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

Stroud. But I have been told that anything that could be
done in England, before this treaty, according to interna-
tional law, in reference to prohibiting the export of coal,

may still be done; and that no other surrender has been
made except the surrender of the right to prohibit the ex.
port of coal in a commercial sense. On the question of
spirits the hon. and learned gentleman quoted a passage
in the correspondence between my noble friend the Secre-
tary of State for Foreign Affairs and Lord Cowley, in which
it ie stated that 10s. on foreign spirits would be the most
desirable duty for the English revenue; but that the nego-
tiators would agree to Bs. 2d. if some early reduction could
be obtained on some article to be introduced into France.

And then, asks the hon. and learned gentleman, what early
reduction did we obtain ? I can tell him that me of the

early reductions obtained was on this very article of linen.
The reduction of the duties on British linen going into
France was brought nearer by a considerable period, viz.,
to June, 1861, and it was one of the early reductions ob-
tained by the concession in regard to spirits. (Hear, hear.)
Sir H. CAIRNS said in the first letter:from Lord Cowley
to Lord John Russell the Ist of July, 1861, was stated as
the date.

Mr. M. GIBSON (resuming)—l have not the despatch
by me at this moment, but I think I am correct ; at all
events the reduction of the import duty on linens going into
France would have taken effect at a more distant period
but for the concession made with regard to the duty on spirits.
Again, iron and machinery yvere also to be admitted at an
earlier period in consequence of that concession. The hon.
and learned gentleman used the expression that this agree-
ment for a smaller import duty on French spirits was a
sacrifice of English manufacturers of spirits for some poli-
tical object. The hon. gentleman, lam sure, has uninten-
tionally misrepresented the case, because it was always in-
tended and always understood by the French Government
that a sufficient difference should be maintained between
the duty on foreign spirits and that on British manufactured
spirits to cover the disadvantage under which the British
manufacturer was placed by being under Excise survey. No
intention therefore could exist of sacrificing his interest. No
doubt he was to lose a protective duty, but under no conceiv-
able circumstances was he to be put on any terms of inequa-
lity with the French manufacturer. With regard to the
question of wine, the hon. and learned gentleman has given
utterance to substantially the same sentiments which were
expressed by the hon. baronet the member for Stamford.
He seemed to think this treaty placed a differential duty
on Spanish wines, and gave those of France an advantage,
and that we had placed ourselves in a very difficult posi-
tion, if we were hereafter inclined to propose a commercial
treaty for the admission of British manufactures into that
country. It must be remembered that tins arreisises...i is
one which does not in the least arise out of the treaty, but
is made solely in reference to our own laws relating to
spirits ; and, as I am informed, it will be found much easier
to get into consumptiona greater quantity of spirits through
the importation of Spanish wines at these duties than to
attempt the same operation through the importation of
French wines. Therefore, in that sense, with a view to the
consumption of alcohol, you are to some extent favouring
Spain at the expense of France. I cannot see any ground
of complaint whatever in this arrangement with regard to
wines. I think the case is not a Spanish question merely,
because the greater portion of the German
wines, I am in-
formed, will have the advantage of this lower rate of duty,
as containing less than 18 degrees of alcohol. The hon. and
learned gentleman has really gone into so many minute
details that it is extremely difficult to follow him ; but on
the
_question of shipping I will tak cleave to make a few
observations. Those who have sent memorials to the Board
of Trade on the subject of the third article and of the dif-
ferential duty have all, without exception, suggested that,
unless something could be done for the shipping interest,
this treaty ought to be rejected altogether. My hon. friend
the member for Sunderland and the hon. and learned gen-
tleman opposite have not taken that view of the question ;
and the petitioners seem to be under a misapprehension on
the subject of the treaty. I have read their memorials, and
I find an idea prevailing that in some way or other British
shipping will be placed in a worse position than before, and
that the ti eaty will give some kind of sanction for a period of
