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

with France, as it was at present. The navigation laws with
regard to the French trade were divided into four heads.
There was the direct trade between this country and France,

it reminded him of Swif 's story, when he talked of the fears
of the people of Laputa, who, although they enjoyed many
advantages of soil and climate, yet were perpetually troub-
lingthemselves with the apprehension that some day or other
therays of the sun would be excluded, and they should be
unable to derive any warmth or light from its rays.
(Hear, hear.) Bearing ou all the objections which had been
urged, he would ask the house whether they believed the
treaty was right in principle, and if carried out fairly and
honourably, would conduce to the advantage of the two con-
tracting parties. Did they believe it had been entered into in
&sprit of friendship and in the hope that a cordial alliance
night be concluded between the people of the two countries,
and that it would bear the scrutiny of time and the judgment
of posterity ? if the house could return an affirmative on
these points, he asked them for their co-operation in the ad-
dres he was about to place in the Speaker's hand. They
had all probably consulted the precedent of 1787, but they
thought the address moved for at that time deserved a pass-
ing notice The righ t hon. member for Buckertook a techni-
cal abjection to the words of that treaty, but he (Mr. Byng)
found, upon reference, that it breathed the same spirit of
loyalty to the throne which animated the address of to-night
(Hear, hear.) But ho felt he had another duty to perform,
If it were true that the man ought to be considered a bene•
factor of mankind who made two blades of grass spring up
where only one formerly grew, he (the hon. member) thought'
a aaan was not less worthy to be considered a wise and useful
citizen in his generation who gave up his time, health, for-
tune, and the mere precious treasures of private interest, to
cry out what he believed to be for the benefit of his coun-
try. They had seen such a man, and seen him rewarded in
the successful results of the efforts he had made. But not
contented with his position, he sought a wider scene of
action, and wished that other countries should receive the
benefits which had accrued to his own. There might be dif-
ferences of opinion with regard to this treaty. On the one
hand people would be found to over-estimate its
advantages, and, on the other hand, some would
underrate its benefits, but he believed they were
all united in thinking that, during the last few months,
a wise and practical part had been • played by the
hon. member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden)—(cheers)—and if
the commercial treaty bore the good fruits which many an-
ticipated, he did net think it would least redound to the
credit of the Commons of England that these negotiations
have been entered into, and this treaty has been in the main
concluded, by one of its own number. (Cheers.) In con-
clusion he would respectfully appeal to hon. gentlemen on
the Government side of the house not to allow individual
discrepancies of opinion to prevent their joining with himin
this address. To those who sat opposite he would hold a
different language. He would ask that. great historieal
party—the conservative gentlemen of England—to approach
this discussion in a spirit and tone worthy of the importance
of the subject. He would ask them to lay aside private in-
terest and party prejudice while they discussed the question.
It would be impossible to stifle discussion in that house, and
it ought never to be attempted, but he would ask hon. mem-
bers to give a vote upon the present occasion which they
could hereafter look to with genuine pride and lively satis-
faction. (Hear, hear.) If they object to the treaty finan-
cially, commercially, politically, morally, or socially let them
return an indignant negative to his proposition. (Hear,
hear.) If they believed that in these negotiations the honour
and dignity of the English Crown and English interests
had suffered, aacl that the Government had shown them-
selves inadequate to their position, let them displace the Go-
vernment ; and although he thought the country would not
ratify such a proceeding—(hear, hear)—still the people
would understand the manliness and straightforwardness of
that step. (Hear, hear.) But if they believed, as he was
confident the great majority of the house did, that the treaty
would be beneficial to the interests of both England and
France, then he would ask them to approach the sovereign
with the proposed address, and to express with him by their
votes a hope that, under the blessing of Providence, those
two great nations might yet be more firmly united by com-
mon bonds, resting on identity of interests and reciprocity.
of benefits, and that they would continue to act as they
had hitherto done, as the pioneers of civilisation and pro-
gress in all parts of the habitable globe. (Cheers.) The
on, member concluded by proposing the address to her
Majesty.
