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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 7, 1866.

article they manufacture—that is to say the publications

they bring out, the paper being the raw material and the
finished book the manufactured article P If they buy paper

from abroad they must pay upon it a duty of 235. 4d. per

cwt., but a competing article printed in Germany, which I
now hold in my hand, is introduced to drive Messrs. Cassell

. ,
out of the market at a duty of 15s. (Hear.) That is the
state of British legislation. By the British law as it stands

you refuse Messrs. Cassell leave to purchase the paper on
which their book is printed at 155., but you allow a German

publisher to print a similar edition of the Bible and send it
here at 15s. in order to drive Messrs. Cassell out of the
market. I call upon the committee to dismiss from their
minds any visionary and unpracticable schemesfor regulat-
ing our legislation by the proceedings of other countries,
and to stand fast by the sound principle approved by the
experience of 20 years, of minding our own business, amend-
ing our own laws, and setting an example of equity, fair-
ness, and equality, so far as depends upon ourselves. (Hear.)
There are other cases where the inequality, unless removed,
i s the direct result of our own proceedings. It is only this
year that you have said to the manufacturers of paper
hangings and to the card-board maker that the maker of
French hangings shall come in at 145., and the card-board
maker at 15s. per cwt. But what are hangings and card-
board ? They are articles of which paper is the raw mate-
rial. Are you then positively to say to these men, "By
the British law we will compel you to run in a fair field and
with no favour against the foreign producer; but with re-
spect to the raw material we will hamper your access to
it by artificial restrictions, and will forbid you to purchase
it unless you pay a tax levied for the benefit of the clients
of the hon. member for Hertfordshire." In my opinion
those who are prepared to adopt that course must have
ramed their notions on very different grounds from those
which British justice would mark out. It is precisely the
same in principle as the case of the miller would have
been if we had said, "We will admit foreign flour duty
free, but we will maintain the duty upon corn." (Hear,
hear.) These are really my last words upon the subject,
and I must say, that so far as regards the first resolution
which is now before us, I cannot for a moment
doubt the course which the dictates of our own
self-respect and our sense of honour and dignity as a house
of legislature will lead us to adopt, and the conclusion to-
wards which policy, prudence, and justice must direct us.
It has been said by observers of human nature, that how-
ever insignificant a thing may be, there is always something
touching in doing it a last time. It makes an appealto the
feelings, however small the thing may be, if we know we
shall never have to do it again. Now, I believe that this
is the last time we shall be called upon to settle the old
question of protection. The most microscopic eye may now
address itself to the British tariff, and will find that it has
attained a normal state, so far as the establishment of
equality between the domestic and the foreign producer is
concerned. Even into the paper trade itself the principle has
found its way. Certain classes of paper goods are irretriev-
ably exposed to foreign competition. The last stage of this
ong journey, and that too a very short stage, is all that re-
mains to be accomplished, and the question is whether you
will accomplish it now, or will atop short. It has been said
that there is a speciality in the case of the paper makers. I
confess that I know of but one speciality in the case, and
that is the extraordinary advantage which the arguments
in its favour have derived from being supported with the
greatest power,vigour, ingenuity, and assiduity in quarters
of the greatest influence. It has but one speciality, and
that is in connexion with what I may call the royal family
of the daily press. (Laughter.) But that is not a speciality
of which the House of Commons can take notice, and I
should be much indeed surprised and much disappointed if
there should be doubt and hesitation under the circum-
stances as to the course we are to pursue. The vote of this
committee to-night, I feel satisfied, will once more, and
now once for all, affirm and give its sanction to principles
which for so many years have contributed to develope the
resources and confirm the prosperity of this country, and
which, fertile as they have been in benefits to 'every class of
the community, have upon the whole done the most for
those for whom it was feared they would do the worst,
namely, the producers themselves of what were once pro-
tected commodities. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. PULLER said he had listened with great interest
to the speech of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, because it had convinced him that his
perseverance with those resolutions was founded upon an
insufficiency of information respecting a great interest
which dreaded extinction. (Cheers from the Opposition.)
All that that interest asked for was the very natural privi-
lege of being afforded an opportunity of substantiating its
case before a select committee of that house, and of dis-
proving the grounds upon which the resolutions of the right
hon. gentleman proceeded. He did not despair before he
sat down of satisfying the Chancellor of the Exchequer that
he had taken a wrong view of the matter. He tried to im-
press upon the house that the hands of the Government
were tied by the treaty, and that they were thereby pre-
cluded from considering the hardships of the paper-makers
of this country. Now, when the treaty was under conside-
ration the noble lord at the head of the Government dis-
tinctly said that the house was not asked to bind itself by
any one resolution, but that it would have the opportunity
of going through the whole provisions point by point. That
was the course pursued by Mr. Pitt, and that was the course
the present Government would pursue. That promise, made
by the noble lord, was repeated three days after by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer himself. The right hon. gentleman
now contended that both he and the house were bound by
the treaty. But if he held the views of the 7th article then,
as he did now, it was his duty to have told the house dis-
tinctly that under that article they were bound to reduce
duties irrespective of any provision that might be made for
the duties remitted. (Hear.) The house had not the whole
facts before them. But, indeed, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer enumerated the articles which were under the
treaty and articles not under the treaty, and pap:: r was men-
tioned by him as not under the treaty. (Opposition cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER admitted
he had said so. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. PULLER did not wish to do injustice to his right
hon. friend ; as no doubt he had his reasons for the
statement; but undoubtedly the effect of his whole finan-
cial statement was to keep the whole of the facts before
the house. (Hear.) He included paper with hops and
other articles which were to be dealt with, not under the
• treaty—(laughter)—while other articles were. He had
not told the house to what extent he intended they should
be bound. The right hon. gentleman had treated the subject
in a very discursive manner, and in the course of his speech
had founded some of, his statements upon a communication
which had been received from the French Government within
the last 24 hours. As, however, that communication had
not been laid upon the table, it was clear the house could not
be bound by it. With respect to the papermakers, the right
hon. gentleman had disposed of them very summarily as a
body who were actuated by causeless panic, and who did not
know their own business half so well as he did. (Laughter.)
Before the right hon. gentleman proceeded to deal in this
summary way with a body of men whose capital was counted
by millions sterling, and whose workmen were numbered
by thousands, they had a right, at all events, to a commit-
tee of inquiry previous to their coming to a decision. The
right hen. gentleman had endeavoured to show that the
price of rags in Prance was not and would not be much
lower in France than in this country. But the fact was,
that while the rag market of France was closed ours was
open, and the Americans were great competitors with our
own makers. He read a letter from Mr. Cowan, of the emi-
nent firm of Cowan and Sons, of Edinburgh, in which it was
stated that the price of fine French rags was •10s. per cwt.
less than the same rags in this country, and common or in-
ferior rags between 6s. and 7s. a cwt. The effect of that on
the home manufacturer must be obvious. The hon. member
for Birmingham had presented a petition from Messrs. Pet-
ter and Galpin, who stated that, on the faith of a resolution
of that house, and while the measure had not received the
sanction of the Legislature, they had entered into contracts
for the purchase of foreign paper and the erection of premises,
which had cost them some thousands, and they prayed for
compensation. But if compensation were granted to persons
who, on thefaith of a mere resolution, had expended money,
what would compensate the paper manufacturers, who, under
the guarantee of an act cf Parliament, had invested their
large capital in a great and staple manufacture. There could
be but one effect of such a change, and that was, to shut up
the English paper mills. The profit on the manufacture of
paper, as he was informed, was not more than one farthing
a pound, while the reduction in the duty on foreign paper
was rather more than seven-eighths of a penny. The effect
of this change must be to encourage the importation of
large quantities of foreign paper produced from cheaper
materials than were available to the English manufacturer,
and this also under circumstances which would give the
foreign maker an advantage of 7s. 3d. a cwt. over the Eng-
lish producer. Those of them who were lucky enough to
escape bankruptcy would, under the new arrangements, go
abroad, and carry with them the capital, skill, and energy
which were denied fair play here. The paper-makers were,
despite the sarcasms of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
free traders ; but they asked that they should be allowed to
compete under fair and equal—not unfair and unequal con-
ditions. It was because the case of the paper-makers was
an exceptionable one that he would call on the committee to
reject the resolutions of his right hon. friend the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer. He admitted the general principle
that we should buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest
market; but there was at the same time a wise and judicious
doctrine that ought also to be followed, which was recom-
mended in the Scriptures, in this form—" We should bear
one
allOtilef burdens," and which wits also inferred in the
homely maxim, "Live and let live." (Hear, hear.) He
asked, was thererhe
anynatural superior advantage in foreign
countries in reference
ti nce to the manufacture of paper ? On the
contrary, his
hon._ friend the Chancellor of the Exohe-
quer admitted that night
in
ght that naturally we had an ad vantage
over foreign countries
regard to the manufacture of paper,
and that the only advantage foreigners had arose from the
various monopolies which gt 2
Z enjoyed in respect to the raw
material from which paper
manufactured. Well, was his
right hon. friend so faint-hearted a free-trader as to give
way to this opposition of a foreign monopoly
to the preju-
dice of the paper manufacturers of this country ? He cor -
teased that he was surprised to hear his
right hon. friend
_make a proposal that would perpetuate) this
monopoly
which the foreigner now enjoyed in this matter.o
Sup-
pose our manufacturers had to pay an import duty
y-
upon rags, would his right hon. friend then say that the