ten years to restrictions which might otherwise have been
removed. I contend that this treaty does nothing of the
kindsbut that, so far as it affects British shipping, it will
place it in a better position than it occupied before. In
the trade between England and France ships of both na-
tions are on a footing of perfect equality, and if by increas-
ing that trade British ships have no corresponding restric -
tions to contend with, it follows that you must confer an
important benefit upon them. What is the state of the case
at present? Of the French direot trade with the United
Kingdom 69 per cent. is performed by the British fleet ;
'2B per cent. is carried by the French fleet ; and 3 per cent.
by the fleets of other nations This is the trade to which
the treaty relates, and to no other, and it is this trade which
may be expected so largely to increase by the mutual in •
terchange of products and manufactures. It is clear that
if British ships enjoy 69 per cent. of the carrying trade
there is nothing in any French regulation which prevents
them from deriving full advantage from it, and any increase
of that traffic arising from the treaty must obviously confer
an important advantage on British shipping. (Hear.) I
find that the trade between England and France forms
something between one-third and a-halfof the whole foreign
trade of that country; ofthis, English vessels enjoy 70 per
cent., or in other words between one-third and one-quarter
of the whole foreign trade of France. To raise the general
question of differential duties bearing on the indirect trade
with France is to enter into something quite apart from this
treaty. The hon. and learned gentleman, I think, has
talked of imports from America into France. No doubt, it
would be very desirable if British ships could carry goods
to that country on the - same terms as American vessels ;
but this treaty has nothing to do with creating facilities
Of that kind—it is simply to facilitate the carrying of
British produce into France. The same argument ap-
plies with regard to the Mauritius ; I respect-
fully submit that when you introduce these
topics into a discussion on the address on this particular
treaty you are really travelling from the question before
the house. But, as this subject has been mentioned, let rile
see the extent of this great grievance. I should be glad if,
the navigation laws of all countries were entirely abolished.
In this country we have removed all restrictions ; and there
are very few nations, with the exception of France, Spain,
Portugal, and to some extent America, which have not reci-
procated our liberality, and given us advantages in reference
to navigation which we did not before possess. It is said
that at the Mauritius we are kept out of something very
well worth having by these differential duties. I presume
that a certain quantity of sugars are consigned to this
country, which for the most part find their way in English
bottoms, which I presume cannot be regarded as disad-
vantageous to British shipping. But I have a return before
me showing the extent of the colonial trade of France ; and
let us see how much we should acquire if every French ship
were prevented from carrying produce from any of our co-
lonies to France—a consummation that the hon. and learned
gentleman, I think, will scarcely hope for. I find that the
trade between France and the British colonies in Asia,
Africa, and America amounted to 108,000 tons of :shipping
in the year. - (Hear.) The trade of Great Britain with
foreign countries was 1-1,438,000 tons; and between the
United Kingdom add her colonies was 4,306,426 tons.
(Hear.) So that all you would gain would be the employ-
ment of 100,000 tons of shipping in addition to the amount
of over 18,000,000 which you already possess I venture to
say if British shipowners had all this trade, of which they
say they are now deprived, they would feel it to be an ad-
dition of comparatively trifling importance. Ido not say it
is not worth having ; but I think shore importance is at-
tached to these restrictions than they deserve. The whole
French trade with the British possessions in India and the
Mauritius only employs 81,000 tons of shipping; it really
appears to me you are attaching great importance to small
matters, and, by continually pleading small restrictions,
are attempting to raise a prejudice against a great and
comprehensive measure of commercial freedom, with which
I am quite certain the country and the constituents of the
hon. and learned gentleman are satisfied. There is one re-
markable fact with regard to English and French shipping
which I cannot help mentioning. In 1858 of all the ships
in the ports of France engaged in the foreign carrying
trade—l do not speak of the coasting trade—British
ships formed two- thitds of the tonnage. (Hear, hear.)
