The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-29 00:00:00

Recollect that hitherto the Commercial Treaty
with France, the Budget, the imposition of the
Income Tax to the tune of £10,000,000, the post-
ponement of the deliberate consideration of the
Question of Savoy—that all those things and a
great many others very nearly as unpalatable—
have been swallowed one after another by Par-

liament upon the simple reiteration of the one
grand Ministerial argument—" Trust the Emperor
NAPOLEON, place your reliance in him, in the good
faith and loyalty of his friendship, repose implicit
confidence in his imperial magnanimity."
But—suspicions have now been fully justified!
Nay—" a change" has come " o'er the spirit of the
dream," even of her MAJESTY'S Ministers. Our
Foreign Secretary, who, among all our administra-
tors of the Coalition, had most loudly insisted upon

the integrity of the French EMPEROR as a political
security, perfectly indestructible and adamantine—
Lord JOHN RUSSELL himself has now frankly
and explicitly acknowledged his error, has avowed
that the policy of his Imperial Majesty must hence-
forth be regarded, not only by England, but by the
whole of Europe, with profound distrust, and a very
natural degree of suspicion. It is obvious, therefore,

hat the House of Commons must at length begin

to regard matters—alike political and diplomatic,
fiscal and financial—under an entirely different
aspect, and from a totally opposite point of view.
It were simply the most egregious folly in the
world for Parliament to continue any longer
blindly remitting duties for the convenience and
emolument of France (without England obtaining
any equivalent whatever, nay, even the smallest
reciprocal advantage) in the hope that one conces-
sion may be made good in some nameless and un-
defined manner by the French EMPEROR'S mag-
nanimity. We know what that sort of vague se.-
curity is worth. We know by this time—just to
be a trifle plainer—that it is absolutely worthless.
Therefore, the House has nothing else left it to do,
surely, in the matter than to trim its sails afresh—
and go exactly upon an opposite tack.
And now about the Paper Duty Repeal Bill,

which is down upon the papers of the House of

Commons for consideration in committee this even-
ing. It has passed the first and the second reading
under the wgis, or the glamour, or whatever else
we may like to call it, of the Ministerial argument
of confidence in the EMPEROR'S good faith, his
loyalty, and his magnamity. As we have learnt
now precisely what that all means—we come to the
reconsideration of the proposed repeal, aided by
fresh lights, in committee. With those lights sh'iri-
ing clear upon the Question from three dif-
ferent points—from Nice, from Turin, from
Paris—shall we to this new act of fatuity

put the seal of our acquiescence ? Already

the House of Commons has done many
rash things this session, but it has hitherto the ex-
cuse so far of having done so under a delusion, under
a misapprehension. It has that excuse no longer.
It must decide now with its eyes wide open, whe-
ther it is really prepared to sacrifice thus far the
exclusive advantage of the foreigner upwards of
£1,250,000 of revenue, or whether it will insist
upon paper being dealt with, if dealt with at all,
upon broad free trade principles. It is simply ab-
surd, we maintain, wholly to remit the import duty
upon foreign paper, while France, no less than the
other Continental Powers, rigidly maintains an
export duty upoa the raw material from which
paper is mainly (for ail rational printing
purposes exclusively) manufactured. It is
simply absurd to talk of its being Free
Trade for England to remit the import duties
upon foreign paper altogether, while France
proposes to maintain an export duty upon rags of
from £8 to £lO per ton, having up to the present
time prohibited that exportation altogether !
When this export tariff upon rags is still £l2 10s.

in Holland ! When it is £9 per ton in Germany
and the Zollverein ! When it is £6 per ton in
Russia! And when, as the law exists, it is for-
mally prohibited in Belgium, and Spain, and Por-
tugal ! So that at the very best, wherever that
export tariff is maintained, the duties amount to
from 50 to 100 per cent. upon the value of rags in
those countries. And with a knowledge of this,
the House of Commons is expected to night,in Com-
mittee, in the name of Free Trade, with a view to
the furtherance of Free Trade principles, to remit
in the shape of paper duty £1,250,000 and upwards
without one iota in the shape of an equivalent ! No
wonder Mr. WRIGLEY argues that " unless you
have well considered and are prepared for all the
consequences, you ought not to admit foreign paper
free from countries which maintain an export duty
on rags." No wonder he feels the proposed wrong
bitterly—the wrong proposed to be inflicted on him-
self and his brother manufacturers—when he oan
put the case with perfect truth thus forcibly,
thus (as we conceive it) irresistibly—" Suppose,"
he writes, " that America, actuated by a desire to
monopolise not only the growth, but also the manu-
facture of cotton, were to lay a tax of 50 per cent.
upon the export of cotton ; would our English cot-
ton spinners consider it fair to this great interest if it
were proposed to admit American cloth and yarn

freely to this country ? Would they be satisfied to be
told that the thing would right itself in the course
of a few years, and that in the meantime they
must do the best they could 9 Would they patiently
endure to be reminded of the indomitable nature
of English skill and enterprise ? Would any
Government dare to make a proposal of this
nature." " And if not" he continues, " where is the
difference between the position of the English paper-
maker as it will be if the proposed remission of the
import duty is effected, • and that which I have
drawn of the cotton trade as it would be under
similar circumstances 9 The only difference is, that
the one is a comparatively small and powerless in-
terest, and the other is all-powerful—an imperiunt in
imperio." It rests with the House of Commons to
decide to-night whether it will allow that powerful
and latterly dominant interest to remain so
whether the English papermakers are to be crushed
under the heels of the insolent champions of peace
(so called)—men who, if they are Englishmen and
members of Parliament, are, above all things,
cotton manufacturers, and speculative proprietors
of, as yet, unremunerative penny newspapers !

The defenders of Church-rates have recoiled.
Like the Austrians at Solferino, they made an
unexpected advance on Sir J. TRELAWNY'S posi-
tion at the second reading ; and, though they did
not deprive him of a single vote—for the number
of his supporters was identical with that of last
year—by silently whipping up forty of their own
defaulters, they lessened his large majority by that
amount. This looked like a step towards victory ;
and, in addition, they kept up a fire of petitions
which with equal secrecy they hail caused to be
prepared in every parish hole and corner, till it
really seemed as if a sudden zeal for Church-rates
had overspread the country. But the Solferino-
like advance has been followed by a Solferino-like
retreat. Abolitionists awoke in an instant from
their imagined security—in a few weeks their peti-
tions have largely outnumbered the whole year's
work of their antagonists. During the last week
or two members have come loaded like bees to the
llouse, with not merely one, but fives, tens, and
hundreds of petitions, signed, too, by an average of