consider now what is the speciality of
the papermaker. I saw a paper in one of the daily prints from
a distinguished champion of the paper makers. It was a
statement to the effect that the case of the paper
makers is not like that of the corn growers, and setting
forth that the corn growers bore no special burdens. Well,
I must say I was rather amused at that. Ido not know
whether that paper maker was born since the corn-law
controversy, in which case he weuld be a very precocious
youth. (Laughter.) But if he knew anything of the
controversy which raged from 1838 to 1846, I think he
might have heard something of the special burdens of the
corn growers. I believe that argument will not be re-
echoed from the benches opposite. I invite hen. gentle-
men opposite to say whether the corn growers have special
burdens or not. I was always of opinion that the corn
growers had special burdens. lam still of that opinion ;
but, notwithstanding his special burden, his protection has
been taken away ; but the paper maker says, " Notwith-
standing these special burdens, because the Government
imposes a duty which you have no power to alter, be so
good as to recompense me for what I lose." But there is
a challenge which the paper-maker makes. He says :
" There is no instance where the export of the raw mate-
Hal is taxed abroad, and where you are to admit the manu-
factured article into England without duty." Now, lam
much surprised at the ignorance—or not to use a harsh
term, at the defective information of that. assertion.
(Laughter.) His challenge is so distinct that I will gives
him a case. His doctrine is this—there is no instance in
which the raw material is taxed on export abroad, and.
where the manufactured article is admitted into England
without duty. I will give him a case, viz., the important.
article of leather. I will not stop to refer to silk, though
there is a duty of lts. 6d. on waste silk impor6d from France
to be woven, and the Spitalfields manufacturer will tell you
that he has also to contend against the manufactured
article. In the case of leather, hides on export from France
are taxed at the rate of 25 per cent. on the value -much
about the same as is alleged to be the effect of the tax upon
rags—and bark, that important and indispensable element
in the trade, is positively prohibited to be exported from
France. Yet the boots and the shoes and the gloves of
France are all of them admitted, or at a term now rapidly
approaching are to be admitted, free of duty. (Hear.) I
deny the necessity of producing such a case. I stand on the
principle that we have nothing to do with foreign legisla-
tion, but let us endeavour to do justice to our people.
(Hear, hear.) But, nevertheless, this is a case where the
exported article is either prohibited or restrained by taxes,
and the manufactured article is admitted into this country
absolutely free of duty. (Hear.) I need not detain the com-
mittee long up ,n this subject, when for the last three or fear
months there has been such a mass of debate and discus,-
sion upon it. Of course it is said to be doubtful from wb:ieh
side the misrepresentations and misstatements have pro-
ceeded, but both sides agree that there has been me end of
them, and though the matter might have been. ;disposed
of in five minutes five months ago, yet it has gathered mag-
nitude since, and it is now necessary to deal, tla it in de-
tail. But, sir, the truth is that the whole Inflater is funda-
mental in its elements. The case is so stated as if it were
a trade with regard to which we were dependent upon a
foreign supply in order to enable us to compete with the
whole world. This is the basis of every newspaper article,
of every argument, and every speech that has been made.
It is said "here is an article with respect to which we can-
not supply our own market except by means of withdraw-
ing the raw material from abroad." Now, sir, I meet that
assertion with a flat and a broad contradiction. We are not
an importing country of the material of paper. I could
show the house letters from various paper manufacturers
which declare that, if we go rightly about it, the material
of paper is cheaper and more accessible here than in any
other country. (Hear.) One manufacturer says " There
is no scarcity of rags and never was in this country. It is •
true we import, but it is a particular kind for a particular
purpose. The best of all material for all kinds of paper is
worn out ships' rigging. So abundant is it, that on the 6th
of last month I attended the dockyard sale at Portsmouth,
and I bought the best and cheapest I ever had." (Hear.)
It is admitted on all hands that the material of paper—
these rags which were so inaccessible have grown much
cheaper in this country of late years. I think I can prove
that fact from the most conclusive evidence. In the year
1840 you exported five million lbs. of paper and imported
20 million lbs. of rags. You now import 32 million lbs. of
rags and export 20 million lbs. of paper. Your export of
paper has consequently increased by 15 million, lbs., while
the import of rags has increased by 12 million. lbs., and 12
million lbs. of rags represent 9 million lbs. of p aper. Con-
sequently your supply of rags from abroad has not grown
to the same extent as your export of paper, wad while you
have increased the export and enlarged the circle of trade,
you have at the same time diminished the price. (Hear.)
