offers to us very great advantages. Whether that be so, or no, it is now our business to inquire.

First, let us remark that the treaty is to last for ten years, during which time the hands of the official successors of Mr Gladstone are tied up. That may not be an exorbitant period for the endurance of a treaty, but it may be productive of serious consequences to some important interests, and furnishes a strong argument against entering into absolute engagements. Now then let us see what advantages are held out.

France is ready to receive our staple articles of manufacture of almost every kind, after 1st October 1861, at a maximum duty of thirty per cent, ad valorem, to be subsequently reduced to twenty-five per cent. It is expressly stipulated, however, that this part of the treaty is not to come into operation until 1st October 1861, so that for nineteen months from the present date there will be no alteration in the French tariff as regards the admission of British staple manufactures. But there are important exceptions in favour of other articles. British coal and coke will be received in France at the low duty of fifteen centimes for the hundred kilogrammes (it being expressly stipulated that no export duty is to be charged), on the 1st of July 1860. Bar and pig iron and steel will be taken from 1st October, and machinery and tools from the 31st December, in the present year. Yarns and manufactures in flax and hemp will be admitted from 1st June 1861.

France, therefore, when the treaty on her part comes into operation, is to levy a protective or revenue duty-for the terms may be held as synonymous-of 30 to 25 per cent ad valorem on all articles of British manufacture. We apprehend that even Mr Cobden would hardly venture to denominate this arrangement an approximation to free-trade. Neither is it reciprocity, for we engage to admit most kinds of French manufactures free altogether from duty. This is a question eminently for the consideration of our manufacturers. In France they will have to contend against a 30 per cent duty;

while at home they must meet the foreign manufacturer on equal terms. It is precisely analogous to the case of granting a bill for £100 and receiving only £70. How this can be made matter of general congratulation we are really puzzled to conceive, and we doubt whether Mr Gladstone himself thoroughly understands the question. It appears to us incomprehensible why the removal of duties on French manufactures should take place immediately, instead of being made simultaneous with the operation of the new tariff in France. We cannot regard this as other than a bad bargain, in which the British Ministry and Plenipotentiaries have been grossly outwitted; and we decidedly object to the loss of £432,000 of revenue presently levied on goods of foreign manufacture.

But a much more serious question presents itself when we consider the stipulations of the treaty in regard to the export of coal. That this is the article most eagerly coveted by France is evident both from the early period fixed for its admission, and from the low rate of duty which is to be levied upon it. We can easily understand this. A large supply, and even accumulated store of coal, which France has not the means of raising from beneath her own soil, is absolutely necessary in order to complete the efficiency of her immense steam war-navy. France is already provided with ships, with machinery, and with men. Give her coal also, and you give her the means of putting that navy into motion.

But there is a consideration paramount to all others, which does not seem even to have occurred to our Ministers. Coal is not of the nature of manufactures or produce. It is part of the solum of the country which we occupy, and so valuable a part, that from it we have derived more wealth than from any other source. Without it we should be nothing. It is the foundation of all our manufactures; and in parting with it, we are parting with the real capital of the nation. It is quite different from iron, which is a manufacture expressed from ores, the supply of which is inexhaustible. Coal, once used, cannot be replaced. The

British coal-beds, though undoubtedly large, must in process of time be exhausted; and when they are exhausted, our supremacy in manufactures must cease; for we have no other kind of fuel which can adequately supply its place. Scientific men have come to the conclusion, after considering all the available data and information, that there is not more coal in Britain than will supply our own wants, even at the present rate of consumption, for more than 250 or 300 years; and clearly we must make allowance for a very large increased consumption in coming years. It may therefore happen that at a future period of time, not remoter from the present, and perhaps nearer, than is the union of the crowns of England and Scotland under James I., the whole of our coal-seams may be exhausted. Under these circumstances, and with such a prospect, are we entitled, setting immediate political considerations altogether apart, to alienate this valuable possession? That was not the opinion of the late Sir Robert Peel, who, in his celebrated financial measure of 1842, laid a duty of four shillings a ton on exported coals, calculating the revenue to be derived from that source at £200,000. That is not the opinion of Mr M'Culloch, who would not object to an eight-shilling export duty.

