The Sun.
London, England, 1866-01-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JANUARY 12, 1866.

right shareholders should know the position they had
been placed in by other parties in reference to the
traffic. It appeared that Mr. Bell -wanted them
to withdraw the bills for which notices had been
given, and his amendment ended Ity requesting
that negotiations be entered into with other com-
panies. He (Mr. Bell) did not tell them that he
was the bearer of the olive branch. No ; but he
had told them the Brighton Company -would not
negotiate with them, and concluded by asking the
South-Eastern Company to withdraw their bills. He
quite agreed with Mr. Bell that the policy formerly
adopted by the South-Eastern Board was a wrong
one, and had endeavoured to induce a different
policy, so as to have preservedtheir district intact by
making lines which were absolutely required to ac-
commodate it. As to the question of proposed new
capital he (Mr. Watkin) saw how it could be re-
duced. He thought that no one could blame them
for making a line to Richmond, because it would pay.
Tkc proposed Brighton line would be as good as the
existing line, and would have the great advantage
of having more stations in London than the existing
line. He believed they would get half the traffic,
and as the traffic from London to Brighton was not
less than £300,000 a year they would get £150,000.
From his 20 years' experience of railways he believed
that the proposed line would be made for less money I
than the estimates. If the Brighton shareholders
present were there to form a bridge of peaceor were
prepared to submit to arbitrationwhich was required
for the accommodation of the public, he would en-
tertain
that question. Whether the directors were to
blame or not, there was the green lane on the map
in the room, and he maintained that it was an injury
to the South-Eastern Company. He complained that
Mr. Bell's circulars had been sent only to certain
shareholders as private and confidential communi-
cations, but when he and other directors heard of
those proceedings they thought it best to call the
shareholders together and meet them face to face.
It was a question whether the South-Eastern share-
holders were to be allowed to settle their own

affairs, or whether they were to follow the advice of
shareholders interested in other companies. He
then showed that several professional gentlemen,
who had business connexions, had been acting in
the late movement with a view to bring about the
rejection of those bills, and a favourable state of
things for the advantage of another company. Hold-
ings of £9O and £lOO in the stock of the company
had been recently transferred into the names of
some active and influential gentlemen to bring
about that result. A circular by the Brighton
Company had been issued in the nick of time,
stating that no negotiations whatever with the
Brighton were pending. Although the directors'
circular did not say that there were any with that
company, if they came before Parliament the whole
matter would be sifted, and they would probably
find out that things had been done which no com-
pany ought to have done. They had been told that
there was some unseen influence at the board.
That was a most unfair insinuation, and he believed
it was unfounded. If any one would bring them
terms of peace he would be glad to meet him. It
was important they should maintain those projects.
The liabilities under the bills were not exactly as
stated by Mr. Bell. The public would be asked to
take shares in them; there was no other responsi-
bility than the working of the traffic, and, of course,
the. interest on capital would go to suspense ac-
count during construction. He was totally opposed
to giving estimates of traffic, but from a statement
by Mr. Eborall, their manager, including an item
of £42,000 for accidents in their expenses, the divi-
dend, instead of being 1 or 2 per cent., as stated,
would be close upon 4i per cent. In 10 years their
traffic had increased 35 per cent., while the mileage
had only increased 8 per cent. No one could say
what the traffic between London and the Continent
would amount to in a few years hence. About 50
years ago the population of London was 1,000,000,
and it was now above 3,000,000, and if it went on
increasing at the same rate in 20 years hence
it would be 4,500,000. Owing to the pres-

sure a few years ago on the directors for closing
the capital account of the company, many good op-
portunities had been lost by which the company
might have profited considerably. The policy of non-

extension was a great mistake, and it was now

dent that they should take a large and comprehen,
sive view of their position. (Cheers.)