Gentlemen conversant with this subject know the mean-
ing of these statements, and they know that the whole of
this cry is a delusion and an error on the part of those who
make it. (Hear, hear.) The proposition I make is simply
to this effect :—We are not an importing country ; we ex-
port at this moment in paper more than we import in rags.
Our importation in rags is about 12,000 tons, that is to say,
after deducting the quantity we export back, we import
about 12,1100 tons of rags a year. We import 12,000 tons
of rage, which make about 2,000 tons of paper, but we ex-
port 12,000 or 14,000 tons of paper, so that we actually send
out a great deal more rags in the form of paper than we
import. (Hear, hear.) Not much more than half of all the
1 paper we make is made of rags at all, and yet because nearly
half is made of rags, and there is a duty on it abroad, my
hon. friend the member for Hertfordshire insists that we
should tax all paper whatever it may be made of. The posi-
tion in which we stand in respect to rags is this : Ruin
from the French paper maker is what is apprehended. The
French paper maker is to come in like a flood, and he will
shut up all the mills in Ireland, the owners of which pre-
sented the affecting petition we heard read to-night. We
have an opportunity of bringing this miserable fallacy to
this test—What becomes of our exported paper ? In the
first place, it is singular enough that the paper we export is
that very description of paper which is made from the fine
rags imported from abroad. (Hear, hear.) It is not the
coarse paper nor the straw paper, but the fine paper made
from these fine rags that we export. How comes it that
we export it ? Does it pay ? I presume it does pay or else
we should not continue the trade. Where does it go ? I
will tell you where some of it goes. One of the principal
places to which it goes is the United States of America,
but I suppose that Frenchmen are likewise free to send
their paper to the United States. According to my hon.
friend the member for Hertfordshire our paper makers are
to be ruined if these resolutions are adopted. Now is it
not a most extraordinary thing that if, immediately our
duties are brought to an equality with those of the French-
man, he is to rush in and to flood us with his paper, we
should be able to send paper away now and meet hire in the
open market ? (Hear, and cheers.) Our exporter generally
pays the duty in advance, and having done so he must lay
out of his money until he gets it returned ,from abroad, and
he has also notices and delays to meet, and forms to comply
with, so that he is heavily burdened on exporting, and yet,
marvellous as it seems, notwithstanding the terrors the
Frenchman now brandishes in his eyes, he is able to go to
America and sell his paper at a profit in the teeth of every
competitor. (Hear, hear.) But there is yet one point
more to bring the representation to its climax, and it is this
—Strange as it must sound, after all the misrepresentations,
which have been dinned into our ears for some months,
England at this moment sends more paper goods into the
American market than France. Last year, while France
exported 178,000 dollars worth into America, we exported
230,000 dollars worth of the same goods. (Hear, hear.) I
am ashamed to occupy so much time of the committee, but
for two or three minutes before I sit down I must le
theat-
tention to a very peculiar point in the case.
paper-makers demand from you compensation for
oftohrortholeasse s
un-
equal legislation of foreign countries, thytha
demands of a
who appear before you as petitioners with demandß of a
character very different, and I think mu
ch more reasonable.
theogen ie
legislation
e; arbsuht aist
character very different, and I
The principle of British legislation
been to decline to take notice .
has also peen to give to Brfriatoitslhysjuusbjteactnsa, seociful as it
laws. Now
offorefi
upon us,cal the
eburenaefittetnetfioPzei for a moment to the position of
lettho
mseegentlemen—a class of great enterprise and merit who
are engaged in supplying the people with publications not
of a low order, but yet at a low price, which are intended to
be sustained by extensive circulation. Let a man endea-
vour to establish an undertaking of this character, and to
bring out for the advantage of the people an edition like that
I hold in my hand—an annotatededition of the :Holy Scrip-
tures, or any other publication needing an extenusiive sale---
it is not too much to say that it would be hard en that man
to be compelled to purchase his paper in a protected market at
an exorbitant price. But this is not all. The Me ssrs. Cas-
sell, whose petition has been presented to-i day) pure
chased paper for an annotated and illustas .ted Bible
they are now engaged in bringing out. They must urer
chase their paper in the British market, or else. pay
per cwt. on paper imported, say from Geer a The
ye
consequence is that however dear the British
cannot afford to go to Germany, unless they are
what position Messrs. Cassell Aced 111 r,espe 23s. 4d.
.p n
tarket is they
9 prepared
to pay this tax of 235. 4d. per cwt. Now, let :me ask in
et to the