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

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-
tion which had taken place with respect to wines mud
spirits. The whole object of the treaty between this country
and France was to equalise the duties in the two countriles.
This being se, why were they in this case to give a benefit
I to the foreign paper manufacturer over the English maim-
.

facturer? He was not making this opposition to the Go-
vernment on the ground of his desire to upset the Goversi-
ment. Quite the contrary. He had been asked to lay before

the house the case of many of his constituents who had et n-
barked large sums of money in their manufactures, and he
was doing so to the best of his ability. He believed tb at
great injustice was about to be done to the paper makers of
this country, who hal £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 prim-
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 t hancellor 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 promised 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 instillment 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 that the 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 suppoit 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 manufvturers, " 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 11. 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. H e (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 in aid of the principles of free trade.
However, the net had been laid in their own sight, and he
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
21(1., 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 21d., 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 s :id 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 ju -tilled his propositions, and he
appealed to the opinion of the law officers of the Crown :
but he thought they ought to rxereise 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.
(near, 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 included 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
otl terwise 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-
luti'ons, 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 would be remembered, were
not under the treaty. But on the 7th March, the day be-
fore 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 Ist of January, 1861, to the Ist
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 told 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 lin the face of the treaty, ashe 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 duly 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 le'vel 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, ho 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 ho
was not 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 doubt 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 Governmeht 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 Governm nt
were going to recommend to the Legislative Chambers the
removal 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 I
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 resolutiouq referred. Owing to his ill-
ness, he was not able to give that attention to the mat ter he
could desire. The consequence was an error or two had
crept in, one of which took place in the case of hops, and i
the other had reference to gold and silver plate, which was
flat 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 he 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