New-York tribune., 1869-04-10

and growth of the trade; which proves only |
what we allege of its provisions, when we say
that they were all in favor of france ana
nothing at all In favor of free trade for
doctrinal purposes, therefore, it Is the other
side of the questionable improvement III
English exports to Franee-whlch muse 20
figured up to o demonstration. Inc LoiuS
Commissioners Of the Customs, anu INC
successive Chancellors Of the British Exchequer'
have been very industriously working up .no
"caseD for the last three or four years,
apparently with much satisfaction TO theni-
selves. That their conclusions are not quite
conclusive, however, is intimated by the 1acc
that they never get done working at it, ana
good deal of doubt, besides, is indicated by the
zeal with which tho unofficial experts Oh
England display in corroborating them. M
The latest and best effort in this behalf
which we have seen is in The London Economist
of February 10, 1860. The writer is an expert
or an adept evidently. He avoids dlscusslon'
argues nothing and relies upon statistics so
arranged that the simple conclusions drawn
from them seem well supported
The writer begins by giving the international
trade of the two countries for periods OF three
wears next preceding the date (not the opera
tion of the treaty. and the three last years for
which he had complete official returns. His
figures show that the aggregate imports from
Franco lin the years 1s57-8-9 amounted 10
G42,0O0000 sterling and rose in the aggregate
OF the three years 1861 to flU@,oOoOOV, an
increase in eight years of 143 per cent Inc
exports to France in the same three years be-
fore the treaty aggregated f3O,OOO,OOO and rose
in the same three years, since the treaty, TO
f75.O0O. 600, an increase of 149 per cent. very
fair and very even increase of both, GER
tainly. but nothing to the purpose until we
i learn how much of this trade, especially OF inc
exports of England, was foreign goods OF Wliion
tbev were merely the carriers, how much Oh
| gold exported to pay the heavy difference De-
| tween G102 100000 of imports and E75OOo,oVo Oh
exports. and how much of British and Irish pro-
ductions proper went into the aggregate; ana
especially how much of the enhancement was
| fairly due to the operation of the treaty. but
the writer does give, and fairly give, the exports
of British produce in the same periods.
They stand thus: Aggregate OF the last
three years before the treaty E17,5OOOOO;
| aggregate of the last three years since the
treaty, G3300O,0O0; increase in eight years,
! 81 $40 per cent or an average increase OF
| G5.OOO.OOO in year at the distance OF eight
wears, or G5,OOO,OOO more of exports in any one
of the last over any one of the first three years.
| When we look mt tho amounts OF this trade
averaging but E5,sO0,OOO of British exports in
the years 1865, 1865, and 1867, wo are surprised
1 that free trade could do no more for English
| industry in France. Their exports OF their own
produce to us in the first year after the Re-
bellion, 1865, amounted to E2f,25O.OCo Inns
contrast takes the brag ont OF the boasted IN
crease very effectualy. But let us see whether
an increase under free trade in period OIL
eight years Of 81 or SO per cent Is really a
| thing 10 be wondered at For tho purpose ol
comparison we will take an eight-year perlou
Of the same trade before the date of the treaty
The aggregate exports Of British produce to
France. in the three years 1S49, 1850, 1851,
amounted to f6,4O0O0O and, as before stated,
in 1851 1885, 1859, eight years afterward, and
one year before tho date of the treaty, they
rose to Gl75OO, ,OOO-an increase of 174f per cent
very exactly double the rate OF increase
ascribed to the treaty.
| The whole force of The Economists demon
stration is in the comparative values, and the
rate of increased per cent given; and here we
have rate of increase before tho existence OF
the treaty that doubles it, and so destroys the
whole argument from tho statistics produced.
J To show clearly how the treaty has been
operating upon the staples of England in her
trade with France, wo notice by the figures
given in The Economist that before the treaty
the export of iron is put at G192,OOO, and the
average of the three last years falls to
| f6lO090 machinery before the treaty,
Gees e,oOo-avsrage of three last years, f443,333;
cutlery before the treaty, E1130O0-averngo of
| last three years, Gi37,333. An increase IN these
I three grand staples of England of 81 per cent
| in eight years; and the whole OF them put
together at their highest, last, best figure,
amounting to only million and two hundred
thousand year! Has not experience proved
| that France took care of herself against
! England better than we have ever dOneP
| But France made English coal free in her
ports, and its export has increased 40 per cent
! in value, and French workmen have been
sending locomotives and heavy mining ma
chinery back to England in exchange for it--a
little bit of free trade particularly disagreeable
to Lancashire
| The Economist throws the whole stress of its
demonstration upon the English exports in the
I last three years of wOolens, linens and cottons
| abandoning all other articles as showing moth
ing to the purpose. We take its own figures
They show the average per annum in all these
to amount to f3,550,GGG in textiles, and i2O5,-
334 in yarns, ut the highest figure they have
reached Here then we have trade of less
than G5,0O0,0OO rs the only thing that can be
produced to intimate open ports or ar accessi-
BILE market in France for British produce oc-
curing since the date Of the treaty. 1t is
worthy of notice, too, that three -fourths of