Mr. BAINES, in seconding the motion, said Ire had great
satisfaction in joining his hon. friend in asking the house
to give its approbation to a treaty which was framed to
unite in ties of friendship, and to advance the prosperity of
the two greatest nations in the world. He felt that her
Majesty had conferred another great boon upon her sub-
jects by entering into the treaty ; and it was due to her
that they should express their grateful thanks to her for it.
History would mention the treaty as among the memorable
events of her bright and :happy reign. (Hear, hear.) In
expressing, as he did, the sentiments of his constituents
upon that treaty, he believed he was speaking not merely
for a great town possessing a considerable variety of impor-
tant branches of industry, but also for allthe great branches
of industry in Yorkshire, Lancashire, and generally for the
northern and midland counties of England. He might
venture to say that by all those engaged in the manufac-
ture of cotton, woollen, worsted, linen, leather, porcelain,
cutlery and hardware, and, in fact, all the great branches
of English industry, the treaty was regarded as a means
for opening new markets for their several commodities,
and as a new pledge for the maintenance of peace. (Hear,
hear.) He might mention that, although many articles of
English manufacture ware displayed in the French Exhi-
bition of 1855, none of them were permitted to be sold.
The customs laws of France prohibited their intro-
duction, and they had only been admitted by special license,
as samples for the inspection of French manufacturers.
That circumstance alone showed thet there was not that
perfect alliance between the two nations which ought to
exist. No one could deny that commerce was the best
guarantee for peace, and the present treaty had been nego-
tiated for the express purpose of remedying the defect he
had pointed out. The exports to France were disgracefully
insignificant compared with the vast commercial resources
of the two countries. In 1859 the total exports from England
to different parts of the world amounted to £30,440,000, of
which France, their nearest and wealthiest neighbour, only
took £4,740,000, and it was that inequality which led her
Majesty's Ministers to seize upon the-first opportunity for
placing their commercial relations with that country on a
better footing. In 1858 the imports into the United King-
, dom from France were £13,271,000, but the exports of Bri-
tish and Irish produce to France did not exceed £4,863,000,
or little more than one-third. While in 1859 their exports
of British manufactures and produce to France amounted
to £4,740,000, in the same year their exports to other coun-
tries were as follows :—United States, £22,701,000 ; Nor-
thern Germany, which had a much smaller population than
France, £11,777,000 ; Australia, with a population of one or
two millions, £11,255,000; Holland, (£5,379,000; Turkey,
£3,762,000 ; Russia, £3,493,000 ; Brazil, £3,386,000 ;
Egypt and Arabia, £2,190,000. Therefore the mutually
beneficial intercourse between England and Prance was im-
measurably below what ought to be expected, considering
the natural advantages of both countries. Pitt's celebrated
treaty with France of 1786-7 worked well until hostilities un-
happily broke out between the two nations, their trade with
each other having in that interval continually and rapidly
increased. Since that period we had had two kinds of ex-
perience ; first, twenty years of desolating war, by which
the two countries were greatly affected, and civilisation aid
Christianity seriously retarded ; and, next, forty years of
commercial reforms, which had now their close in this
treaty, which threw open England to the industry of the
whole world. (Hear, hear.) It did not throw down all the
barriers in France, but, in proportion, the French advance
was greater than ours. Did not experience prove that they
could take that step in favour of commercial freedom with
perfect safety, and did they not by taking it encourage other
nations to follow their example ? (Hear.) The various in-
terests in England which had been deprived of protection
had, with some partial and temporary exceptions, been in a
much more flourishing condition than they were under pro-
tection. (Hear, hear.) The rent roll of landlords had in-
creased, the farmer had more abundant produce and a larger
income, the manufacturer a greater extension of his opera-
tions, and the merchant and tradesman a great increase of
prosperity. In fact, every interest had greatly benefitted
by the change. There were also social and constitutional
results. The population was much more contented than
when under protection, and those dangerous cenflicts of class
against class, of the bread eater against the bread grower,
had entirely ceased. They had also been enabled to enlarge
the basis of the constitution, and it was a singular honour
and felicity to the noble lord the member for the City of
London that he was able to present himself to the house, and
to receive the appropriate reward of a long course of consis-
tent patriotism by holding in one hand the treaty with
France, and in the other the new Reform Bill. (Hear.) The
French, it must be admitted, itstued, possessed great advantages,
and were pre-eminently ewebrreanycehryeso
manufacture. They had grecactenssaftuulrailntassotem,
in-
genious, and were remarkable for industry.