This is a subject which has not yet been properly considered by writers on political economy. None of them, of course, can be blind to the enormous advantage which England possesses in her coal-fields, and Mr Porter thus expatiates upon it: "The value of the mineral products of England would be greatly inferior to what it actually is, were it not for the abundant supply of good coal found in various districts of the kingdom. It cannot here be necessary to point out the many advantages which we derive from the possession of our coal-mines, the sources of greater riches than ever issued from the mines of Peru, or from the diamond grounds at the base of the Neela Mulla mountains. But for our command of fuel, the inventions of Watt and Arkwright would have been of small account; our iron

mines must long since have ceased to be worked, and nearly every important branch of manufacture which we now possess must have been rendered impracticable, or, at best, have been conducted upon a comparatively insignificant scale." So far well; but, on examining the analytical index to the volume, we find the following reference,-"Coal, English, jealous and erroneous exclusion of, from France." We turn to the text; and there we find that Mr Porter's remarks apply exclusively to iron, and not in any degree to coal!

In truth, to supply France with coal, is to strike a blow at our iron home manufacture. Let France by all means have iron, which is the product of British industry; but do not let us commit the suicidal folly of parting with our coal, which is the great source of all our wealth; which smelts our iron, sets our machinery in motion, lights and warms our homes; but which, alas! we know must one day disappear. It is far too valuable to be wasted or given away to other people. It is the proper and peculiar heritage of the nation, and such unquestionably it, ought to remain.

But, apart from the general principle, there are, we apprehend, immediate grounds for objecting to that part of the treaty which would prevent us from regulating the foreign consumption of our coal. The eleventh article is as follows:- "The two high contracting powers engage not to prohibit the exportation of coal, and to levy no duty upon such exportation." This sounds fair enough; but let it be observed that, in so far as regards coal, the treaty is entirely one-sided. We neither expect nor wish to receive coal from France. The effect, therefore, of that article of treaty is simply to deprive us of the power of regulating the British coal-trade. Its insertion is a strong proof of the far-seeing sagacity of the Emperor of the French, and his superior astuteness to those with whom he has been dealing; for we cannot doubt that he is fully aware of what must be the immediate consequence here of a large export of coal to France.

The internal demand for coal is at

It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this point as regards the treaty of commerce. On the French side it has been weighed, enforced, fenced, guarded; and, in fact, is their main object in making the treaty. They want our coal for warlike purposes-they desire to accumulate a stock of it-and there fore they have got an article inserted, which, if assented to by the British Parliament, prevents us, under any circumstances, from controlling the export. France may go to war with our allies; but, if not absolutely at war with us, we cannot refuse to supply her with the chief muniment of maritime enterprise, and we can neither prohibit nor lay on an export duty. Is that a position in which this country should voluntarily agree to place itself, considering the experience of the last year, and in the face of the undenied design of the annexation of Savoy to France? Should we, under any circumstances, commit ourselves to this-that, in the event of a Continental war, waged by France for extension of her frontier, or for any other purpose of which we may disapprove, our mineral resources shall be available to France, and beyond our control, for the suppression of the very cause which has engaged the heart of the nation? That is the effect of the present treaty. If France chooses to make war with Prussia, we are bound by this compact to furnish France with coal to smite our ally. We may even give France eleemosynary coal-heaps, to try the strength of Malta. But far beyond any other consideration, is the sacrifice of our national fuel-the solum of our land-to the French man; who, taking it for war purposes, will raise the price of that commodity so high as to distress the British artisan.

The more we study this treaty, the more egregiously one-sided do its provisions appear. For example, the 3d Article, referring to importations of British goods into France, is as follows:-"It is understood that the rates of duty mentioned in the preceding articles are independent of the differential duties in favour of French shipping, with

which duties they shall not interfere." There is free-trade for you with a vengeance! What was Mr Cobden thinking of when he allowed that clause to be inserted? Why, if it was deemed advisable that there should be any treaty of commerce, the abolition of those differential duties ought to have been insisted on as a sine qua non-as the proper subject for the first and fundamentary Article. Their maintenance is simply a further advantage to France of 30 per cent. Nay, if we are right in our construction of this treaty, it would appear that Mr Gladstone, in the plenitude of his generosity (a virtue which it is easy to practise when payment has to be made from the pockets of other people) has given greater advantages to France than were either stipulated or required. The 8th Article of the treaty contains the following provision:-"Her Britannic Majesty undertakes to recommend to Parliament the admission of paper-hangings imported from France at a duty equal to the Excise-tax,-that is to say, at 14s. per hundredweight; and card-board of the same origin at a duty which shall not exceed 15s. per hundredweight." The treaty bears the date of 23d January last; and the abovequoted clause is a pretty sure indication that Mr Gladstone did not then intend to remove the excise duty upon paper. This is a curious fact in the natural history of budgets. Can it be that financial schemes are sometimes improvised? Can it be that the delay in producing the Budget was attributable less to a catarrhal affection than to want of due preparation? Or can it be that Louis Napoleon, on looking over the treaty after it was signed, found that he had omitted to get the paperhangings of France included in the list of articles which are hereafter to be imported free of duty, and sent over an intimation to that effect, suggesting that by the total abolition of the British excise-duty on paper the difficulty would at once be solved? The last supposition appears to us, on the whole, the most probable: if it should prove to be the fact, what other conclusion can we form, than that a million of British revenue has been

