The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, JAN. 6, 1882.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LVII, Issue 6509, 6 January 1882, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, JAN. 6, 1882.

So there is something, after all, is the interminable delays which have marked the negotiations for a renewal of the Anglo • French Commercial Treaty I Despite the polite expressions of goodwill by the Commissioners on either side; despite the fair speeches of M. Gambetta; despite the suspiciously anxious assurances of the larger seotion of the London Press* who, like Sir Charles Coldstream, repaated at each fresh ooourrenoe that there was nothing in it; despite all this, we have the authority of Renter's agents that hopes of another treaty are altogether dying out. Nearly a year has now elapsed since the discussion on the mat* ter began, at which time the French Cabinet then in power Bhowed themselves singularly unfriendly to British interests. French Cabinets however, are not, as a rule, long-lived; they stand in this respect about midway between those of "England and Italy, with, perhaps, a slight leaning towards the latter. The confidentlyexpected downfall of the Jerry Ministry was looked upon as the augury of a ohange favourable to England. M. Gambetta, it was said, had declared himself in favour of Free Trade, and a Ministry directly under his guidance could hardly fail to come to reasonable terms with their neighbours across the Channel. In due course the Ferry Ministry fell, and M. •Gambetta took office. So far, so good! But Premiers, even the most powerful and popular, have to give ear to public opinion. It is probable enough that M. Gambetta would have been well satisfied to please Great Britain, if he could have done so with safety. But the French people, as we have before pointed out, are by nature a Protectionist community, consisting as they dfr of farmers and manufacturers (oarefully nursed) : and with no great carrying trade, or maritime interest, to make unrestricted intercourse with the world a necessity to them. Hence we are not surprised to find that Sir Charles Dilke's"efforts have once more come to nothing. It is possible that all, from an English point of view, may yet reestablish itself. A Commercial Treaty is after all only a big bargain; and bargains, from the purchase of a horse upwards, generally come to a conclusion all the more certainly that there has been much haggling on both sides. Yet, in the present case, it must be confessed that the ohances are against a satisfactory finale. And should these forebodings be realised the consequences are likely to be little less than momentous. The whole fabric of Free Trade reared with such care and guarded with such fierce jealousy and scorn of adverse teaching, will be like to totter and fall. A retaliatory tariff adopted in the case of France, will be the first step to a retaliatory tariff set up against America. Englishmen will begin to look about them, and recognise at last, what they have been told over and over again, that the markets of the world are shutting their doors to them one by one. This being so, can Great Britain avoid a reconsideration' of her relations with her Colonies ? These are already her best customers, and they are the only ones who would not willingly desert if opportunity offered. Might they not, under a mutually beneficial system of "fair trade," become better customers still?

Seeing that schemes of thiß kind are under discussion, and that we are being urged by a certain olass of thinkers to prnne and train the hitherto (perhaps -wisely) neglected tree of commerce, it isas well to look baok on the *past, and see whether any lessons can be gathered from the wisdom or folly of our ancestors when placed in a similar position. Now, it is a faot, though glossed over by most of our historians, that the loss of the American colonies in the eighteenth century was due to generations of absurd, arbitrary, and tyrannous commercial restrictions. This is what Arthur Young, author of the much-quoted " Travels in Ireland" says on the subject:— "Nothing can be more idle than to say that this set of men, or the other Administration, or that great Minister, occasioned the American War. It wbb not the Stamp Act, nor the repeal of the Stamp Act; it was neither Lord Rockingham nor Lo?d North; but it was that baleful spirit of commerce that wished to govern great nations on the maxims of the counter."

The incredible folly of some of these maxims of the counter seemß almost laughable when viewed in the light of modern experience. A few instances we will give. Eastern Amerioa was a land of forests, and its colonists, being dependent for existence on the ocean traffic with Europe, naturally took to shipbuilding on an increasing scale. This industry the Navigation Acts of Charles the Second's reign attempted to crush, by cnaoting simply that all the trado between Britain and the plantations should be carried in homebuilt ships. More absurd even was an Imperial Act of the year 1719, which, introduced in the supposed interests of

tho English iron trade, forbade American smiths from making any kind of ironwork whatsoever, They might shoo a horse, but the shoe, tho nails, and tho hammer, had all to bo imported across the Atlantic. To the credit of English senso and American resistance this frantio measure never came into actual operation. But tho colonists were forbidden to trade in sugar with tho French and Spanish islands, and they were not permitted to make their own beaver skins into hats. Worse still, they oould not export wool at all, not even to England, or from one settlement to another. Fancy New Zealand being suddenly forbidden to ship wool from her ports, even to distribute it among her Provinces. Small wonder is it if the inoabus of the Frcnoh presence in Canada once removed, Washington and his fellow-settlers found their dependence on tho Mother Country intolerable. Not that a few special advantages were not conceded to the Colonics. Virginia hod a monopoly of the English tobaooo market, though she could not deal with foreign countries. And encouragement was given to the export of timber, pitch, tar, and other naval stores, from the plantations. A clause of one of the last-mentioned Acts appears in a way to have anticipated some of our latter-day theories in the matter of forest culture. By it all pine trees growing on Crown lands, and whioh were of exceptional size, were reserved as sacred to the Royal Navy. Thus was postponed the fate of some of those kings of the forest such as Milton had in view when he wrote of the tallest pine, Hewn on Norwegian bills to be the mast Of some great admiral. When Free Traders claim that commerce, like edged tools, is dangerous to meddle with, they point, with justice, to suoh a record as that given above. On the other hand it is the special boast of the nineteeenth century that it fears not to meddle with dangerous things, where so doing may result in possible advantage.