Mr. G. Smrrit, as an old shareholder, asked Mr.
Bell to withdraw his amendment.
After some observations from Mr. NORTON and

Mr. BEAVIS,

Mr. EBORALL explained that they found, with re-
ference to the operations of the Charing-cross line
on the traffic of the South-Eastern Company, that
it had increased £82,000 in one year.
Mr. BELL said he could not withdraw his amend-
ment, as proxies had been given in favour of it ; but
he and those with him would enter into a friendly
communication, with a view to bring the two boards

together. (Hear, hear.)
The CHAIR3IAN thanked Mr. Bell for his offer.
Mr. 'WITHERS strongly recommended the meeting
to support the directors' resolution.
The amendment was then, on a show of hands,
negatived, and the motion was carried.

A poll was demanded by Mr. Bell, and the meet
ing was adjourned till Saturday (to-morrow) to re
ceive the result of the poll.

A vote of thanks to the chairman so far concluded
the business.

A Railway Guard Convicted of Stealing
from a Train.

At the Worship-street Police-court, yesterday,
Thomas Davey, a guard working on the Woolwich
line of railway, was charged with stealing from a
luggage-van while on transit between Mile-end and
Ipswich.

Twist, formerly attached to the metropolitan
division of police, and now employed by Mr. Super-
intendent Kent, of the Great Eastern line of rail-
way, as a detective, said—On Wednesday morning
I entered the back compartment of a second-class
carriage in the 7.15 train, Parliamentary, from
London to Colchester, and immediately next to it
was the luggage brkae-van, and my instructions
were to watch it. I got in at the Bishopsgate ter-
minus, and on reaching the Mile-end station, the
first at which the train stops, I distinctly felt a
vibration of the buffers, as though some person was
treading on them to pass over into the six-foot way
or middle of the line. I looked through the window,
and although nearly dark perceived a man close to
the luggage-van, standing as if privately engaged.
As the train began to move off, however, he sud-
denly unlocked the door of the van, entered, and
closed it. Just as the train entered Stratford the door
was again opened, and he alighted with a basket and
bundle, which he did not have when he entered,
and made his way across to the opposite platform.
I followed and called to him, and said I wished to
see the contents of his luggage, took him into a se-
cond-class carriage, and found the bundle contained
a sailor's jacket, and the basket a pair of boots. He
said all wore his own property, and that he was
going to take them to Woolwich. I conveyed him
back to London, and gave him up to my superin-
tendent. He wore his guard's uniform.
Mr. Ellison--Do you, prisoner, wish to ask any
questions ?

Prisoner—l wish to say that I did not cross the

buffers.

Mr. H. Kent—l am superintendent of police on
the Great Eastern line. When the last witness
brought the prisoner to me I questioned the latter as
to his possession of the articles. He said that they
belonged to his brother-in-law, who was a foreman
at Woolwich, and that he was, when taken into cus-
tody, going there with them. He could not
give me any address of his relative, but named his
own as being at 40, Oxford-street, Whitechapel. I
instantly telegraphed to Ipswich for inquiry to be
made as to any sailors having proceeded by the train
in question, and if so, to ascertain whether they had
lost anything. I then proceeded to Woolwich, made
search for prisoner's brother-in-law, could not learn
about such a person, and on returning found an
answer to my telegram. The owners of the pro-
perty had been found, but not without some diffi-
culty, as their luggage was fastened up so neatly it
did not appear to have been touched. The men are

'I now present by my direction to claim the things,
and their evidence will complete the case.
John Lewis and James Milne, both sailors, iden-
tified, one of them the jacket, and the other the
boots, his best. They had seen their luggage placed
safely, in the brake-van mentioned.

Mr. Ellison—Am Ito assume that you, Mr. Kent,
placed the detective in the position he named in
consequence of previous robberies by this means ?
Mr. Kent—There certainly had been robberies,
and I felt convinced that some person was prowling
about who was not likely to be suspected. The
prisoner entered the Great Eastern Company's
service as a porter about six years since, and has
been a guard on the Woolwich line eight months.
He is one of the last men who, from his apparent
good conduct, could be supposed guilty of stealing.
When I told him that two sailors had claimed the
property and were coming to London, he admitted
having taken it from the van, declaring at the same
time it was his first offence.

Prisoner—lt is, I assure you, sir ; and lam very
sorry for what I have done.

Mr. Kent—Before the train started I took the
precaution to have the door of the luggage-van
secured on the down side, so that it was compulsory
to open that on the other.