That is, out of every nine ships in the ports of Fiance en-
gaged in the foreign trade six were British. (Hear, hear.)
All these ships must have obtained employment, notwith-
standing the restrictions that remain. The hon. member for
Sunderland was anxious to propose his resolution as an
amendment to the address. I was one of those who en-
deavoured to dissuade the hon. gentleman from doing so. I
imagine he did not attach much importance to the advice,
because, being a member of the Government, he thought I
was not quiteto be believed on such a subject. (Laughter.)
He rather listened to me with a degree of distrust I have
not been accustomed to see. But I really advised the hon.
gentleman to take the coursewh I shoulndohhlaevleotrhdoautgthhtebheesatdhaodf
I been in his position. en the
the Government offered him an opportunity of bringing for•
ward his resolution as a substantive motion, and told him
he would support it, I could not conceive the hon. gentleman
would have a moment's hesitation. And I, am quite con.
vinced he has now taken the most judicious course for the
promotion of the cause he has so ably advocated. I have
no doubt when he brings forward his resolution again—I do
not say in' the exact words in which it now stands—that it
will obtain the general support of the house. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. and learned member for Belfast concluded his
speech with some observations about the French export
duty on rags. He said the negotiators of this treaty had
paid no attention to the question of export duties levied by
foreign countries on the raw materials of manufactures. I
dare say they did not ; I am not aware that it has been the
custom to enter into such considerations when dealing with
the import duties of this country. There is scarcely a single
article the, duty on which you have reduced or repealed that
does not contain some ingredient that is liable to some re-
striction as to its export from other countries. What would
be said ifany one objected to the importation of corn and grain
exportation
Francetation o
bfecgaunsaanoth?e FyuroencrhepGeaolved thernmeednuttlywoohn lthibeiatst‘hre,
though the French Government prohibits the exportation of
raw hides. If you were to act on the principle of repealing
Customs'duties only with regard to foreign export duties,
you would be in a difficulty every time you dealt with a
manufactured article.
ota
orr
nt uhamek ere ne
your
oarhonedavmrsat
ooli an
Ivnoheipy:ofrot r
dc en
t;
(Hear, hear.) do not think the
ilesbdeelipeevnediteiwthilelrbeonfouthned
ei xmi Politi
s ee
h ul d b
glad
seouontries. It is most desirable that the export duty on rags
daerbly allpthoernfoobrleei duties on raw materials
aunnntroinens, anced I
to
thew was ex-
tremelyonsothat the French Government inglotnerndedoecl to remove the duty
now existtng on rags exported from France. (Hear, hear )
But the negotiators of this commercial treaty would have
been to blame if they had gone into the consideiation of
such export duties in reference to every article with which
they
were going to deal. In fact, we must look to the gene-
ral principle of those measures; the negotiators were about
to
deal with a great measure of principle, much of the de-
tails of which has yet to be completed. Had they allowed
themselves to travel into considerations beyond the broad
principles of the treaty, they would have failed altogether,
and the house would not have had the treaty before it for
discussion. I hope the house will give its unanimous vote in
support of the address the hon. member for Middlesex has
submitted to us. I cannot conceive that the noble lord
who has moved the resolution relating to Savoy will.obtaiu
any support. I cannot believe that he will go to a division.
Why we should refuse to increase our commercial inter-
course with France because some territorial question is
under discussion I cannot understand. (Hear, hear.) There
is nothing in the words of the address to which any mem-
ber can have any objection. I can scarcely csnceive even
the hon. member for West Norfolk objecting to it. Even
if the treaty be as bad as he says it is, at any rate our in.
tention is good. The existence of the treaty is a proof of
a desire on the part of the Crown to promote the we'fare
of the people. No one will deny that such a treaty must
promote a beneficial intercourse between Great Britain
and France, and tend to the extension of our trade and
manufactures. We all hope and trust that such will
be its result. We do not ask you to say it is
mathematically demonstrated; we ask the house simply to
congratulate the Crown on thus proving its desire to pro-
mote the well-being and happiness of the people of this
country, told to? express a hope that the measures proposed .