paper-makers would have no claim upon his consideration ?
The honourable gentleman then proceeded to argue that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer was acting incon-

sistently in the case of paper, having regard to the altera-
tio; which had taken place with respect to wines and
spirits. The whole object of the treaty between this country
and France was to equalise the duties in the two countries.
This being se, why were they in this case to give a benefit
to the foreign paper manufacturer over the English manu-
facturer? He was not making this opposition to the Go-

vernment on the ground of his desire to upset the Govern-
ment. Quite the contrary. He had been asked to lay before
the house the case of many of his constituents who had em-
barked large sums of money in their manufactures, and he
was doing so to the best of his ability. He believed that
great injustice was about to be done to the paper makers of
this country, who had £.5,000,000 or ;6,000,000 embarked
in the trade, and who gave employment to upwards of
20,000 persons ; and this was to done to carry out the prin-
ciple that they should buy in the cheapest and sell in the
dearest market, and although to carry out this principle
they would sacrifice a great manufacturing interest in this
country. (Hear, hear.) He did not think the Chancellor of
the Exchequer could produce a single instance in which the

Government had asked the house to reduce the price of

native manufactures without affording some compensating
advantages to the manufacturer of the article. Let the
house look at the 7th article of the treaty. It stated that ,
her Britannic Majesty premised to admit into the United
Kingdom merchandise imported from France at the same
rate of duties as those imposed in the United Kingdom.
Now, the word " merchandise" was a comprehensive term,
and under it might come in tobacco, seeds, beer, corn, &c.,
and many articles without any duty at all. That article
would cut away all those resources at present derived from
the Customs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, how-
ever contended that the word merchandise meant all " ex-
ciseable articles." Well, if he meant that, why did he not
say so ? (Hear, hear.) The question, however, was not
as to what the Government meant, but what the plenipo-

tentiaries did. Did the plenipotentiaries follow out the
construction of the noble lord ? Those instructions were
more clear and precise than the formal instrument founded
upon them. He (Mr. Puller) contended that if the con-
struction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were a fair
one, it would render all the articles of the treaty, espe-
cially the Bth, of no value whatever. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer contended thatthe Bth article fixed the maximum
in the case of brandy and that only.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—And on
card-board.

