The New York herald., 1851-07-15

Il. L.. blackstone,
l. n Leater, Rhode Island b. c. Townsend, New York
J. ID. Phelps, New York r. l.. HAnal, Charleston
L. Lawson, Cincinnati.
The French Legislative Assembly.
SPEECH OF NJ THEIRS AGAINST FREE TRADE.
The Assembly afterwards q me 27) resumed the
discussion on the proposition of NJ St Beuve, tend
ing to introduce the system of free trade into France
M. st. BEuvE, who had not concluded his speech
on the preceding day, rose and contended that
French industry had no rival in the world, aad,
consequently had nothing to apprehend from the
introduction Of free trade. The merchant navy,
which for the last thirty years had remained nearly
stationary, would take considerable development.
In 1872 that navy possessed 3,2l6O 600 tons; and in
1S49 il had only increased to 1864 900. In Eng
land on the contrary, commercial reform had pro-
! duced an augmentation, during the same period,
from iO,0O0 tons to upwards Of l2OO0,0OO The
treaty concluded in 1926, by the Restoration with
England, had been ruinous for France, because it
did not place the two countries ON perfect equa-
lity, and was signed by a government which had
declared by the mouth of Louis XVIII that, 4" after
God, it was to the Price Regent of England he
owed his CROWN M. st. Beuve then recapitu-
lated the increase the customs aud revenues Of
Great Britain had experienced of late, in conse-
| quence Of the reforms Of Sir Robert Peel; and
declared that if the principle he advocated was
adopted, the Assembly would secure to France
new era Of peace, grandeur and prosperity; to the
operative classes, that most sacred property-the
property Of their labor; to national industry and
trade, a Development which monopoly ever check
ed, and the raising Of the merchant navy from a
deplorable inferiority.
M. THEIRS said, he had first Of all to thank NJ.
st. Beuve for bringing forward this great question
of free trade, for il one which Interested not
merely France, but the world. He (M. Thers) was
perfectly convinced, from long observation, that
the system which M. St. Beuve had so ably advo-
Gated, would not suit the condition. the genius, and
habits Of France. M. St. Beuve had asserted that
from 1880 to 1919, the commerce Of France had
been in languishing condition. How was the case
really! England, from 1880 to 1913, when in the
enjoyment Of perfect peace, had nearly doubled her
amount Of exports, the increase being from E3o,-
100000 to GtO, 600. France also had been at
peace duiing that PERIOD and the developement Of
her exports, under different system, was even
more striking, having been in 1880, i52 900 000f,
while in 1919, they were ,O32 O00, ,OO0f Thus, in
England the augmentation was double, while in
France it was triple. II the two systems were to be
appreciated by the results that pursued in France
could not be looked so bad. He felt the great
est admiration for the great ability Of Sir X. Peel
but even that statesman's warmest admirers now
admitted that the change which he had effected SO
abruptly, was one OF immense risk, and that
the country had only supported it-hrst, by
the excessive caution with which the system
was carried out; and, next, by the establishment
Of an income tax which brought in a large re-
turn to the Treasury. In England there was
but little direct taxation, the taxes being, as
much as possible, thrown on articles Of consump-
ton the indirect taxes, in fact were 100000 0OOf,
and the direct one 100, 600 000f, which, with the
stamp and other duties, gave for the whole revenue
Of England about 300 900 OOOf But in France the
case was quite different, as the direct taxes gave
about 40 900 OOOf, the indirect about the same
that while the revenues Of the two countries we're
nearly equal, the manner in which they were made
up was essentially different The system Of Sir X.
Peel profoundly altered the system previously ex-
ising in England, as IL lowered the taxes articles
ofconsumpon, and supplied the difference by means
Of direct income tar. In that change England
initiated France; she had followed, in pacific
manner, the French revolution Of l7s9, ard had in
troduced, under the name Of income tax, what al
ready existed in France. In fact, the income tax Of
England was represented fully in France by the i'm
pct Jcnoo the forc prsonnole, the droa no6ir, the
portes q fot6tres, the pdtcnte duty, &c. But
there was this very material difference be
tween that part Of the two systems, that those
taxes were based on foundation both solid and
easy to be borne, while that in England preseated
nothing Of equality, asd reposed the aristocracy
alone. To establish an additional income tar in
France would be Of extreme difficulty, If not utterly
impossible, and consequently that portion Of M.
ST. Beuves plan, If not greatly modified, could not
be introduced. Everything protected in France,
corn cattle, manufacturer, silk, wine even-every-
thing in fact. Still NJ. st. Beuve argues that
they are so inefhcienty and so unequay protected,
that the protection is quite illusory, and that
sequtntly il would be better to do away with the
pretended protection and introduce the system Of
free trade. Corn, observed M. St Beuve, was not
really protected, the sliding scale amounted to
nothing. But how could that be, when it was as
certained by that scale that the remunerating price
Of wheat in the South was 23f the hectolitre, and
IN the Nord 1sfl And then, when the price fell
and yet II was asserted that it gave no protection
Was the honorable gentleman not aware that when
French wheat fell TO I3f. the hectotre the addi-
tional tax on Odessa wheat WIS Isf 80 that the
protection smounted 10 100 per cent Take eff the
protective duty, says NJ. 81. Bcuve, and agricu-
ture will at once profit by IL. But agriculture
could only be benefited by selling its corn dear.
The problem, therefore, TO be solved was, to have
corn dear and bread cheap at the same moment
and in the same country. But that was impossible;
for bread could not be cheap while corn was dear
and consequently M St. Beuve's system could noe
at the same time benefit the sgriculturst, whose
interest II was to sell his dear, and the work
man, whose Interest 1t was to buy the bread Of his
family cheap. The possessors Of land in England
and in France were not Of the same description
the former sefe rich class, being, in fact the aris-
tocracy, and able TO support, 70 certain xten the
change which had been INTRODUCED into England; but
in France the people the land owners ach with
asmail parcel Of ground belonging y himself, and
the whole mass constituting the ariAocracy OF the
country. These latter were not euch class az
could support the sacrifices consented to In Eng
land by her powerful arstocracy. In England, at |
present. II found necessary to import each year
nt arly 30 900 hectoltres Of corn but as she Was
maritime power, she made up, TO a cetain extent, |
for that immense necessity OF importation. Eng |
land laid claim to the sovereignty Of the sea, and
no doubt she was great maritime power. He did |
not turn into ridicule the claims Of any country
for the vanity which was laughable in an indivi-
dual was noble feeling in nation, and prompted |
its habtants to great deeds. (Iesr, hear) Well,
them England, IL not in the enjoyment Of the sove-
reignty o the sea, at least infinitely superior to
France in ler merchant shipping. She could, con-
So eauently afACrd loss at home on any article Of |
produce, since such loss presented a compensating
tide by the employment which IL gave to her ship
ping interest. Bun was France N that position /
BY no means Her inaratime trade was no. Of such /
n wfr A all