The Sun.
London, England, 1842-10-22 00:00:00

Reports are are rife at Paris that negotiations 'are
.o be resumed for concluding a commercial
treaty between England and France. We hear,
too, of commercial treaties with other countries,
and see in some journals supplications for the
Government to negotiate such treaties. Such
reports and supplications remind u's that
the late sagacious Mr. DEACON HUME,
in his evidence before the Import Du-
ties Committee, gave a decided opinion
against all such treaties. lii substance he stated
that he was averse to them, because they
made our legislation dependent on that of
other countries, and might compel our Legisla-
ture to continue or inflict an injustice on some
portion of our own people.
The famous METHUEN treaty with Portugal,
which secured for England a favourable market
for her woollens, on condition that England
levied a discriminating duty in favour of Portu-
guese wines, is an example of such a treaty.
Whatever political considerations might have
dictated it, though subsequent events proved
them to be unsubstantial dreams, it is
now quite plain, and is universally admitted,
' that it was, on the whole, very injurious to
our trade, that it imposed an unjust impost on
the drinkers of wine in England, for the benefit
of the woollen manufacturers, and, raising the
price of woollens somewhat, it did, in reality,
levy a tax on all the consumers of woollens in
England, to put it into the pockets of the master
manufacturers. That treaty really taxed one
class of the people for the benefit of another,
and was, in principle, as unjust an act of spolia-
tion as the Corn-laws. 'W e are inclined to think
that no commercial treaty can be concluded
which will not have such effects, and therefore
the subject is worthy of more consideration than
it receives.
What is a commercial treaty ? A convention
between two States, that each will allow the
ships and goods of the other to enter its ports on
the payment of certain duties, on condition that
the other will allow its ships and goods the same
privileges on the payment of certain other duties.
It binds one State to levy duties to please an-
other. France, we will suppose, epees that.
English bar-iron may be imported into France on
the payment of twenty francs a ton, on condition
that England admits French wines to be imported
on the payment of a penny a gallon. As a re-
laxation of exorbitant duties previously levied in
each country on the commodities of the other
from a principle of spite or jealousy or retalia-
tion, such a treaty at first sight seems a most ex-
cellent measure, and we will not say, as a lessening
of mischief, that it is not praiseworthy; but there
are some considerations which give it a different
appearance. The mutual commerce that is to be
thus fostered would take place to the mutual
profit of the two countries Is ithout any treaty, or
it would not. If it would, it needs po treaty other
than a treaty of peace and mutual kindness,
which, indeed, nations ought to observe towards
one another, whether they have a treaty or not
--and the commercial treaty can be of no use
whatever. If that commerce would not take
place, or not be continued, without the treaty, it
follows that the reciprocal and discriminating
duties by which it is encouraged are, to a certain
extent, bounties on an unproductive trade--a
trade which would not be carried on without
those duties; and the treaty, theretbre, directs
commerce into a comparatively unprofitable
channel. All such treaties, therefcre, are either
unnecessary and useless, or opposed to the natu-
ral laws which regulate the production of wealth,
and consequently mischievous.

Let us, howei,er,• look at them in relation to
e subjects of each State. The duties our Go.
vernment agrees to levy on certain commodities,
in consequence of a treaty with France, nil! be
unfair and unjust to some portions of our people,
or they will not. They will be such duties and
taxes as the Government ought to levy for the
wants of the State, or they will be of a different
character. If they be just, fair, and proper, on
Nvaat pretext can the Government refuse to levy
them, when ha duty requires it to treat the
people fairly and justly, and yet assent to levy
them to please. the. wine-growers and the Go-
vernment of France? If they are otherwise, if
they be unjust, unfair, and improper, will it not
be scandalous in the E'noish Government, a
flagrant violation of its duties to its own subjects,
itntof France? hem, because that serves the suppsed
otel ere
It

At present nearly one half of our revenue is
levied on imported commodities. Although we
cortdemdthe 'exorbitant duties levied on French

able) must be abandoned, or some day or other the
r•Wire social edifice *ill come tumbling about our
ears. This coercive system, always un-Christian, is
now absolutely unsafe. The poor must be treated
not like beasts of burden, but like fellow-Creatures.
Above all, the great body of the poor, who are can-
didates neither for the prison nor the workhouse,
must be elevated above their present position and
circumstances. Too often, now, are they driven into
the ranks of the poachers, or the paupers, by the hard-
hearted indifference of those above them. Their
cottages are demolished, their gardens taken from
them, their harvest work is given to the Irish, even
the gleaning of the fields is now denied them ; and
yet, with lowered wages, and all parish aid taken
away, they are told, " Ye are idle ! ye are idle !"
And the farmer, the steward, the guardian, the Magis-
trate, all concur in one feeling—" We mustn't make
things too comfortable."
A great point is gained for the people, when
we flud one Tory journal showing that the Pre-
mier's measures are complete failures, and an-
other insisting on abolishing the Tory coercive
system, admonishing the Government to treat
the poor like fellow-creatures, or the entire social
edifice will conic tumbling about our ears.
What the Times may understand by the words
" fellow-creatures," we cannot positively say ; but
as the editors and writers in the Times are gen-
tlemen, one of them being a representative of
the people, and the others, no doubt, electors,
they must include, we presume, in their ideas of
treating the poor like fellow-creatures, giving
them all the rights and privileges which belong
to representatives and electors. Anything short
of that will not be treating them like fellow-
creatures. The poor do not want charity, they
want justice. " Chartism, fl eeklif Dispatches, and
Corn-law lecturers," as the Times says, have
carried them far beyond the notion that
they can be served by being made dependent.
They will not be contented unless they arc treat-
ed quite as the felloivs of the rest of the com-
munity, and receive political rights as a means
ofguarding themselves against the re-construction
of the present "unsafe and un-Christian coercive
system." Sir R. PEEL'S difficulties, then, are
only beginning. In addition to being under the
necessity of adopting other measures, pressed on
him by rivals or opponents for the improvement
of commerce, he will have to make the body of
the people comfortable, who are exasperated by
privations, and taught, we believe, by his own
organs, that the system they complain of is tins
Christian, unjust, and cannot last.
Sir R. PEEL is somewhat familiar with the
process of eating his leek. To confess that he
has for years supported a ruinous policy, and to
propose that it be altered, is an old practice
of his. He will have to repeat it on the meeting
of Parliament. He will be obliged again to say,
we apprehend, with bitter and burning shame,
" I was wrong; I holstered up for years, with my
opinion and my votes, a series of laws which have
plunged all classes into distress, and almost
brought the country to despair ; and being now
convinced of that, nothing shall prevent me from
acknowledging my error, and calling en Parlia-
ment to aid me iii repairing the immense mis-
chief we have in common inflicted on the com-
munity." This time, however, it will not be a
party triumph fin the Whigs, who have been as
much the enemies of free trade as he has—and
his measures will go, we are sure, much beyond
the measures they have ever devised; but he will
give a triumph to truth over error—to freedom
over restriction—to the people over the aristo-
eracy—and to the natural laws which determine
the progress of society over the craft of states-
men. If Sir R. PEEL and his party never felt
shame before they will feel it, we believe, next
session, when they will be obliged publicly to
acknowledge that the great and experienced
practitioner is a very ignorant empiric.