The New York herald., 1870-05-17
ENGLAND.
FREQ Trade ON Protection-The Commercial
Relations With France.


Free Trade ON Protection-The Commercial
Relations With France.
In the English House OF Commons on the 80 Of May,
Mr. BIRLEy Ia moving for SELF. Z committee 70 III.
treaty with Fran all branches OF trade which t
aiects, commented upon the complaints m0des Dy
the Tsa' csntss % tns peay 2. ana ursS H
failed to nnd additional employment Tor the opera
tives and as 1--WE were doing less business tnan we
had anticipated we were justified In asking Tor PET
ter terms from the french government. All he asked
was an inquiry which would not In any Way commit
the county to a reversal OF the principles OF Tree
Mr.. S. HILL was OF opinion that the area OF the
laboss OF the proposed COMMITTEE ought 10 % en-
larged and moved, as an amendment 10 tne pro-
position OF Mr.. Blrey, that the selest commlssee
should inquire as to the effect upon the commerce
lnrnts with foreign countries. The honorable and
learned gentleman contended that the treaty naa
failed to realize the expectations formed Of III tnat
II had Increased pauperism and deprecated many
branches OF trade Under these circumstances re-
ialiatIon against foreign countries was neither
against policy, precedent nor common sense.
SIR r. BAILEY denied that trade was IN the pros
trate condition descr. bed by Mr. Hill, aud read ex-
oca Snew a e
in the ribbon, watch, glove and. trimming trades,
and that machinists found plenty OF employment Ia
making velocipedes There Was nothing whttever
to excite alarm; on the contrary so long as we had
abundance OF the raw material and continued 60
produce the pest article, We hid no reason 10 dreau
competition with the foreigner.
The motion was opposed by Mr. LrDDELL on the
ground mat was an attack on the french Treaty ana
That Il would tend 10 throw doubt upon its success
Tns only argument favor OF inquiry was the ignor-
ance that existed the subject on the part OF some
portions working classes but ne questioned the
expeliency OF reniOvinA that ignorance by return-
Ing to a policy oil letrogression
necessary as there was nothing connected with the
sub ect On which abundant information Was not ac.
cessiple. Neither was there such prevalence OF
bad trade as w0d justify the apgo .ntment 0I COM
mlttee He admitted that the silk trade aad SUFFERED
but he reminded the House mat IA years gone w,
when IL enjoyed protection equivalent 70 eighteen OF
tudes. To appoint the committee would be TO throw
slur on the French treaty, wnch, though not per,
developed nlany new branches or Industry.
MIR. 5. CAVE regretted that the government was
nW, ta ao " rer gIa@s an eod G be- used
he thought IL would be We'll TO give those who con-
sdered themselves 10 be aggrlevsd an opportunity
OF stating their case In expressing this Upini0n
however, he wished to repudate the idea OF being
considered an advocate OF protection:
The debate was continued by Mr. Wneelnouse, Mr.
Pollard. .Urquhart, Mr.. J. Melden, MIR. Crawford, Mr..
A. Pell ana Mr.. HILBERT.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE ExCHEQURR hoped the
House would not consent 10 grant the coinmittve,
tn. effect OF which would be Onlv TO strengthen he
protecttOnist pditu In France. who would avail
ment 10 put an end to the treaty He confessed That
ne viewed the opject OF the motion with extreme
suspciOn as he believed that the Treaty was merely
stalking horse and that tie real intention was 10
establish a 9etrOOrIde p0.icv ana TO OvefturH me
soho'e system orrse uade. Nothing but nischiei ~
COuli result from tle inquiry, biu Hc WdIuou tHo
House not to have anything to DO with 1t.
The motion was warmly supported by Mr.. Newde-
gate, and as warmly opposed by Mr. Del.nunty.
Tue amen iment OF Mr.. Hill having been with
drawn tie main question Was put and negatlved by
13S 10 %.
What the London Press Says.
The London Times Of May declares that the
triumph OF free trade never appeared more nrmly
ablshed that 1t Was throughout ne debl lt'. "fhe
history Of the operation OF the f. ench treaty is be
fore lheiworld, and the theory OF It's operation hai
b. explained over and over again. IL Is acknOw
lodged by every one, even Dy those who impu n
It, that it has enormously increased our trade with
France.n
The London Post considers that the debate served
the htgny useful purpose OF placing matters In their
true light. ana showing that substa I'll lilly, Englanl
and France, so far from being dissatisfied with the
arrangements which they made with view to their
mutual benefit, have no desire to modify It. LIVERY
one .eels that protection Is dead and bur.ed."
The London Standard says the real question was
not whether the free trade theory was right or not
but whether a certain specific engagement with
France, entered into av0wedly independently OF
free trade, obtained all that in fiirness England
hal right to get In exchange for what she CON
ceded.
The London Ne,os believes that the debate will dc
more til IN explode reciprocity; 1t will reassure
| those who felt some doubt about the condition o
English trade.
Acco dag 10 the telegraph the assertion that the
w0 king classes are In body opposed to the treaty
Is n mere m ytn.