Mr. PULLER—Then he had done the Chancellor of the
Exchequer an injustice. He (Mr. Puller) contended, how-
ever, that the 7th article would render the treaty mere
waste paper. By the Bth article it appeared that if we
lowered our excise duty on paper we were to lower it on
paperhangings. This would give the French an enormous
advantage over our producers in that department. The ob-
ject of the 7th article was, no doubt, to limit the word
"merchandise" to a certain commodity, but the article did
not do so explicitly, and we were therefore liable to this dis-
advantage, that if at any time we took off the duties on any
of the articles mentioned, the French would be at liberty to
increase the duty on the same articles. But if the Govern-
ment should still adhere to the construction of the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer as to the letter of the treaty, he (Mr.
Puller) would say still, that the spirit of the treaty was to
afford the paper manufacturer protection against unfair
competition. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, he would move
that it is not yet expedient to assent to the motion of the
right hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CHILDERS said he should give his cordial sup-
port to the resolutions. (Hear.)
Mr. F. CROSSLEY hoped that this would prove the last
night that the House of Commons would have a discussion
upon free trade. " Protection" meant robbing some one and
he considered it was no longer tenable. He might state that
some of his constituents were paper manufacturers ; but he
believed their true interest consisted in abandoning protec-
tion. (Hear, hear) In the last year they imported 2,000,000
tons of foreign paper, and they exported 20,000,000 tons of
the article. (Hear, hear.) Again, in the silk trade, there
had been great alarm on the subject of free trade, but he
thought it not rightly founded. The French were disposed
certainly to raise revenue by the imposition of duty upon
British goods, but it should not be forgotten that they could
not impose any duty upon them until they were first sold,
and what the British producer wanted was sale for his
goods. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MAGUIRE said no member would address the
house who was more anxious "than he was for the general
interests of the country. He was in a position to give an
independent vote on this question; and if he could he
would support the Government, as he had from the begin-
ning of the session given the Government support as an
independent member. There was a great demand for rags
in this country, but the British papermaker dared not show
his nose in France to make a purchase of rags. He there-
fore asked hon. members would they permit foreign paper-
manufacturers, who acted in that spirit, to come here and
avail themselves of free trade, to the injury of the home
manufacturer ? Let France make some advance, and we
should be ready enough to follow her, without which we
should be only strengthening the hands of her Monopolists.
But the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have dealt
boldly with the greater question of the Excise duty instead
of which it was left to the hon. and learned member for
Marylebone. There was no man in that house who could
act upon the other house with so much power as the right
hon. gentleman, and it was idle to undertake any other
measure until that was done. He (Mr. Maguire) asked the
house therefore, for the sake of its own dignity, not to say
to the French manufacturers, "The more you are protected
and unjust the more we shall be weak and foolish ; " but
to say to them, " Act in a spirit of fairness between man
and man, and we will faithfully carry out every free trade
principle to its fullest extent, both to your advantage and
to our own." (Cheers.)
Mr. MARSH said, with regard to the price of rags in
France being lower than:in England, it was only because
the manufacture of paper in France was not so active as it
was in this country, and the moment France began to ex-
port the manufactured article to a greater extent than she
did now, the consequence would be that the price of rags
would rise, until they eventually realised as much as they
did in England, when the imaginary and delusive evil
would immediately cease. (Cheers.)
Sir H. CAIRNS observed that the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer had stated that the house was bound to the resolu-
tions by the provisions of the treaty, and also by the princi-
ples of free trade. He (Sir H. Cairns) could not help thinking
that there was something suspicious in that division of the
argument, and that it betrayed the weakness of the right
hon. gentleman's case. If they were bound by the treaty
provisions what need was there for further argument ; but
if they were not bound by the treaty provisions, what justi-
fication was there for renewing on the 6th of August a dis-
cussion which had slumbered since the 7th of April, and
which might very well have been allowed to slumber on till
the next session of Parliament. (Conservative cheers.) The
object of the right hon. gentleman, however, was obvious.
The principles of free trade were to catch those hon. gentle-
men who could not perceive that, they were bound by the
treaty provisions, and, on the other hand, the provisions of
the treaty were brought iu aid of the principles of free trade.
However, the net had been laid in their own sight, and ho
trusted it would have been laid in vain; for it would be
strange indeed if two lame and halting propositions could
be combined into a sound and trustworthy demonstration.
Now it was important that they should consider at what
time, and by whom, the paper duties were settled. They did
not date farther back than the year 1853. In that year the
right hon. gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer,
and the Secretary of the Treasury was a well-known free-
trader, Mr. James Wilson. And what happened that year?
With the assent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr.
Wilson addressed himself to the consideration of the paper
duties, with a view to their adjustment in reference to the
subject of the exportation of rags. In the end, the Chan
cellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Wilson proposed a foreign
duty, which was now the ruling duty. They fixed it at
2fd., but he (Sir H. Cairns) contended that it ought to be
3d., and not 21d., on the ground that the calculations of
Mr. Wilson were erroneous, from not making a sufficient
countervailing allowance for the duty on rags. However,
he was not supported in the committee, and the duty was
fixed at 2id., and still remained so. The sound principles
which should regulate the customs and excise duties
depended upon an equitable adjustment of commodities
which competed with each other in the general mar-
ket and the raising of revenue. He said that upon the
authority of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
and those were the principles laid down by him
lately for the guidance of Lord Cowley, and those were
the principles upon which the duties as they now affected
the paper makers were originally imposed. The paper
makers say that if the duty was altered they would be no
longer able to compete with foreigners at all. They said
'they did not ask foreign countries to admit their paper duty
free, but the proposed duty would prevent them from hav-
ing the raw material for the manufacture of the paper, and
without which, as at present introduced into this country,
it was impossible to compete with foreigners. The answer
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that they exported
rags to France, but the reply to that assertion was that they
were woollen rags, and were not for the manufacture of
paper at all. He demurred to the way in which the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer met this queStion. The right hon.
gentleman read letters to the effect that other trades had
cause of complaint, but that was no answer to the complaint
of the paper makers. The right hon. gentleman said that
the principles applied to other trades must be applied to
them ; but at that period of the session they had not time
to consider whether his proposals were just, nor had they
before them the materials to form a judgment. (Hear.)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the proper con-
struction of the treaty justified his propositions, and he
appealed to the opinion of the law officers of the Crown ;
but he thought they ought to exercise a little common sense
on this subject, and if they carefully considered the articles
of the treaty as a whole, he thought they would not bear
out his construction. The hon. and learned gentleman
here referred to various portions of the treaty, and com-
mented upon the language in support of his argument.
He would ask when this new construction of the treaty
first dawned on the minds of her Majesty's Government.
(Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told
them to-night that he could not have believed it
_possible
that any one could be found in that house to doubt that

under the treaty the, customs and the excise duties should
be equalised, with only the difference of a sur-tax as com

pensation for the inconvenience of the excise duty, and
the right hon. gentleman had -further told theM that the

Government had been careful not to entrap the house into

any approval of the principle of the treaty until they had
placed before the house all the circumstances connected
with it, and the engagements which it involved. The hon.
member for Herts, in moving his amendment that night,
had reminded them opportunely on this question that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had produced two lists of ar-
ticles, one of which was under treaty, and the other not
under treaty, and in the last list paper was expressly in-
cluded. (Hear.) Well, he hoped the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would not tell him or the committee that he ex-
cluded paper from the list of articles under the treaty, be-
cause he contended that the excise duty on paper should
cease. (Hear, hear, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
If that was the answer of the right hon, gentleman he
would refer him at once to what he had himself done in the
case of hops, which were also incladed in the list of articles
not under treaty. The right hon. gentleman had told
them that five months ago he could not have believed it
possible that any man in that house could have thought
otherwise than that the excise and customs duties should
be equal, with a small sur-tax on the latter. What was
the course of the right hon. gentleman himself ? On the
sth March he placed on the paper notices of thirteen reso-
lutions, one of which was to the effect that on and after the
Ist January, 1861, there should be, in lieu of the customs
duties now levied upon the importation of foreign hops, a
charge of 15s. per cwt. Hops, it woule be remembered, were
not under the treaty. But on the 7th March, the day be-

