HC Deb 13 February 1860 vol 156 cc957-62
MR. HORSMAN

said, he rose to put a Question to the Government with respect to the Commercial Treaty with Franco. The House would bear in mind that when it had been first rumoured that that Treaty was about to be entered into, there existed in this country a feeling rather opposed to it, but that when it had been announced by the noble Lord at the head of the Government that no provision of the Treaty would be carried into effect until it had been submitted to, and received the sanction of Parliament, public confidence had, to some extent, been restored. The 20th Article of the proposed Treaty ran thus: — The present Treaty not to be valid, unless Her Britannic Majesty be authorized by the consent of Her Parliament to execute the engagements contracted by Her in the several Articles of the Treaty. The question he wanted to ask was—in what manner Government intended to proceed to obtain the assent of Parliament to the Articles of the Treaty? His question had especial reference to the 11th Article, The other Articles would come before them in Committee of Supply, the duties being remitted by Resolution to that effect in the ordinary way. But the 11th Article was to this effect— The two high contracting Powers engage not to prohibit the exportation of coal, and to levy no duty upon such exportation. This Article was distinguished from all the rest, as it would not be brought under the consideration of the House in Committee of Supply, where they voted to take off duties. By this Article they only pledged themselves not to put a duty on, and therefore in Committee of Supply this Article of the Treaty would not be submitted to them, and their assent to it could not be obtained. He attached the more importance to this, because the Article was the most remarkable in the whole Treaty. The House would remember that the article of coal was the one first to be admitted into France, very much prior to the date at which the general admission of English articles was to be allowed. It was also to be admitted at a very much lower duty; not only so, but at a duty of an entirely different character; because, while all other articles were admitted under a protective duty, and a high protective duty, the article of coal was to be admitted at a low revenue duty, the only revenue duty in the whole Treaty. It was also remarkable that while we bound ourselves in all time coming not to make Coal an article of revenue to ourselves, we allowed France to make it an article of revenue to her. It was also remarkable in a constitutional point of view. By this Article Her Majesty bound her Ministers in the first place, in all time coming, not to propose an export duty on coal. She also bound herself, if any individual Member passed a Resolution through Parliament recommending the imposition of such a duty, to interpose her veto. No Chancellor of the Exchequer, whatever the exigencies of the country, whatever hostilities we might be involved in, and however other sources of taxation might be strained to the utmost, could, according to the terms of the Treaty, propose to derive a revenue from coal. But it was to be observed that this stipulation did not apply to France only; it must apply to all the other nations of the world. Whatever might be our relations with any other State of the world, a Minister could not, during peace, put an export duty on coal going to France, or any country with which we were not at war. He did not wish to say a word in favour of an export duty. Everybody know that export duties were vicious in principle, and, indeed, indefensible; but the principle which applied to other duties as objectionable, did not apply to coal. Wine or cotton might be used and re-produced, but coal was an exhaustible commodity. Scientific men had been at one time much alarmed at the progress of the consumption of coal in this country. It was well known that the late Dr. Buckland, who was the intimate friend of the late Sir R. Peel, very much urged him to put an export duty on coal. And though he did not connect the two circumstances as cause and effect, it was known that Sir R. Peel did, in 1842, violate his principle of Political Economy, and did put an export duty on coal, and on coal alone. He (Mr. Horsman) also attached the greater importance to this from the language of Lord J. Russell, in his letter of instructions to our Plenipotentiaries at the time the Treaty was about to be signed. His Lordship, after alluding to the vast market for coal, added—"Indeed there still remains more or less of the disposition, which formerly was strong, to view the export of coal with jealousy, or even to subject it to restriction." It had been formerly the opinion of the best scientific men that, even at the then rate of consumption, the coal-fields of England then worked could not last 300 years. Three hundred years, they said, was a very long time compared to the life of a man, but a very short time in the life of a nation. The greatness of England depended upon her coal. And if 300 years hence their coal should be exhausted, what, they asked, would become of the country, for which they were bound to legislate for the future as well as the present. But it was not now the question whether they should put an export duty on coal; they were absolutely going to the other extreme, and giving a bonus for its exportation. He had intended some time ago to move for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the statistics affecting the new and larger coal-fields in Wales, and how long, at the present rate of consumption, they were likely to last. Since he had seen this Article in the Treaty that notion had been revived; and he certainly thought it would be a very wise act on the part of Ministers to issue a Royal Commission to inquire what was the extent of coal to be had in the United Kingdom, and how long it was likely to last. This Article of the Treaty, the only one to be withdrawn from the notice and sanction of Parliament, was in his opinion so important, that he had rather all the rest had been withdrawn than it. He wished to know whether or not it was the intention of the Government, by any other mode, to take the opinion of the House as to its approval of that Article?