Mr. Ellison—Robberies by servants are, at all
times, great offences. A certain amount of confi-
dence must necessarily be placed in such persons,
and where they succeed in avoiding detection, sus-
picion, and at times the worst results follow to those
who are perfectly innocent. Yours is an especially
bad case, and but for these sailors having to pro-
ceed immediately to sea, thereby rendering it im-
possible for them to attend before a jury, I would
most certainly send you for trial, if only as a warn-
ing to others. As it is, you must go for six months'
hard labour.

Another Death from Destitution and Neglect

Yesterday afternoon an inquiry was held by Mr.
Humphreys, coroner, at the Duke of Cambridge
Tavern, Felix-street, Cambridge-heath, relative to
the death from destitution of Margaret Fairservis,
aged 48.
The deceased was a member of a very well-to-do
family, but being of somewhat weakened intellect
(her family alleged that she was simply given to
drink) she had sunk into a state of the most miser-
able poverty, and received no effectual aid from her
relatives.
Mrs. Annie Miller, 2, Victoria-street, Hackney,
said she was the wife of an oilman. The deceased
was her sister, and worked as a sempstress until six
months ago, when she became unable to follow that
avocation. " I used," said the witness, "to give
her relief every Monday. She always came for it.
I used to send it out to the door to her generally;
she used not to come inside my door ; she was
not fit, not clean. I gave her a shilling and some
bread and tea, and some meat when I had any left.
When I met her in the street I would give her 3d.
or more, but she used to go into the publichouse and
spend it.
Coroner—Did you see her do that ?
Witness--No, I did not. But I know she did it
and I often saw her drunk. She had two brothers.
both well off. James Fairservis gave her ls. a week,
but William never gave her anything, although ht
had £lO, and often £2O a week. She would not lei
me go to her room, or know where she lived, and
her temper was very bad. She once tried to take a
knife to my husband. A few days ago the deceased
called upon her very ill, and said that the hospital
told her she would die of disease of the heart if she
went out in the street. Witness offered her a bed to
take home, but she declined it, saying she was going
into the hospital. On Saturday her niece came to
tell her that " Old Moggy" was very ill. Witness
took her 35., and next day took her a bed, &c., and
some underclothing. Witness was going to take her
to the workhouse on Tuesday in a cab ; but she
died on Monday.
In answer to a juror, witness said that on Sunday
she took deceased a chemise and a bedgown. Wit.
ness did not know whether the deceased had either
of those articles on. She had something which wit-
ness was afraid to look at or touch.
Louisa Emmerton, 27, Matilda-street, Bethnal-
green, said that since August last deceased lodged
with her and paid ls. 3d. a week. Witness was never
in her room until Saturday, when a friend, a person
of French descent, called to see her. The only fur-
niture in the room was a bedstead, not a bed, and
a table. The deceased was sitting on the bedstead
clad in one garment. She was deplorably dirty,
and the room was in the same state. On the previ-
ous Thursday night witness had seen her take her
cape to a leaving'ishop. There was an old meat pie
in the room, but deceased could not eat it. Wit-
ness gave her food, but she could not eat much.
The Frenchwoman, Mrs. O'Blein, went and got a
parish order for the deceased, and witness sent in
every direction for the relatives of the deceased, and
at last found out her brother at 9, Prospect-place,
a confectioner. The same night her sister came and
brought things to her.
This witness also said that the deceased was given

to habits of intoxication, but nearly all the jury said
that they had seen her daily for years, and they
never saw her drunk. Latterly, however, she was
not very " sharp," and people would mistake that
for the effect of drink.

Mr. C. Walsh, parish surgeon, said that he visited
deceased on Saturday at noon under an order. She
was in a most destitute condition, having no bed, and
scarcely any clothing. Witness certified that she
ought to be at once taken into the workhouse in-
firmary, and told the persons about her to send to
the workhouse at once. He heard no more until
Monday night, when he was sent for and found her
dying. There was then a bed and a fire in the room,
but deceased died. The post-mortem examination
showed that she was much emaciated. She died
from suffocation from asthma. There was no disease
of the heart. In a case of asthma, clothing, bedding,
and warmth from fuel were essentially necessary.
The want of them accelerated the deceased's death.
The internal organs showed no trace of drinking
habits.