:ore the noble lord the member for Middlesex invited the

house to sanction the principle of the treaty, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer put an amended resolution on the paper,
to the effect that from the lst of January, 1861, to the lst
of January, 1862, a differential duty of 20s. per cwt. should
be levied on the importation of foreign hops. (Hear, hear.)
Well, if there was any mistake in the matter, it was the
mistake of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; if the treaty

was thereby violated, as he now contended it would be in
the case of paper, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the
Government were the parties who were guilty of that
violation, because they proposed and carried it through
the house. (Hear, hear.) That the right hon. gentleman
knew what he was doing was clearly shown by the answer
he gave at the time to a deputation of hop-growers who
waited upon him to appeal against the course he pro-
posed to take. He Aid them upon that occasion that he
had done his best to meet their views by reducing
the duty on hops grown in this country to the amount equal
to £lOO,OOO a year, and at the same time that he proposed a
differential duty in favour of the English producer of 6s.
per cwt. (Hear.) Yes I in the face of the treaty, ache now
construed it, the right hon. gentleman impOsed a differen-
tial duty of 6s. per cwt. (Laughter.) And yet this was
the Chancellor of the Exchequer who told them that night
that five months ago he could not have supposed there was
a man—out of a lunatic asylum he (Sir H. Cairns) sup-
posed—because that was the favourite phrase on the oppo-
site benches now a-days—(laughter)—who could have had
any doubt as to the construction of the treaty. (Cheers.)
This was the. Chancellor of the Exchequer who had laid the
resolutions on the table, and who had included paper and
hops in the list of articles nil under the treaty-=who had
proposed a differential duty on foreign hops, and who now
protested that a differential duty on foreign paper would
violate the treaty. (Cheers.) The argument was conclu-
sive. If the treaty was violated, it had been violated by
the Government. If the hop growers could have a diffe-
rential duty for a year, why not the paper makers for a year
also ? Hear.) Was this treaty meant for the benefit or the
torment of the paper makers of this-country ? Surely under
its operation one interest should not be treated to the bene-
fit of a differential duty and another excluded. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had talked of class interests, but in
all his life he had never seen such partial and unequal
treatment of glass interests before as this. With regard to
the question of paper, however, much more remained to be
said, having a direct and not an illustrative bearing on the
question. It occurred to the hon. member for Norwich
(Mr. Warner) to put a question to the Chancellor of the'
Exchequer on the subject the night the bill assenting to the
treaty stood for a third reading ; he asked whether by as-
-senting to the third reading of the bill the house would be
compromised, or in any way bound with respect to the duty
on paper ? In reply the Chancellor of the Exchequer said,
"The house in passing this measure will not fetter in any
way the discretion of Parliament as to the imposition of
any Customs duty upon paper. (Loud cheers from the
Opposition.) He knew the' Chancellor of the Exchequer
might say that he expected the Excise duty on paper
would be abolished, and therefore that paper would be free
under the treaty ; but, then, that was answered again by
the case of hops, for neither the right hon. gentleman nor
the Government expected or contemplated the removal of
the Excise duty on hops. On the .17th May, however, a
new light began to dawn on the mind of the right hon. gen-
tleman, and that under remarkable circumstances. On the
17th May the bill for the repeal of the paper duty was !sent
up to the other House of Parliament, and it began to be
rumoured that the other house was not going to accept the
bill. Well, a question—a very friendly question—was put
to„ the Chancellor of Exchequer by the member for Hali-
fax—a friendly question, for the hon. member had given no
notice of it—and as it took a hypothetical form, the right
hon. gentleman had no hesitation in answering it. The
hon. member asked, in the event of the other House of
Parliament throwing out the Paper Duty Repeal Bill, what
would be done with the Customs duty on foreign paper ?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that " the ques-
tion of the hon. member had reference to a question which
had been under the consideration of her Majesty's Govern-
ment at the time the treaty with France was negociated"
—a statement which in view of other facts seemed to him
(Sir H. Cairns) very odd, but the right hon. gentleman
went on to say that no doubt had, could, should, or would
be entertained about the construction of the treaty on tha t
point, namely, that the customs duty onforeign paper must
be reduced to a level with the excise ; and with respect to
-the third point raised by the hon. member as to a sur tax as
compensation to the home papermakers, he said that the
pressure of the excise upon them was of so inappreciable
and impalpable character that it could not be estimated in
money. (Hear.) Really, taking all that had occurred he
was net without hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would not go back to his original construction of the treaty
and throw over the sur tax and return the differential
duty. He (Sir H. Cairns) had no hesitation in saying
that the construction now put upon the treaty
by the right hon. gentleman went far beyond the question
of the Customs on paper, and that if the house assented
to it the French Government might demand the admis-
sion of timber,. of tobacco, and many other articles on
which we had no Excise duty, and if they made such a
demand he did not know how the right hon.. gentleman
would answer it. But that night in the course of his speech
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken his stand upon
a despatch—a private despatch of the noble lord to 'our am-
bassador in Paris—and contended that we were bound by
the terms of that despatch on this point. Now, in the first
place, that despatch had never been laid before the house.
No deubt it was one of several that had.been sent for the
guidance of our Minister, but the house was not to be bound
by such instructions or such statements. All they had to
deal with were the treaty as it had been put before them,
the statements of the Government in that house, and the
treaty as they had accepted and understood it. (Cheers.)
Well, then, it was important to remember that much had
been said about paper, and especially about the removal of
the prohibition on the export of French rags ; and a night
or two before the second reading of the treaty bill came on,
the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) came down, and, amidst
the cheers of the house, stated that the French Government
were going to recommend to the Legislative Chambers the
'move' of the prohibition from the export of rags. That
was intended to have an effect on the house. The right hon.
gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on that
occasion that the Government had intended to remove the
duty on rags. (Hear, hear.) It was on these statements the
House of Commons consented to the treaty between this
country and France, and yet they were called upon as gen-
tlemen and as men of honour to carry out the treaty, which
was now violated by the French Government itself. The
view of the French Government on this matter was no
doubt the desire of the paper makers of France. They said
in their memorial to the French Government that they did
not care about the reduction of the duty upon paper. What
they wanted was to uphold the protection of the duty on
rags. Those who supported the treaty in that house said
that they ought to afford the Emperor of the French an
opportunity to go down to the Legislature of France, and
say, " Here the Legislature of England had agreed to terms
that will serve you. Act upon the same principle, and
reciprocate this act on the part of the people of England."
It might be very right to do this, but he thought they
ought to wait until next year to see what 'course they
should really pursue in this case. On this ground, then, he
thought the Government was not wise in pressing the reso-
lution upon the committee. He denied they were bound to
adhere to the treaty in the way proposed. He thought the
committee had a fair proposition made to it by a supporter
of the Government, and it would be most judicious to adopt
that amendment, and thus save from ruin one of the most
valuable interests of this country.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained
that, not having been enabled to attend to business during a
great portion of the session, certain titles were affixed to the
resolutions laid upon the table of the house. These titles
were said to be the declaration of the Government on the
subject to which the resolutions referred. Owing to his ill-
ness, he was not able to give that attention to the matter he
could desire. The consequence was an error or two had
crept in, one of which took place in the case of hops, and
the other had reference to gold and silver plate, which was
not entered as in the treaty. His attention had not been
called to the inaccuracies until too late. With regard to the
paper duty, he might state that so long ago as the 12th of
March last—and not on the 7th of May, as the hon. and
learned gentleman had said—the President of the Board of
Trade said it would be the duty of the Government to re•
duce the Customs duty on paper to a level with the Excise
duty in any event.
Sir H. CAIRNS said he accepted the statement of the
right hen. gentleman; but if the President of the Board of
Trade made such a declaration on that date, it only added to
the chapter of wonders something more wonderful still, be •
cause on the 15th of March a differential duty on hops was

imposed, and paraded as a differential duty by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
.said that the hon. and
•
learned gentleman had addressed the committee with a

forensic ardour unusual in such an assembly, and the terms
absurd, ridiculous, and the like, were used as regarded the
able and lucid statement of his right hon. friend the Chan-

cellor of the Exchequer. 'But he (the Attorney-General)
rose to state to the house what, in his opinion, was the
se interpretation to be put upon the treaty. He begged

then to call the attention of the committee to the terms

of the treaty. By the treaty, power was given to the
British Government to impose a duty equal to the French
duty. All foreign articles were to be received into this
country on payment of a duty equal to the Excise duty