enough
tEnglishothink
conceited manufacturers were ignorant and ede
they could bear away the palm fromtlieFrench, but they
were utterly mistaken, they would havetogo to France
a that
and learn how to improve themselves. Heconfessed
he thought our competition with French manufacturers
would be of infinite advantage to us, because wead rers
enor-
mous substantial advantages on our side. We had an
immense accumulated capital —we had iron of most
excellent quality in abundance ; we had coal, which with
' iron was one of the main agents of manufacturing industry,
and in mechanical invention and in the construction of ma-
chinery we were unapproached by any othercountry. There
was also no labourer that excelled the English labourer,who
was remarkable for skill, industry, and endurance; and,
further, that spirit of self-reliance was evinced on the part
of the British manufacturers and their labourers which
could not be found in any other country in the world. With
perfect freedom of conatnerce and of political institutions, we
had an impregnable position in a country open to all the
ways of the commerce of the whole world, and protected by
an invincible navy. The population among whom he chiefly
moved had an earnest and tree wish to cultivate a spirit of
harmony and friendship with the great French nation, and
to forget old antipathies. He believed that the treaty was
entitled to the general and complete approbation of the pee-
ple of England, and, in conclusion, he would say that the
utmost reach of their historical and political experience
brought them to appreciate the old doctrine and simple in-
junction which might be taken for the motto of a treaty of
commerce—" Thou halt love thy neighbour as thy self."
(Cheers.)
Mr. LINDSAY maid that the treaty with France in 1786-7
was in all respects a treaty of recierocity, both as regarded
commerce and navigation, and, therefore, it differed from the
present treaty. They had been often invited to accept the
latter treaty as a guarantee of peace between England and
France, but they must not forget that within four years of
the ratification of the treaty of 1786-7, which bound the two
nations together by a much stronger tie, a most fearful war
broke out between the two countries. Nevertheless, he felt
bound to accept the treaty now before the house, and he
. offeredh his best thanks to the Government, and especially to
Cobden for the way in which they had negotiated it,
Luu treaof tY did not contain all he desired—it was very far
nite--wbinta it placed England in a better position than
short
and
navoould give larger sources of employment to
her people,
crt new markets for her commerce.
He therefore felt gelle
to call their attention totht;leupPort the treaty. But he wished
third article, and to refer, more
especially, to the maritime b
that certain articleseaing of the question. Article
one provided
imported from the United
Kingdom, but hitherto practically a
prohibited should hence-
in no case exceed.
forth be admitted on payment °I
referencelnteonj
ing 30 pericent.,'and taking that artililtey- unction with
g_it
woout differential
the third article, which had
against
teern that
i"dinirected
duties in favour of French sh
this third article was especially
shipping. The fact, however, was, that it did not tTtiergltihshr.