A juror said that the deceased was well known in
the neighbourhood for years. She had been used as
a klud of serf or drudge to do dirty work until she
got ill, and then she was sent adrift by those who
could well have afforded to support her.
The Coroner said that the case was a most shock-
ing one in every respect. The deceased had about
2s. a week to live upon, and after paying is. 3d. for
rent she could hardly have spent much upon drink,
as was alleged.

The jury returned a verdict, " That the deceased
was found dead from the mortal effects of asthma,
accelerated by destitution, by want of clothing to
wear, and by the want of bedding, warmth at night,
and necessaries generally, through the neglect of her
relatives." The jury added that the parish was in
no way to blame in the case, and that they desired
to censure the relatives alone.

During the proceedings it was mentioned that
the relatives of the deceased, who stated that they
did not know of the extreme poverty of deceased,
" would bury her well."

After the dose of the case, however, Mrs. Miller,
the sister, demanded her fee as a witness for giving
evidence, and on being refused, she said, " I in-
tended to have buried my sister, but now that I am
refused the fee I shall leave her to be buried by the
parish just as they like."

THE MURDER NEAR ABERDARE.—There is strong
probability of the mystery which for the time being
surrounds this horrible tragedy being cleared away, as far
as circumstantial evidence can clear it up. Since the ex-
amination of Coe, it has transpired that on the day of the
missing of the youth Davies he borrowed a small hatchet
of a gardener, for the alleged purpose of cutting some wood
to make a hen coop. The woman of the house where he
then lodged, and also his companions, say they never heard
him express any desire or intention of making a hen coop;
and if he did make one, they never heard anything about
it. The hatchet was not returned that day, nor for many
days afterwards. Indeed, the gardener says he should not
have had it back at all had he not pestered the prisoner
for it. At last it was returned, but very dirty and very
rusty, as though it had been buried in the earth. The
hatchet was unsuspectingly put by. It is now, it is said,
in the hands cf the police, who have caused a minute ex-
amination of it to be made, with very important results.
On Monday a further piece of information cropped out. In
the first:week in September—the same week as.the murder
—a common pocket handkerchief, saturated with blood,
was found in this same wood.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.-It takes some time fully to realise the
true nature and extent of so great a calamity as the
rinderpest seems likely to prove itself. The infliction
under which we are suffering is on a scale, and ac-
companied with a virulence and intensity such as no
living inhabitant of this country has witnessed.
Whether the rinderpest be the same as the smallpox
or not, it reminds us most forcibly of those times
when that dreadful pestilence stalked through the
land without the suggestion of any possible cure,
and before the discovery of a preventive in vaccina-
tion. There was then the most imminent risk that
the loveliest face might be turned into a hideous
mask, and the strongest health shattered or de-
stroyed, by a cause which no one could calculate on
or control, against which there seemed to be no
means of guarding beforehand, and against the viru-
lence of which medicine was powerless. No doubt,
then, the smallpox was the cause of very great misery,
but it, after all, only anticipated a fate for which all
living are sooner or later destined. In an artificial
state of society there is somebody to gain by every-
body's death, somebody ambitious to fill the place
ain't() inherit the clients, the patients, or the property
of the departed. But in the case,of a visitation like
the cattle plague all is pure loss. The owner loses,
but nobody else gains. The cattle that are swept
away were never intended to die a natural death,
and the food and capital of the country are dimi-
nished without any compensation whatever. The
loss, though it will doubtless ultimately be divided
among the whole community, falls with crushing
and almost irresistible weight on a single class in
the first instance. Our present system of agricul-
ture is so entirely dependent on the feeding of stock
that we cannot wonder at the dismay with which
such a visitation has filled the tenant-farmers
throughout the country, and that large and most
influential class a main part of whose income con-
sists of rent. If the tenant loses his stock, he is
threatened with something little short of ruin from
the mere pecuniary value of the capital destroyed,
to say nothing of the prospective injury to his cul-
tivation from the want of manure. No wonder, then,
that the panic on all sides becomes greater and
greater, and that the desire of efficient prevention,
or of indemnity if that prevention cannot be ob-
tained, becomes every day more urgent. In one re-