' which is or shall be imposed." The 7th article contained

those important words, "which is or shall be imposed."
The French proposed that some articles should be exempted
from an increased duty, which might be imposed if they were
exempted from the operation of the 7th article. With regard

to some articles there was a definite maximum stated. But

the French were in this position—they were exempted from

the operation of an augmentation duty, as stated by the
7th article, to which they might have been subjected by the
terms of the Bth. The paper manufacturer had this advan-
tage, that the French importer had a limitation placed on
him with regard to the weight of the raw material,. and this
limitation would impose on him a larger duty than that im-
posed on the English manufacturer. For every exemption
mentioned in the Sth article there was a reason assigned.
The particular things mentioned in the Bth article were
enumerated for the purpose of taking them out of the ope-
ration of the 7th article, but not for the purpose of limiting
the operation of that article. (Hear, hear, from the Minis-
terial side.) The maximum duty on paperhangings was
given in the Bth article (and this
.applied to cardboards)
amounting to 15s. per cwt., and at that duty we would be
compelled to admit French cardboards into this country, so
that instead of its being true that the rule was given in the
7th, and the subject matter for the application of it given
in the Bth article, both the rule and application of it were
given in the 7th article. There was a common observation
that an ounce of fact was worth more than a pound of ar-
gument—certainly worth more than a pound of some of the
arguments heard that evening. (Laughter.) It was said
that the 7th article would admit every description of mer-
chandise from France, including even tobacco, duty free,
provided those articles were not subject to Excise duty in
England. Now we had laid down this general principle,
that where there were home productions liable to an Excise
duty, the correspondent articles abroad might be ad-
mitted into this country on the same terms as our own.
There was, therefore, this simple and uniform rule that
all those things not liable to Excise duties were to be
admitted free of Customs duties, and those that were liable
to the Excise duty were to be admitted at a duty equal to
that which was imposed on the English producer. He
wished to impress upon the committee that if there was a
rule of honesty, it was this that they should adhere to the
interpretation put upon the treaty in the terms and condi-
tions of the contract. To frame an article upon the duties
to which articles were subject on importation from France,
the duty should be equalised as nearly as possible to that
to which they were subjected under the operation of the
Excise duty. Nothing could be more fair than the inter-
pretation of the 7th article of the treaty. There was an
alteration made in May in the duty on spirits ; but it was
agreed between the two contracting parties that if any
additional duty should be placed upon articles- of a similar
description, an equivalent change should be made in those
of spirits. The hon. and learne&gentleman here enume
rated the articles, and said his view in having done so was
to show that the feelings and opinions of the two Govern-
ments were harmonious and uniform. He should, therefore,
looking at all the circumstances, be exceedingly sorry if the
House of Commons were not to act upon the terms of the
contract. Indeed, he should be ashamed if the House of
Commons were not to carry out its terms, and in relation
to the terms of an agreement he was sure he might appeal
with confidence to the hon. gentlemen now before him.
His right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer
argued the question upon the ground of expediency, and
he argued it also upon the ground of distributive justice;
but his hon. and learned friend opposite seemed to forget
the ordinary rules of the agreement, and argued diffe-
rently, doubtless because he did not know the facts. The
House of Commons, however, knew them, and the paper-
maker knew them, and as a legislative body the house was
bound by the conditions of the contract, and justice to the
paper maker and to the great body of the community of this
country required that they should put an end to the system
by voting for the resolutions. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NORRIS contended that it was rash to reduce the
duties onpaper in this country until they had succeeded in
inducing other countries to adept a principle of reciprocity.
The entire arrangement was an anomaly, and he ventured
to say that if the right hon. gentleman recognized the
principle.ef a customs ditto is. 3d. was not by any means
an adequate compensation or the disadvantage at which
the British manufacturer stood in consequence of the excise
duty. The Englishman was at a considerable disadvantage
in his competition either with French, Belgian, or German
makers, whioh it was the duty of that house to relieve him
from. lie did not at all agree in the position taken by the
right hon. gentleman, that we were bound by the provisions
of the treaty, but even if we were, the 21st article of the
treaty aff.rded them the means of making the necessary
modificati,ns.
Mr. HENLEY said he had paid anxious attention to the
speech of the hon. end learned gentleman the Attorney-
General, to see whether he would reply to the argument of
the hon. and learned gentleman below him (Sir H. Cairns),
but he left the main portion of his speech unanswered ;11 for
he followed the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and did not show how exemptions could be.
brought in under the expreision "in accordance with."
Nor did he say anything on the subject of malt, which was
an exciseable article ; and if the 7th article of the treaty
were general, as the Government would wish to have it
understood, he (Mr. Henley) conceived that malt would
come under it, and it was not so small an item, being about
£5,000,000, that it could have escaped like hops, which the
right hon. gentleman told them was of no great import-
ance. Well, the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of
the Exchequer had looked hard at that (the Opposition)
side of the house, and said something about their acting in
conformity with the dictates of honour and dignity. That
was paying them a compliment, certainly, though it did
not appear at whose expense. (Hear, and laughter.) Then
they made the specification of things that were under the
treaty, and things that were not under the treaty. He
preferred the specification made at the time, and he did not
think that there was that clearness in the treaty which
would justify the house in doing what the right hon. gen-
tleman wished them to do. He thought the unfortunate
paper manufacturers had been so banded about this session
from pillar to post, and from post to pillar, that this hard-
ship should not be put upon them, and he would vote for
the amendment.
Lord r. RUSSELL—The hon. and learned gentleman
the member for Belfast made, at the commencement of his
speech, a most extraordinary attack on the statement of my
right :hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said
that my right hon. friend had relied both on the obligations
of the treaty and the general principles of free trade as argu-
ments in favour of his resolutions, and that therefore there
must be a radical defact in my right hon. friend's argu-
ments. Now, it appears to me that this argument of the
hon. and learned gentleman was one of the most extraordi-
nary I ever heard. If my right hon. friend had said, this
is an article in the treaty to which we are bound to conform,
but which cannot be carried without injury to the country,
that might have been a point to take exception to. Or, if
he had said, this article is good for the country, but it is not
within the scope of the treaty, the hon. and learned member
might also have objected; but when my right hon. friend
says that his resolution is not only conformable to the treaty
but is at the same time in accordance with all the dictates
of sound policy, for that reason the hen. and learned mem-
ber says that ray right hon. friend's argument is unsound
and ridiculous. However, I was glad to find the hon. and
learned member for Belfast admitting that this was not a
question entirely for the lawYers, but one which any mem-
ber by adopting its plain interpretation might understand.
I take advantage of that admission to advance some argu-
ments founded on the plain interpretation, and, let me say
at first that if you have a treaty with another power, and
if you find that by some refinements, some subtle mode of
argument, you have deprived that power of the advantages
it might have gained from a plain interpretation, you are
not justified in persisting in those refinements and subtle
arguments. With respect to the points in the hon. and learned
member's speech, I find that although the principal question
in dispute had reference to Art. 7, yet that he avoided that
article for a long time and went into Art. 8. Then, when
he had got the house completely entangled with Art. 8,
he referred to Art. 7, and went cursorily over it, as 4f it
were not the main article under discussion. The hon. and
learned member then resorted to this extraordinary inter-
pretation ; either article 8 contains the meaning of article 7,
and you cannot go beyond it ; or else you are bound to ad-
mit all articles not subject to excise duty. Why, both these
interpretations are extreme, and are founded on a subtle
scholastic mode of deducing interpretations, instead of an
appeal to the plain straightforward meaning. I must beg
the attention of the house to the few words at the beginning
of article 7, which seem to me to contain the whole mean-
ing of that which we are now discussing. It says that her
Britannic Majesty will recommend to Parliament to admit
into the United Kingdom merchandise from France at a
rate of duty equal to the excise duty which is imposed on
articles in this country. It seems to me the effect will be
that where there is an article subject to excise, and that is
introduced to France, you will then have a customs duty
equal to that excise duty. You may say article 7 might be
better worded than it is; but the meaning is obvious.
(Hear, hear.) With regard to article 8, it states the in-
stances where article 7 is to be applied. Article 7 lays
down general principles, and article 8 refers to the instances
where those principles are to be applied. The hon. and
learned gentleman opposite (Sir H. Cairns) argues that it
is not right at present to diminish this duty because the
French Government have not completed what they pro.
raised—namely, a removal of the prohibition on rags. But
there is this material difference—the one is an article in the
treaty, and is an engagement between the two Governments,
whereas the removal of the prohibition on rags was never
an agreement between the two Governments. (Hear,
hear.) It was merely a declaration of the French Govern-

