Karl Marx 
The New Treaty between France and England 

The New Treaty between France and England. 

From an Occasional Correspondent. 
London, Jan. 28, 1860. 

The commercial treaty with France will not be communicated to the House 
of Commons before the 6th of February. Still, with what was broached during 
the address debates—with what is insinuated by the French papers, and with 
what is gossiped at London and Paris, one may, Mr. Gladstone's solemn 
warnings notwithstanding, already venture upon some general appreciation 
of this "sweet changeling." It was on Monday, the 23d of January, that the 
treaty was duly signed at Paris, Rouher, Minister of Commerce, and Baroche, 
ad interim Minister of Foreign Affairs, acting as its French godfathers, while, 
on the part of England, the same function was performed by Lord Cowley 
and Mr. Cobden. That Mr. Michel Chevalier—the ex-St. Simonian—had his 
hand in the pie, and that general regret is felt throughout the whole realm 

of France that Louis Napoleon had not the tact of allowing this distinguished 

personage (viz: Mr. Chevalier) to inscribe his name to the treaty by the side 
of his "English confrère," is a piece of news which that "distinguished 
personage" himself was so condescending as to send over to London and 
have inserted in the various free-trade organs. But, what is not known by 
the journals, is that Pére Enfantin, the ex-high-priest of St. Simonism, was 
the principal actor on the French side. Is it not truly wonderful how those 
St. Simonians, from Pére Enfantin down to Isaac Péreire and Michel Cheva- 
lier, have been turned into the main economical pillars of the second Empire? 
But to return to Mr. Chevalier's "English confrère, 
ex-manufacturer, who, of course, felt not a little elated at the honor of putting 

the Lancashire 

his own sign-manual to an international treaty. If one should consider the 

circumstance that reciprocity treaties, and commercial treaties generally, 
save the treaties with barbarians, have always been loudly denounced by the 
English free-traders, led by Mr. Cobden, as the worst and most perfidious 
form of protectionism; if it be further considered that the present treaty, even 
judged from the reciprocity stand-point, seems a rather ludicrous arrange- 
ment; and, lastly, if the political aims and purposes the treaty is destined to 
screen be duly weighed, people might feel inclined to pity Mr. Richard 
Cobden as the innocent victim of a Palmerstonian machination. Yet there 
is another side to the medal. Mr. Cobden, as is generally known, did once 
receive, in exchange for his Anti-Corn law success, some £60,000 sterling 
on the part of the grateful manufacturing interest. Mr. Cobden invested the 
principal in American shares, and, consequent upon the crisis of 1857, lost 
almost everything. The hopes he still cherished when setting out on his 
voyage to the United States, proved delusory. Mr. Cobden returned to 
England a ruined man. To appeal to a national subscription some national 
pretext was wanted, some transaction that might be puffed, and again exhibit 
Mr. Cobden in the light of the guardian angel of the United Kingdom, "secur- 
ing plenty and comfort to millions of lowly households." Well, the Anglo- 
French treaty didthe thing, and, as you will see, from the provincial papers, 
a new subscription to the amount of £40,000, intended to compensate the 
great freetrade apostle for his American losses, already goes the round very 
"feelingly." There is no doubt that if Disraeli, for instance, had introduced 
to the Commons such a treaty, Mr. Cobden at the head of the free-traders 
would have risen to move for a vote of non-confidence in a Cabinet attempt- 
ing to carry the legislation back to the darkest fallacies of the unenlightened 
past. 

From the following tables the number of protective duties levied during 
the year 1858 by England on French articles may be inferred: 

Articles. Duty. 
Baskets:-¥ «2 sce 35 128.22. En ee £ 2,061 
Bülter 22. 8238 7 A002 6 DOE eee 7,159 
China and Porcelain Ware. ... 2.2... 2.222... 1671 
CIOCKS 226, Owes ales, DOM Seine a Gut Ben 3,928 
COES 2.5: mat a eta atte m Ot ade Blas tae feted 4311 
Sa Se eg ek re 19934 
Embroidery. 00.0... 5572 
Flowers, artificial .. 222000000. 20,412 
Fir Daray a tom 404. nn B/D ane ARPS 7,347 
acer 7.0.4.3. gee m Bh ook ete Bt OP ah 1,858 
Boots, Shoes, and other Leather Manufactures . 8,883 
Gloves. . 220222... 48,839 
Musical Instruments. . . 2.22. oo... 4,695 