present position of British ships in any way, By the first
article France allowed certain articles to be imported at a
duty of not more than 30 per cent., but did not define the
country of the importing ships, leaving the importer open
to send the goods in any bottoms he pleased. But for this
third article of the treaty, therefore, Dutch .or American
ships would have been able to conie to our ports and load
our produce and manufactures for the ports of France. The
article in question was consequently necessary to continue
to our shipping in the main points, as regarded the trade

in which the ships of either country might load in our ports
the manufactures and produce of England for F ance with-
out being subject to any differential duties. Then there
was the French coasting trade, which was confined entirely
to French ships There was also the indi ct trade, viz.,
that between our dependencies and France d the trade be-
tween those dependencies and the mother country,into which,
so far as we were concerned, the ships of France were per-
mitted to enter freely, as they were permitted also to coin-
pete in our coasting trade. They might go to Calcutta or
Australia and load upon the same terms as English ships to
English ports and under their own laws for their own ports,
although British ships loading from the same places were
prevented by high diffe ential duties from loading for the
ports of France. And, next, there was the indirect trade as
between foreign countries and France.— Under the recipro-
city treaties, an American ship might load from any port of
America to any port of France; but when a British ship
loaded ,a cargo from an American for a French port, the
duty charged in France was so high as to be practically a
prohibition. This restrictive course of commercial policy was
no gain to France, but was was in fact more injurious and
unjust to her own people than to us. This was proved by the
results, for while the general trade and commerce of France
had increased at a greater rate than that of any other coun-
try in Europe, not excepting even England, her shipping
had remained almost at a stand-still. From 1827 to 1836
the trade of France had increased as compared with the
previous ten years by 10,000,000,000 f. In the next ten
years, from 1837 to 1846, the increase was 15,000,000,000 f.,
and from 1847 to 1856, the increase had been
22,000,000,000 f. And this was in regard to the special com-
merce of France only—that was to say, the commerce in
articles imported for the use and consumption of her own
people, or for their own manufactories for after export. If
they turned to the general trade, the increase was still more
astonishing. Yet her shipping remained without progress.
In 1830 France held 14,852 ships, and in 1857 the number
was only 14,845. True, they were of larger tonnage to some
extent in the latter years, as compared with the former.
(Hear.) But compare the total tonnage of the French mer-
cantile marine with ours. France did not possess one-sixth
of the tonnage of England, or more than two-thirds that of
New York. In 1787 France had engaged in the trade with
San Domingo alone 527 ships, embracing 167,000 tons, and
employing 8,500 seamen; while, in 1830, engaged in the
trade of all her colonies she had only 407 ships, comprising
100,000 tons, and employing 6,000 seamen. He was fully
justified, then, in saying that the people of France had the
greatest right to complain of laws which produced results
such as this. But we had also reason to complain that,
although we had thrown open our ports to her ships, and
had allowed her to share freely with us in our coasting
trade, she had not made to us the slightest concession.
(Hear, hear.) And it was essential, if the treaty, which he
hoped would be confirmed, was to produce the beneficial re-
sults expected from it, that some change should be made by
France in her navigation laws. If those laws remained as
they were, and the trad e between the two countries increased,
as they hoped it would under this treaty, large quantities of
silk and wine would be exported from French ports to Eng-
land, and of British manufactures to French ports—mostly,
he apprehended, in steamers. A French ship might load
from any English port, and carry her cargo part to one French
port and part to another; but if an English' ship loaded a
cargo at Liverpool for France, part of it consigned to Havre
and part to Bordeaux, she might go to the one port, but
when she attempted to go on to the other and land her goods
there, both ship and cargo would be confiscated. Then again
the wine and silks of France would not always be paid for in
our manufactures, but sometimes by the sugars and coffees of
India. But a French merchant, if he sold his wine or silk to
a London house—shipped in a British ship, and to be paid
for in Calcutta sugar—could not being the return cargo to
the port of France in an English ship. It was obviously