ment to her Majesty's ambassador at Paris, and it could '
not be done without the consent of the legislative body.
The French Government found the legislative body not
likely to agree to that proposition, and they were there-
fore unable to carry the intentions they had declared
into effect. The honourable and learned gentleman,
however, proposes that we should set at nought
our obligations and the treaty because the
French Government have not done that which they volun-
tarily proposed to do. According to this rule there is no

treaty which you could not get rid of by some quibble of
this kind. (Hear, hear.) Then comes the right hon. gen-
tleman the member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), who re-
fers to what was done with regard to the duty upon hops.
The right hon. gentleman has represented that we have

finally settled that there shall be a differential duty on hops
with the view of our obtaining protection thereby. The hop
interest represented their case to the Government, and con-
tended they ought to have some time allowed them in order

;hat they might be enabled to compete with that duty, which

was exactly equivalent to the excise duty. My right hon.
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to put on

an additional duty for a certain time, after which it was to

cease, and it will therefore cease at the time mentioned in

•he resolution, and will be exactly equivalent to the excise

duty. (Hear, hear.) But my hon. friend the member for
Hertfordshire (Mr. Puller) says that if we propose to com-
ply with the terms of the treaty, this is not a fit time to do
so. He will not tell us what the proper time is, but he says
we ought not to comply with the treaty until the French
Government have done something which is not in the
treaty, and we are to hold ourselves free from our obliga-
tions until they have done something. What I say is, that
an indefinite resolution like that proposed by the hon. gen.
tleman would be construed in France and in other countries
as a declaration on the part of the House of Commons that