sacrificed in order to let in French fancy paper duty-free?

But we are to get cheap wine and brandy from France. True; but let us reckon the cost. Mr Gladstone says that the reduction of the duty upon wine from 5s. 10d. to 3s. will entail upon the revenue, after allow ing for an increase of consumption to the extent of 35 per cent, a loss of £515,000-that the reduction of the duty upon brandy from 15s. to 8s. 2d. a gallon, will, also on the assumption of a larger quantity being consumed, imply a sacrifice of £225,000. So that for this vinous and alcoholic experiment we must pay £740,000 yearly at the very least, and probably much more, for we cannot reckon on an immediate increased consumption to the extent of 35 per cent.

It is really amusing to note the sudden enthusiasm of Ministers for the introduction of vin ordinaire. Not many years ago, Mr Oliveira, a former member of the House of Commons, made a pet question of the reduction of the wine-duties, but he could persuade nobody to listen to him. He was snubbed at all hands, and was nicknamed by facetious underlings of the Treasury, the "Friend of the Cholera." But now the note is altered. "Fill up your glasses, brave boys! Circulate the rosy! Here's to jolly Bacchus Confound the expense! are the cries proceeding from the Treasury bench; and Mr Gladstone, who used to be esteemed a kind of anchorite, expatiates upon the advantages of tipple with the unction of a veteran toper. Yet, after all, it is but a dreary affectation of jollity. His sentences do not reel properly, and he has evidently qualms when recommending to the public the substitution of thin potations for the more nutritious and comfortable malt. So he presently drops the semblance of hilarity; and feeling, no doubt, like Mr Sergeant Buzfuz, that "it is difficult to smile with an aching heart-it is ill jesting when our deepest sympathies are awakened," he falls back upon the pathetic, and dilutes the liquor with his tears. "There is a time which comes to all of us-the time, I mean, of sickness when wine becomes a common neces

sary. What kind of wine is administered to the poor man in this country? You have got a law which makes it impossible for the poor man, when he is sick, to obtain the comfort and support derived from good wine, unless he is fortunate enough to live in the neighbourhood of some charitable and rich friend. Consult the medical profession; ask what sort of wine is supplied to boards of guardians in this country; go on board the Queen's ships, and see the wine supplied there." We are sorry that Mr Gladstone should have condescended to such palpable slip-slop as this. In the first place, the class of cases of sickness in which wine is medically prescribed is a very limited one. In the second place, no medical practitioner in his senses would think of prescribing thin claret to a patient. Reduce the duty to nothing, and you will find that the wine taken by boards for the relief of the poor will still be adulterated; for the system of adulteration in this country is unfortunately general, and is applied to most articles of consumption, as has been made very clear by recent investigation and analysis. If the wine supplied to her Majesty's ships is so bad as Mr Gladstone represents it, let the Admiralty see to that, for the wine so supplied is taken out of bond, and pays no duty whatever. Nor is he one whit more happy or cogent in his argument when he refers to the national taste. He says now: "Taste is mutable. is idle to talk of the taste for port and sherry, and the highly-brandied wines, as fixed and unchangeable. There is a power of unbounded supply of

It

wine if you will only alter your law, and there is a power, I won't say of unbounded demand, but of an enormously increased demand, for this most useful and valuable commodity." But we turn to the debate of 5th April 1853, on the motion of Mr Oliveira for the reduction of the wine-duty, and there we find Mr. Gladstone, in his capacity of Chancellor of the Exchequer, maintaining that "he did not think that the taste with respect to wine, or any other article, was to be revolutionised or materially modified in a day. The