necessary, therefore, that there should be some change in
the law as regarded the indirect trade, more so than in the
direct trade, or the commerce between the two nations
would be unduly impeded and resti ieted. He had placed on
the paper a notice which according to the rules of the house,
it being an addition to an address, he believed must be
taken as an amendment, though he had not intended it as
such. He wished to see the treaty ratified, but was at the
same time anxious, in justice to the English shipowner,
that some change should be made at the same time in the
' French navigation laws. With that view he desired to
pass a resolution expressing the feelings of the House of
Commons on the subject of those navigation laws, believ-
ing as he did that such an expression of opinion would have
due weight with the Emperor of the French. He did not
ask that English shipping should be placed on the same 1
terms in all respects in France with French shipping, but
that the colonial and indirect trade should be placed on the
same footing as the direct trade. He was, however, most
desirous to avoid going to a division on the question, the
result of which might be misunderstood, and he thought he
should best consult the interest of the shipowners of Eng-
land by accepting the offer madnby the noble lord (Lord
J. Russell) the other night, of the opportunity on some
future occasion to bring forward a question in the shape of
a substantive motion, in which he hoped to have the noble
lord's support. ~
Mr. PEACOCK was opposed to the treaty because he
did not think our commercial relations with foreign coun-
tries ought to be made the subject of treaties, and that we
should not make remissions of duties unless such remis-
sions could be justified on their own merits. Had such a
proposition been brought forward by the Conservatives it
would have been denounced by Mr. Bright and his friends
as opposed to the principles of political economy, and as
throwing back free-trade principles in France by at least
twenty years, as he (Mr. Peacock) firmly believed would
be the case. He objected to this treaty because it put it
out of the power of Parliament to revise this treaty for ten
years. He was glad that he had the authority of Mr.
Canning to support him in the view of the matter which he
took, for when upon a former occasion the Dutch had en-
deavoured to treat us as we were now treated in the case Of
France, that great statesman had humorously embodied his
opinions on the subject in the following lines in his well-
known despatch :
" In, matters of commerce the fault of the Dutch
Is giving too little and asking too much.
With equal advantage the French are content,
So we'll clap on, Dutch bottoms a twenty per cent."
(Hear.) It was an excellent treaty for France, but there
was very little reciprocity in it. The three most powerful
interests in France were the priesthood, the army, and the
manufacturers. They knew what the feeling of the army
was ; the feelings of the priesthood they had all gathered
from the articles of M. Veuillot, in the Univers ; and he
believed that this treaty alone was wanting to unite the ma-
nufacturers with the other classes in hostility to thincountry.
Mr. CLAY rose to add his approval, however little it
might be worth, to this treaty. In Hull, one of the last
places in which it might have been expected it would be re-
ceived with favour, it had been warmly approved. It was
the first step which had been taken in France towards free
'trade, which had long been the Englishman's creed, and it
was impossible that that step should be taken without pro-
gress being made in free trade, which might extend to Eu-
rope generally.
Mr. B. COCHRANE did not see how we could have a
commercial treaty without a bargain. The authority of
Pitt had been quoted in favour of a treaty with France. He
would quote the words of Fox, which ought to have more
authority with the noble lord opposite. In 1787 Mr. Fox
said the object of France was to put us off onr guard, and to
prevent our cultivating alliances with other States. He re-
gretted that the noble lord did not avail himself of the ne-
gotiations of this commercial treaty to throw greater obsta-
cles than he had done in the way of the annexation of Savoy
to France. There was a greas difference between 18d0 and
1787. In 1787 there was a surplus of a million and a half ;
in 1860 there was a deficit of 10 millions. In 1787 Holland
occupied the position in reference to the two countries that
Savoy did now. It was proposed by France to interfere in
Holland, and in 1787 it was proposed that there should be a
mutual disarmament of the two countries. In 1860 we had
double estimates. It had so happened that all the protesta-
tions of Napoleon 111. had been falsified by the result. This
,treaty bound us to a certain extent to his policy, and he be-
lieved the result of it would be that we should be left with-
out a single ally in Europe.