they will not comply with the treaty, and that they wish by
evasion to get rid of that obligation and to place themselves
before Europe as a body which is regardless of treaties.
(Hear, hear.) That appears to me, therefore, to be the state
of the case. The French Government has said, and most na-
turally said, that they do not press for an immediate settle-
ment of this article. It was, therefore, a question of policy
with her Majesty's Government as to the course they should
adopt. I think the right hon. gentleman who spoke last said
that the papermakers have been placed in jeopardy by the
various propositions which have been made, and that the
question ought to be set at rest for their sakes. Well, that
is exactly what her Majesty's Government think upon the
subject. (Hear.) But will anybody say that that intention
will be fulfilled if the resolution of the hon. member for
Herts is carried ? This amendment is an indication that
the question will be opened again in February, perhaps de-
ferred till April, and deferred again till June or July. In
short, these paper-makers could never be free from alarm
and jeopardy if the hon. gentleman's resolution be carried
(Hear, hear.) But with regard to the arguments that have
been used against the policy of this measure, they appear to
me exactly the same arguments which now for a great num-
ber of years I have heard in this house, showing that free
trade is an excellent thing, but that that class which is pro-
posed to be effected by it has particular claims for exemp-
tion. I remember when this question was debated—not 20
but 40 years ago—when Mr. Huskisson intended to take
the duties off silk. Silk is not a production of this country,
and it was naturally argued, how can you admit silk under
a very high duty when it is not a product of this country,
and you have to contend with French and Italian manu-
facturers—hew can you compete with them and admit
foreign silk into England ? But you not only admitted
foreign silk, but from that moment the trade began to flou-
rish, and has continued, in spite of all those arguments, to
flourish by competition, on free trade principles. Then we
had the great question of the corn duties, and arguments
were used of great plausibility, because it was said, "You
are putting the food of the country at the hazard of a sup-
ply from foreign nations." The same arguments were used
with regard to navigation; both the men who ploughed the
land and who ploughed the sea were to be placed under
protection; and the groat authority of Adam Smith was
cited to protect navigation, and to show that it could
not withstand the competition of free trade. But that
was not a question of £6,000,000. Agriculture and
navigation involved a sum much nearer, I should
think, £200,000,000 than £6,000,000; but the house
of Commons had the boldness and the wisdom to expose
both the farmers of this country and the seamen of this
country to competition, and that competition has resulted
not only in the increased wealth of the nation, but in the
great prosperity of those interests themselves. (Hear.)
Then, is it not too much to say that we are to have the same
predictions over again, which the hon. member for Hert-
fordshire has given us, that our machinery will be taken
from us, that our men will go abroad—(laughter)—and that
there will be no paper-making in this country, and that the
House of Commons at the end of those 40 years of free
trade is to be frightened by such hobgolins as these, and
that property and trade cannot withstand competition ?
(Cheers.) But an hon. gentleman (Mr. Childers) who spoke
early in the debate, gave us important information which
ought, I think, to influence the result of this debate. With
regard to cottons, woollens, and silks you may be afraid
that these foreign manufactures may successfully compete
with you in your own markets. But the sure test is to go
into a third market, and see what is the effect of trade there ;
to Canada, Australia, and India. There the French have
had all the advantages of this protective system. We are
told that by virtue of this admirable system—by this plan
of nursing and fostering manufactures by artificial heat and
nourishment, French manufactures must be introduced
into the third market and defeat our own. But the fact is,
that out of £78,000 worth of paper, £50,000 is manufactured
in this country, some £lo,ojo in the United States, and only
£l,BOO comes from France. And so of £300,000 of paper
imported into India, £227,000 is of British manufacture.
Such is the effect of competition upon a system which has
been fostered and dandled by protection. No doubt it will be
the same in England. There will probably be improvements
introduced into the manufacture, and men will be led into
more useful and less wasteful application of their capital.
If those paper manufacturers are not unlike the rest of the
country—for we know the energy and industry which have
enabled our manufacturers, our farmers, and our sailors to
compete with their rivals all over the world, whatever ad-
vantages they might have—l don't think they will suffer
by these changes. I ask this house, therefore, on the
ground of the obligations of treaties, and on the plain and
simple meaning of the article which I have read, on the
ground, too, of wisdom and policy, not to give the descre-
ditable spectacle to the world of endeavouring to evade a
clear obligation. (Hear, hear.) Let us rather rely upon
that principle which has been tried for a number of years,
and has proved to be so beneficial to the commerce of this
country, and let us not again resort to prohibitions and
protection as the means of securing our prosperity.
- (Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI The resolutions and amendments
which we are now discussing have assumed so many shapes
that I feel some perplexity in addressing myself to this
question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us
a very able summary of the advantages of free trade , but
I shall commence by at once clearing the subject from all
that surplusage. I do not conceive that any question of
that kind is now under consideration—(hear, hear)—and
the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to
me to have been framed and fashioned to answer another
amendment of Mr. Puller's, which stood for a considerable
time on the paper, and which probably would not have given
rise to a controversy so interesting and important as the
present, which I think must be felt to be unexpected and
unnecessary at this period of the session. Concluding, as
I do, that the principle of unrestricted competition was ac-
cepted by the house seven or eight years ago, I do not think
it necessary to comment on, or differ from, the observations
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I conclude that those
who adopt the principle of unrestricted competition as the
principle of our commercial system are also of opinion that
that principle should be applied with discretion and pru-
dence, and that those who apply it should at least have a
knowledge of the subject they have to deal with, and of the
circumstances of the different trades. I know that there is
another school of economists who take what I may call a
more extravagant view of the principle of unrestricted
competition, and of the mode in which it should be ap-
plied. They say that we are not to consider what are called
exceptional circumstances, nor in any way to regulate our
conduct by the conduct of foreign countries. I don't go so
far as that opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I
have before me the words of an eminent statesman, who ex-
presses in language much better than I could employ what
ought to be the aim and object of free trade. He says,
" Some persons say that the chivalry of free trade is de-
graded when it becomes a matter of bargain; whereas it
appears to me that bargain is the end and aim of the whole."
Those were the sentiments and observations of the right
hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear.)
Therefore the house must have been somewhat surprised to
hear him lay down to-night, in a manner so perfectly unre-
stricted, that we were not to consider in any degree the
policy and legislation of other countries on matters of re-
venue and commerce. It may be supposed that these ob-
servations were made years ago, when the right hon. gentle-
man was a stout protectionist. Quite the reverse; for this
was a quotation from his budget speech of the present year.
(Cheers and laughter.) How he can reconcile the opinion he
has given to-night, on the unadvisability of regulating our
own trade by any reference to the tegulations of foreign
countries, with the sentiments so glowing and favourable
which he then expressed, I confess it is totally out of my
power to conceive. At the commencement of the year a
variety of measures affecting the commerce and trade of the
country were laid on the table of the house, and recommended
to our support. The trade under consideration was indepen-
dent and irrespective of the treaty of commerce so far as we
can be guided by the papers before,the house: We have heard
so much and have had so little explained that the right
hon. gentleman cannot blame the House of Commons if
they have been under the impression that the question of the
paper duties was to be dealt with irrespective of the treaty
with France. The right hon. gentleman brought forward
the case of the manufacturers of paper independently of
the treaty of commerce in a clear and intelligible proposi-
tion. If the object was to cheapen the price of raper and
to s-irea,,re outti
nut
have introduced a more beneficial proposition than that for
the repeal of the excise duty on paper. But there are better
and more important:things than even cheap paper, and the
opinion of Parliament, after long discussion and debate, was
that the measure of the Government for the repeal of the

excise duty on paper was not expedient in the then state of
the finances of the country, and I may say in passing that
was a resolution which subsequent events justified. (Hear,
hear.) That plan of the Government having failed, what
was the state of this particular trade ? Was it one that had

never been reformed or revised ? Was it one the regulation
of which had been exempted when the general subject of the
regulation of duties had been dealt with, and when those
revisions which were prevalent during the last quarter of a
century took place ? Quito the reverse. This very branch
of manufacture included amongst those which underwent

that scrutinising examination, adjustment, and arrange-
ment to which I have referred ; and the Minister by whose
advice and counsel this critical examination took place hap-
pened to be the same Chancellor of the Exchequer who now
brought it forward. (Hear, hear.) Therefore the Govern-
ment at the commencement of this year having failed in
their policy with regard to the manufacture of paper, could

not turn round and say, we have not had our measure carried
as we intended, it is absolutely necessary to consider the
state of a trade the condition of which is disgraceful to the
country, and is not in accordance with the commercial prin-
ciples which prevail in this country, because the Govern-
ment had examined and considered the circumstances of this

branch of industry, and had adjusted it to those principles
which the house had examined and sanctioned. (Hear.)
That being the case it is somewhat extraordinary that on
the 6th of August we are now called on to consider the

position and circumstances of this particular branch of in-
dustry, and that the paper manufacturers, harassed by
what has already passed in the session, should have their
condition suddenly brought before a jaded House of Com-

•
mons to the surprise of everybody, and that a'great Parlia-
mentary debate and struggle should take place upon the
condition of a branch of industry which had already been
revised according to the new principle of our commercial
system. (Hear, hear.) What is the cause of this strange
proceeding ? It is supposed that we are bound to do this
under and by virtue of the commercial treaty. Are we quite
clear that there is a stipulation of that kind ? Every one
will agree it is highly desirable that public documents
should be drawn in language so clear and so precise that
there shall be no doabt as to their meaning. That that is
not the case in the present instance no one will pretend to
say. I have listened to the discussion which has taken
place upon the question of our engagements under the
treaty ; and I confess that as between the arguments of the
rival expositors it does appear to me that the case set up.
by my hon. and learned friend (Sir H. Cairns) has not even
been encountered. (Hear, hear.) The most remarkable
observation that has been made throughout this debate is
that which has just fallen from the noble lord the Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs, who of all others should be
careful in expounding a public treaty. The noble lord,
whoa he dealt with the 7th article, in which foreign mer-
chandise is admitted on payment of a duty equal to the ex-
cise, felt that it was impossible to vindicate the conduct of
the Government on the subject of hops; that subject on
which, according to the Attorney-General, there was so
much unfortunate vacillation. (Hear, hear.) The noble
lord therefore found fault with the motion of the hon.
member for Hertfordshire, on the ground that it did not
propose any ultimate result. He said, "If you had pro-
posed that the duty should fall a shilling a year, as was
done in the case of hops, I could have understood that;
but the motion as it stands is too vague. But the proposal
which the noble lord makes is one that is just as much a
violation of the treaty as was the regulation respecting
hops.