spect it certainly appears to us that the agricultural
interest have good right to complain. With the
disease increasing terribly week by week—.we might
say day by day—the measures which are taken for
its suppression are notoriously and avowedly not the
best that the case admits of. The Government can-
not be charged justly with neglecting the subject;
perhaps it is evee more rightly accused of over-legis-
lation. If the mere issuing of an infinity of orders
be a proof of diligence and industry, the Govern-
ment has not been wanting in that respect. Shortly
after the outbreak of the disease the Privy Council
came into the field as a legislator, and has produced
on this subject a code voluminous enough to suffice
for the legislation of a whole city in the earlier days
of Greece or of Rome. Nor, while we accord to
the Government the praise of diligence, are we dis-
posed to speak harshly of the form which its ideas
in the first instance took. It believed, not at all un-
naturally, that for a disease scattered so widely over
the country the best remedy that could be found
would be the agency of local authorities; and so it be-
gan with the smallest units of local authority it could
find, and intrusted to them such powers as seemed
to be necessary for the purpose it had in view.
It also appointed a commission, composed of per-
sons who, until they made their report, were con-
sidered competent for the duty assigned to them.
The Commission made a distinct recommendation,
on which the Government did not choose to act,
but it is only fair to say that three very important
members of the Commission—Lord Spencer, Lord
Cranbourne, and Mr. Reed—dissented from the
recommendation, so that the Government may be
excused if it took the opinion of the minority in-
stead of the majority. It is also certain that, if it
had been left for public opinion to decide, the Re-
port of the majority of the Commission would not
have been accepted as a safe basis for action at the
time it was made. So far, then, we think it would
be unfair and uncandid to find any serious fault
with the Government ; but here, we fear, is the
limit up to which its exculpation is possible. The
Government might be excused for not being con-
vinced by the reasonings of the Commissioners, but
it ought, we think, to have yielded long before this
to the logic of facts. At any rate, for the last six
weeks there is no excuse for saying that we do not
know the real character and true danger of the
Rinderpest from our own sad experience, and without
reference to the annals of any other country. We
have learnt, without entering into any questions of
curiosity as to its origin or as to the possibility of
its being spontaneously generated, that for all prac-
tical purposes it may be considered a contagious
disease, the most contagious, probably, of which
we have any knowledge, and that against it there
are at present two practical remedies—circumscrip-
tion and slaughter in its earliest stages, and the
prohibition of the movement of cattle afterwards.
Government has given us both these remedies, but,
unfortunately, neither of them in a way to be effi-
cient. It began by slaughtering cattle, but at the
same time took no efficient precaution against the
spread of the disease. It then adopted the prin-
ciple of preventing movement, but it delegated that
power to such an infinity of authorities, leaving
each liberty to make such a number of exceptions,
that the whole plan has became a mass of confusion,
and the disease runs its course with daily increasing
virulence. It has been shown by the most un-
answerable arguments that a power fraught with
such great inconvenience to the public as the pre-
vention of the movement of cattle ought to be ex-
ercised in such a manner as to make that incon-
venience as short as possible, and to give those who
suffer it the greatest possible advantage in ex-
change. It is shown that the matter is much more
of Imperial than of local concern, and that there
would be enormous advantage in the application of
simple and uniform rules, even on the supposition,
which is nob the fact, that every local authority was,
or would be likely to remain, eager and zealous in
the discharge of its duty. Until the Government
has taken the thing into its own hands, and issued
one General Order for the whole country, it is im-
possible to say that it has done everything in its
power to relieve the grazing interest from the
terrible scourge under which it is suffering. We hold
that it is the duty of Government to do everything
possible in this direction under a calamity so new
and so terrible ; and its timidity is the more repre-
hensible, because it cannot and does not for a

moment pretend that the duty which it devolves on
local authorities should not be discharged by itself.
It is simply from fear of unpopularity, from the
dread of an outcry against centralization, from that
abject terror of responsibility which seems to be be-
coming every day more and more the characteristic