[Articles.] [Duty] 
Oil, chemical... ........222.2.. 2... [£] 2,369 
Paper-Hangings... aaa aA 6,713 
Plaiting of Straw, for hats, ete. ............0., 11,622 
SIKS”. oo 2.8 4018 02 4 alice beans gh ele sh eb slate 215,455 
Brandy and other Spirits... 2... 2... aaa 824,960 
SUSE na swe ents Bee hana daranay 215,102 
Tear en et Ale a el E a 14358 
TOBACCO. ea tints tt we Adu Meere E 52,696 
Watches. io ......2.-. 24.2 pe See ne 14,940 
WIE: ar N en AE ant dee ack 164,855 

Most of the duties thus levied were protective duties, as those on baskets, 
clocks, lace, boots, gloves, silks, etc. Others, like the duties on brandy, etc., 
were higher than the English excise duty on British spirits, and so far protec- 
tive. Even mere duties for revenue, such as the duty on wine, might be 
considered by a consequent Freetrader as protective duties, because it is 
almost impossible to levy taxes on a foreign article without protecting some 
similar, if not identical, article in the home market. For instance, a revenue 
duty on foreign wine may be considered a protective duty for native beer, 
etc. By dint of the treaty just concluded all British duties on French manufac- 
tures will be abolished at once, while the duties on brandy, wine, and other 
articles, will be assimilated to English excise duties, or to the Custom-House 
duty now raised on similar products (wine for instance) if introduced from 
British colonies. On the other hand, the French changes of tariff will not be 
completely carried out before October, 1861, as will be seen from the follow- 
ing statement, borrowed from a French Government paper: 

July 1, 1860—Suppression of the import duties on cotton and wool. 

July 1, 1860—Belgian tariff applied to English coal and coke. 

October 1,1860—Duty of 7 francs the 100 kilogs. substituted for the present 
duties on iron. 

December 31, 1860—Diminution of the duties on the importation of ma- 
chinery. 

June 1,1861—Removal of the prohibition on hemp threads and fabrics, and 
the adoption of duties not exceeding 30 per cent. 

October 1, 1861—Removal of all other prohibitions, to be replaced by 
protective duties ad valorem for five years, and not exceeding 25 per cent 
afterward. 

Save the reduction of the duty on English coal to the same rate now paid 
by Belgian coal, all the concessions apparently made by France appear of 
a very equivocal character. The price of a tun of pig iron No. | (Wales) 
amounts, for instance, at present, to £3 10 s., but the French duty on iron will 
amount to nearly another £3. That the 30 per cent ad valorem duty on prohi- 

bited articles will be virtually protective is conceded by The London Econo- 
mist. So far as the reductions, real or apparent, on English articles are put 
off to future periods, the English Government acts, in fact, the part of an 
insurance office for Louis Napoleon's tenure of power for the terms speci- 
fied. The true secret, however, of the commercial treaty, viz: that "iris no 
commercial treaty at all, "but a simple hoax, intended to puzzle John Bull's 
commercial mind, and to cloak a deep-laid political scheme, has been mas- 
terly exposed by Mr. Disraeli during the address debates. The substance of 
his revelation was this: 

"Some years ago, the Emperor of the French made a communication 
similar to the letter lately addressed by him to the Minister of the Interior, 
in which communication he proposed the entire extinction of the prohibitive 
system, and the adoption of measures similar to those contained in his late 
manifesto. In 1856, a bill in this sense was introduced into the Corps Légis- 
latif, but, before being passed, was laid before the 86 Provincial Councils 
of France, which, with the exception of 6, all adopted the proposal with an 
understanding that a certain period of time should elapse before the new 
system should be brought into play. Consequently, the Emperor agreeing 
with this proposition, some public document expressed his resolution to 
carry this system into effect, and appointed July, 1861, as the period with 
which it should commence. All, therefore, that France engages by the treaty 
to do in July 1861, was already provided by the course of law in France."