Lord J. RUSSELL—I did not make any such propo-
sition.
Mr. DISRAELI—But the noble lord said it would be in
accordance with the treaty. (Cheers.) It would, however,
have been as much a violation of it as any that has been
made in the course of the debate. (Hear, hear.) But after
all what is this treaty ? The circumstances connected with
its execution are remarkable. One would have supposed
from the language of the noble lord that we were preparing
to violate an engagement into which the country had en-
tered in the most complete and public manner. But I find,
looking at the papers before us, that a treaty of commerce
was negotiated and ratified, and that when it was laid on
the table and explained by the Minister, it appeared that it
was to be followed by a supplementary convention, which
was in fact to regulate the details of the measure. I find that
a specific date was mentioned by which that supplementary
treaty was to be completed, namely, the Ist of July. On
that day, however, the supplementary treaty was not exe-
cuted. On the contrary, instead of a supplementary treaty
I find that there is no arrangement between the English and
the French Governments by which these separate conven-
tions were to be successively concluded. One of them is to
refer to bar and pig iron, machines, tools, &c. The second
is to have reference to yarns and manufactures of flax and
hemp ; and the third, to all qther articles of British pro-
duce and manufactures, enumerated in the first article of
the treaty—the time for the completion of these three con-
ventions being extended to the Ist of November. Now what
security have we that when the first of November comes
these three conventions will be completed ? (Hear, hear.)
You now have taken five or six months to negotiate this
supplementary treaty, which you have not completed, and
who can tell that the three conventions will be finished
within the time specified ? Well, then, sir, I say this is not
a complete engagement betweenthe two countries which we
are now proposing to violate. This is:an incomplete and un-
finished negotiation, and there is nothing unreasonable, or
dangerous, or unjust in our suggesting to the Government
that it is quite unnecessary to arrive precipitately at any re.-
solution on the subject of the paper duties after the country
had beengreatly disappointed in regard to the matter of the
raw material ; but that it is wise and expedient that we
should avail ourselves of the same delay as the French
Government has done, and that we should have
negotiations with the French Government in order that we
may arrive at a fair adjustment of this question. (Hear.)
The motion of the hon. member for Hertfordshire proposei
merely that the Government should not call upon this house
to consider at once a question which may be postponed by
the French Government. (Hear.) It appears to me that
not only is the motion of the hon. member for Hertford-
shire one which is fair and reasonable, but that it is one
which indicates a course which it would be, I believe, wise
on the part of the Government to follow. But neither the
speech of the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs
nor that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the
amendment of the member for Hertfordshire. They have
totally avoided the real merits of the case, which may recom-
mend themselves to all men of temperate opinions. Let the
Government recollect fora moment the great disappointment
of the country at the manner in which this treaty has been
negotiated. (Hear, hear.) I have ne doubt the difficulties of
the negotiation are very considerable ; but at the same time
expectations were held out to this country as to the mode
and time at which the 'treaty would be negotiated, and as to
the advantages which this country was to derive from it,
which have certainly not been fulfilled, and which is a source
of great disappointment, and the reasons never have been
explained to the people of this country why the engagements
promised were not fulfilled. It appears to me, then, under
thesei circumstances, that the Government can be scarcely
surprised if a particular trade should hesitate before they
conclude an arrangement which they think will be highly
injurious to their industry and without receiving any of
those advantages on the part of France which were held
out to them by the Government of this country. Every-
, body recollects that when this treaty came before the
house variouS commodities were enumerated which caused
alarm, and among which paper was one, and everyone will
recollect the interest and satisfaction caused by the an-
nouncement twice made by the Government that the French
Government had resolved to reduce the duty upon the raw
material for manufactures. (Hear, hear.) Under these
circumstances it is not unreasonable to call upon the Go-
vernment to obtain a boon necessary to the profitable exer-
cise of the paper trade, and which is a sound principle of
commerce, and which the Government more than once an-
nounced their intention to accomplish. (Hear.) Under
these circumstances I trust that the Prime Minister will,
instead of taking an exaggerated view of this matter, such
as I think has been taken by the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, feel that it is a question in which the Go-
vernment may fairly interfere, and without violating the
engagements of the country under treaties of which we have
heard so much, that he will prevent the necessity of a divi-
sion on this subject by accepting in the spirit the amend-
ment of the hon. member for Hertfordshire. The noble lord
may in the interval that will elapse between this and next
meeting of parliament use that influence which I have no
doubt he possesses with the French Government, in order
to obtain the result which is sought by the amendment. I
myself would much prefer this than that we should b.
dividing on the 6th of August—have leen dividing the
house on an object which of itself is not of first-rate impor-
tance. It is not like the constitution of the country. It is
the legitimate interest of a thriving trade which is still un-
der the disadvantage of an excise duty. It is all very well
to say you will get over that by a farthing or two, more or
less. I defy any one to tell the disadvantage of an excise
duty on a trade. No doubt when you compensate a trade
for an excise you should make not only an adequate but a
liberal allowance. Considering that this subject has been
brought before the house on what I believe to be an erro-
neous construction of the treaty—considering that the treaty
is an uncompleted document and an unfulfilled engagement
—and considering that the French Government has in con-
sequence of this great difficulty, in a spirit of great concilia-
tion, expressed its willingness not to press us to come into
this engagement, I think it would be the wisest and the
moat conciliatory course to the trade whose interests
are at stake, and to which I myself would apply the
commercial principle which we have adopted
think that considering the French Government have
not been able to fulfil their engagements although
they are desirous of fulfilling them,
tthta our att
consideringm fulfilmentor e t
ti
once they have expressed their desire tha
should be deferred till we can make more equal terms, and
mutually fulfil our engagements-1 say h
all these circumstances I wish that the noble lord would
prevent at this moment an unnecessary ditvisionbyaccept-
ing in spirit the policy recommended member
for Hertfordshire, and would allow this question to be so
dealt with that the noble lord should use his influence with
,tb.c Fandi ti ernment, e) that they ,11,n1f1 dflov, ILL/. raw
material to be exported, and that we may have the satistac-
tion of feeling that when the paper trade is called upon to
enter into competition, it will enter into it with all those
advantages to which it is entitled. But if the noble lord
will not do that, the only course I can take is to support