HC Deb 19 July 1881 vol 263 cc1264-5
MR. JACKSON

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is true that in the negotiations for a Commercial Treaty with France Her Majesty's Government henceforth admits without contestation the principle of specific duties; and, if he can relieve the anxiety which prevails throughout the Country by an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will conclude no Treaty with France which will impose higher duties on any goods of British manufacture imported into France than those under the existing Treaty?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Sir, I have been requested by the Prime Mi- nister to answer this Question. I find that, in the Question, the words quoted are those from a newspaper article, which cause the supposition to prevail that fresh communications have taken place between the two Governments. In answer to the hon. Member, I would refer him to the reply given 10 days previously on the subject of specific duties by the Prime Minister, and would further inform him that no communication has taken place between the English and the French Governments on the subject since the French Commission left London. Therefore, the position remains unchanged. It will be impossible to give a general assurance of the kind asked for. It may be the duty of the English Government to complete a Treaty in which some duties may be raised and others lowered upon goods of more importance to British trade.

MR. JACKSON

asked whether the Government had accepted the principle of specific duties?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Sir, I think I am justified in replying, in general terms, that we have not objected in principle to specific duties. As was said the other night on the Motion of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), the Government has never objected in principle to specific duties, which are levied by almost all the nations of Europe; but we have not consented to them as regards some articles which are the subjects of trade between this country and France, especially cheap and heavy cotton and woollen goods, because it is almost impossible to find a specific duty which will correctly represent the equivalent of ad valorem duty. It is not so much a matter of principle, but one of almost insuperable difficulty in finding an equivalent to an ad valorem duty.