of our statesmen, that the Government deserts the

country in this great strait, and leaves it to fight with
confessedly inferior weapons against ax enemy who
puts forth his whole strength and knows neither
fear nor mercy. We want all, and more than
all, the power we can bring into the field against
our antagonists, and of a very considerable por-
tion of that power we are deprived by the un-
willingness of the Government to take upon itself
a responsibility which flows necessarily from its
duty. This conduct is the more to be lamented,
because, by refusing to do its duty to the public in
this particular, the Government not only protracts
the existence of a most formidable calamity, but
also furnishes arguments against itself very difficult
to meet. The cry for a general system of insur-
ance, under the management of the Government,
against the ravages of the rinderpest—in other
words, for an indemnification out of the national

purse—is again raised, and, unless the British far-
mer is very much altered from what he was fourteen
or fifteen years ago, will be pressed with increasing
vigour. Mr. Gladstone has very properly antici-
pated the pressure that is to be put upon him by a
refusal to accede to the demand, and, as far as the

general argument goes, we adn'lit the force of his
reasoning. But will he not be placed in consider-
able difficulty when he comes to be pressed. as he
certainly will be, with the argument that Govern-
ment had in its own hands the means of stopping
the pestilence ' • that it did not dare to use those
means ; and that it is, therefore, bound to in-

demnify the grazier against mischiefs caused, not by
the visitation of Providence, but by its own timidity
and want of zeal for the public service? We hope
the Government will at length bestir itself in this

matter—first, because we wish that every one should
do his duty; and next we do not wish by the default

of the Government to see the evil precedent esta-
blished of saddling the general revenue with the
1 losses incurred by any particular occupation.
HERALD.-The- Ministry regards the Anglo-Aus-
trian Treaty of Commerce as a doting mother does
her only child. Just as the poor woman finds in
her offspring all the virtues and talents given to
humanity, is never tired of lauding its wit
or even of expatiating upon its good looks,
the Ministry, by its mouthpieces, . goes into
raptures over its one sorry diplomatic achievement,
and tries to make the public discover in a
ridiculous fiasco the merits of a great act of states-
manship. The treaty is merely a contract, by
which England buys from Austria, at a large
sacrifice of revenue, concessions which she might
have obtained, if she. would have waited a short
time, for nothing, and the full benefit of which, if
benefit there be in them, will be at once given gratis
to our competitors in Austrian markets. The Eng.
lish Government engages to recommend Parliament
to abolish the duty on wood, and to reduce the duty
on wine in bottles to that payable on wine in casks.
It would be consistent, of course, with the letter of ,