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

said, the Treaty was very one-sided. With reference to the statement of the right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) it was important to observe that while the article obliged us not to put any duty on the export of coal, there was no reciprocal obligation on France not to put export duties on articles sent to this country. Nay, more, on wine, brandy, and almost all other articles of French produce, an export duty was put. If this clause of the Treaty were allowed to remain as it was, it should be made to apply to export duties put on by France on articles of her produce.

MR. GREGSON

remarked, that some very competent authorities considered that the coal of the United Kingdom would afford a supply, at the present rate of consumption, for 2,000 years.

COLONEL HERBERT

said, he could not help observing that very important consequences were involved in this Article of the Treaty, which certainly required further explanation from the Government. As he read the Article, in the event of any angry discussion with France tending to war, and making war imminent, nothing short of an absolute declaration of war on our part would enable us to prohibit the exportation of coal. There was another point,—in the event of war with any other Power, even during the continuance of that war, nothing could enable us to prohibit the exportation of coal to France, thus making France a general coal depot, with a power of selling it to the other nation with which we might be at war. In the event of war between France and any other Power we equally engaged not to prohibit the exportation of coal. It might so occur that France, being engaged in war with some other nation, we might be prepared, not to take part in it, but to take the line, perfectly right in a neutral Power, to prevent the exportation of coal to France for the purpose of carrying on the war. Coal was not yet decided to be contraband of war; but it was in the power of our Courts so to declare it. Whether so declared or not, however, it was obviously as much an article of warlike stores as gunpowder, or any other material which had always been so regarded. Such being the case he hoped to receive from the Government some explanation on this Article of the tariff.

MR. AYRTON

said, he wished to express a hope that the second reading of the Corporation (City of London) Bill would be so fixed that its coming on would not be left in uncertainty from the number of notices which preceded it.

MR. J. L. RICARDO

said, the object of our commercial legislation should be to exchange that which we could produce with the greatest facility for that which we most required. It was to be expected that many captious objections should be taken to the fiscal arrangements recently announced; but the very last objection to have been anticipated certainly was the one now urged against the exchange of that commodity which of all others we could produce cheapest and with the greatest advantage to ourselves. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman) in his estimate of the policy of an export duty. Most writers on political economy held that there was very little difference between an export and an import duty; and unless we put an export duty on coal, how were we to prevent that article from being exported? This was a question not for us, but for other countries to decide. There was nothing new in the exportation of coal from England. Now, however, the French Government were willing to admit our coal duty free, or at least at a reduced duty. Where was the great misfortune in that? As far as warlike objects were concerned, there was no reason why the French Government should not have admitted our coal and iron at any previous time, except that it had hitherto thought fit to levy an import duty upon them for State purposes. The present was not, however, a proper occasion for discussing the great question of the Commercial Treaty.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he was willing to admit that it was not the proper time to discuss the general subject, but the object of the right hon. Member for Stroud was a simple one. He wished to obtain from the Government some explanation as to the manner in which a particular article in the Treaty was to be dealt with by the House. That question was one of great importance.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that having already spoken he did not intend to trespass on the indulgence of the House by asking permission to enter into details with reference to that portion of the Treaty, he would simply assure them that full information would be given on that as well as on other points on Monday next. It was inconvenient to anticipate now what would be duly explained on the proper occasion. He had risen solely to answer the question that had been put to him relative to the Bill for the reform of the Corporation of London. That measure was fixed for Thursday. Other matters, however, stood for Thursday; and if that Bill could not then come on at a proper hour for its fair discussion, it would be fixed for some other day, when it could be considered at a proper hour of the evening.