§ MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONTsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the statement made by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer that he "was not in favour of Treaties of Commerce, and that he was not in favour of their negotiation," has the approval of Her Majesty's Government?
MR. GLADSTONESir, I feel some little difficulty in answering the Question of my hon. Friend. I think that he has I taken as being the expression of a rigid determination applicable to all cases that which was on the part of my right hon. Friend only the expression of an adverse impression. I understood my right hon. Friend to have meant that he did not approach with favour a proposal for a treaty of commerce, and I must say that I agree with him. Not only so, but my attention has been called to a declaration which was made by Mr. Cobden in 1861. He said—
I observe with satisfaction that the Chamber has abstained from committing itself to an approval of the principle of commercial treaties.Mr. Cobden used these words within six months after he had himself been employed in negotiating and bringing to a 883 completion one of the most remarkable commercial treaties that was ever known. Mr. Cobden continued—The arrangement lately contracted with the French Government is not in its old and exclusive sense a commercial treaty, but is a simultaneous movement on the part of the two Countries in the direction of freedom of trade.That is, I think, the best solution of the difficulty raised by the speech of my right hon. Friend; but the best illustration of what I have said, that this is not a cast-iron sentiment, but one of some elasticity and flexibility, is that to-morrow we shall lay on the table a commercial treaty with Austria, for which we are collectively (including, of course, my right hon. Friend) and individually responsible. The truth is that in general the subject of commercial treaties or the negotiations which precede them belong to the region of those duties which are imposed not for revenue, but for protection. They are of small importance as regards revenue, and they must be dealt with solely with reference to other and wider considerations. We by the French Treaty purged out, with the exception of corn and timber, the very last of the protective duties from that treaty. By the Austrian Treaty we give up the duties of corn and timber, which of course we should have been very glad to get rid of on other grounds, and that being so it is unquestionably true that the margin which remains open to us fur airy commercial treaty is very narrow; inasmuch as you cannot undertake, with respect to the important branches of revenue of this country, either to part with them in order to purchase a supposed commercial advantage, or to run the risk, perhaps, of financial necessity. When it might be important as a matter of public necessity to raise our duties upon such subjects we might find our hands tied by treaty stipulations with foreign countries. No doubt there is great danger of placing ourselves in a false position with respect to these branches of revenue; but the idea of a commercial treaty, as so very cautiously defined by Mr. Cobden in the above citation, is evidence that we have not entertained any undue aversion from commercial treaties, although we feel we have reduced them to the very narrowest margin.