this engagement, to charge wine in bottle according
to its alcoholic strength, just as wine in wood is now
charged, and to continue to levy the highest rate
wines with a large percentage of alcohol ; but all
a plan would be so cumbrous and costly—wcrli,
leave so much room. for fraud—that it may be na1,;,.e,"5
assumed that the Minister will propose to eclunu'
the duty at Is. per gallon. If wine were still to be
charged according to its alcoholic strength, the coil'
cession would not be much worth to the Austrian
wine producer. This concession now made to AO'
tria has been refused to France and the Zollverein
it is the price of the Austrian tariff modificatiot.
Let us see what they are worth, and what value
to be attached to the promise given English ;manu-
facturers of a large market for English goods in ,tu
Austrian empire. Austria engages to admit articles;
the produce or manufacture of the dominions of her
Britannic Majesty, from Jan. 1, 1867, that is to
12 months hence, at a duty which shall not excee
" 25 per cent. of the value, with the addition of the
cost of transport, insurance, and commission nec,,,e'•
sary for the transport into Austria as far as w„/
Austrian Customs frontier ;" and this maximinn
25 per cent. is to be reduced to 20 per ee%f
calculated after the same fashion, from the Ist ~s'e
January, 1870. The ad valorem duties are to Ps
converted into specific duties by commission,err
from both countries, who are to meet not later
than March, 1866. There are provisions for a
,
revision of the values at the option of either of the
contracting parties, and the treaty is to be in force
for a period of 10 years. What does the concession
n
amount to ? A duty of twenty-five per cent•°d
the value of the goods, augmented by traissport7,
~,
other charges, will be a duty which, upon 05
classes of goods, will amount to much more than „
protection of twenty-five per cent. to the Austrian
producer, and against these advantages the English
manufacturer will, generally speaking, struggl„:b
vain. There are, of course, certain goods visii've
Austria does not produce in any quantity which
0
always has had from England and must continneo
have from England ; but an advantage of 25 and .0
per cent,—really by the mode in which the duties
are to be calculated considerably more--w
than compensate the Austrian manufacturer for tr,
greater cost of production, a difference which is die
minishing every year. The manufacturers of
Zollverein, many of whom are placed in as favc`-d:
able a condition for production as those of England'
complain that duties much below those which ;",
to be imposed on English goods exclude them from
competition in the Austrian market, and these duttto
ill ni°,7
of 25 and 20 per cent. will be found with regard IA
many articles practically prohibitory. No d°ll
the general effect of the stipulation will be to ~p,,
duce the duties now levied by Austria upon Eng far
goods, but so long as the reduction does not go the
enough to enable the English goods which paY ~0.
duty to be sold at the same price as Austrian P`he
duce of the same quality it is of no benefit to t
British manufacturer. A duty of 25 per cent. Mi,
be in effect as prohibitory as one of 200 per el,
The organs of the Government are compelled to ae ,
mit that the concession does not look a large °ll,
but they insist that Austria is not bound to le '"
these maximum duties, that she may, if she please`'
agree to much lower ones when the duties are ar-
ranged. Of course, but is she likely to do so ? Thee
argue that she will, because the ice is broken, b
first step taken, the past broken with, and so 0-00
very unsafe data upon which to found reasoningwe
questions of commercial or political economy. eat
do not think she will, because she will have negroo
reason to do so. It is very probable that, 11 kese
English Government had not entered into
0,
negotiations, Austria would very shortly have e„,,,
tered upon a thorough career of economical refor'i"o
But the eagerness of the English Government 3
get a treaty of some kind, its readiness to PnYi,
high price for such concessions as maximum duties
of 25 and 20 per cent., will furnish Austrian sta;b 005
men with excellent reasons for believing that to
adoption of free trade is rather a concessioni.,s,
foreign manufacturers than a boon to native inu've
try, or induce them at least to believe that they Ilea
gone far enough when their concessions are hail
with so much delight by the English Governl%,
and its supporters. Duties fixed by a treaty Oely
eluded for a term of only ten years are very rarieft
altered during the treaty. Their modification is
~'OO
to be arranged between the contracting parties v7l'sts
the approaching termination of the treaty suggeivg
the expediency and affords the occasion for enter.bio
into a new arrangement. It is, of course, Poss,lry
that the present or some future Austrian Min's cre
may frankly adopt a free-trade policy, and re-arranirr,
the tariff upon the principle of making its sole 11.itit
pose the legitimate one of yielding a revenue. P,,gh
if there is to be such a Ministry, if the Eng'ge
manufacturer is to have that advantage, of what lif),
is the treaty ? The old Austrian tariff was so
ia,he
surd that a sweeping revision was inevitable.
extravagance of the duties compelled the attent''e
of the Government to the question. The new
virtually established by the treaty with Englalip
whilst being practically as prohibitive in many
,r":
spects as the old one, will appear sufficiently m°“o,
rate, and can be defended by the Austrian proteo
tionists with far more effect. But at present if;
have only to deal with the terms of the treaty itse
the nods and winks which Baron Wullerstorff .si
have given Lord Bloomfield have nothing t°
with that question, and we are very much aural
"d
that our manufacturers will find the promised
for admission to which they are to wait a twel'tb",
month, barred as effectually against them, 011
Ist January, 1867, as it was on the Ist Janll3oo
1866. A special article of the treaty reduces
00
duty on salted herrings to 50 kreutzer the Cust°,,ot
100 cwt. from the Ist February next. We do ro
pretend to know the exact value of this cone:110h
to the British fishery trade, but we are very ble
inclined to believe that it is about the most valtls
concession made to British produce and mantlso
,fac
tures by the treaty which has been bought a°
serious a sacrifice.