Mr. W. EWART said the hon. gentleman's allusion to
Mr. Fox's authority was a very unfortunate one, because,
while Mr. Pitt was making that extraordinary voyage into
the realms of sound principles, to which reference had so
often been made, Mr. Fox had not read a single page of
Adam Smith, and was profoundly ignorant of political eco-
nomy. He (Mr. Evart) should support the treaty both be-
cause it was a measure of peace, and because it was a mea-
sure for the extension of commerce. (Hear.) Itwas only just
to the Emperor to say that the principles on which he now
acted were principles which he had professed when he was
President of the Republic. In 1852 a witness who was a
large wine grower, told the committee which sat to consider
our eommercial relations with France that he had had an
interview with the President, and that he (the President)
had remarked that the best treaty that could possibly he
entered into between France and England would be an ex
tended trade. (Hear, hear.) It was said that the English
people would never drink French wines, and that might be
quite true, so far as regarded yin ordinaire and piquette,
but there were extensive districts between. the Rhine and
Bayonne, which produced wines peculiarly suited for Eng-
lish consumption. Besides, it must be remembered that the
people of this country used to like French wine, in proof of
which he need not cite so well-known a writer as Chaucer.
enistlaatouf r me
In the first act of William and Mary, it was declared that
tht
thea le
e e tradewa in French wines was "a common nuisance ;" but
;inaknd indacweoorudld..inagllwy atyhsoydeftobund
defeat thine ianngoetnhtdortayeotf
paf sed the next
wino
still came in, and that it was not "staved, split, burnt,
or destroyed," as had been ordered by the previous enact-
ment. When the celebrated Methuen treaty was made
there were many petitions
against Portuguese wines ; and
amongst others there was one from the now port-drinking
of the well-known round,al ,ed by Dr. Aldrich, the composer
bells." (Hear, hear.)He' Hark I the merry Christchurch
Exchequer had done well to modify
the Chancellor of the
for he could not see why a
governess,
yssthe licensing system ;
no' be able to refresh herself with a 91 for
instance, should
con-
fectioner's. He thought, too, that thegtaraestof wine at a
to have a very beneficial effect upon thea taste of
be found
manufacturers. Much had been done with aeN
•
of English
about that desirable end ; but no plan could be.iejetotbe ring
likely to prove efficacious as to bring them under the influ-
ence ence of free competition. (Hear, hear.) It had been well
sai I that there were no persons so interested in the put-
ting down of monopolies as the landlords, who were the
great consumers of the public, and he (the hon. member)
hoped, therefore, that they would now come forward and
vindicate their rights as English freemen by joining in the
attack that was being made upon the monopolies that re-
mained. (Hear, hear.) As a friend of peace, he rejoiced
that the treaty had been signed. A poet of the last century,
who was not now so much read as he deserved, told us that—
" -- Gaul in times of antique story
Was closely linked with this now adverse strand,
And Frank and Briton in those ages hoary
Trod with unwetted foot from land to land."
He trusted that though the two countries were no longer
linked together by a physical tie, they would long be bound
to each other by mutual feelings, by mutual interests, and
he hoped hereafter by mutual freedom. (Cheers.) He con-
gratulated his hon. friend (Mr. Cobden) on the part he had
taken in bringing about so important and gratifying a con-
summation, and he was sure the hon. gentleman would feel
to his last moment that he had done good not merely to
France and to England but to mankind. (Cheers.)
Mr. MAGUIRE, as an Irish member, should give his
most cordial support both to the treaty and to the budget of
which it formed a part. (Hear.) He did not apprehend any
political inconvenience from the treaty, but, on the con-
trary, he believed that it would prove highly beneficial to
the whole of the United Kingdom. No doubt it was an in-
consistency to have a war budget and a peace treaty; but
it was one for which the Government was not in the least
responsible. They had done no more than act in obedience
to the f •
eehngs of alarm and suspicion which seemed to per-
vade all classes in .
this country with regard' to the present
or the ultimate •
) e policy of the Emperor of the French.
(Hear, hear.
or by Whitworth Nevertheless, it was not by improved rifles i .
and Anustro ng guns, by now line-of-bat- t '