for foreign produce. This is a mere repetition of the exploded fallacy of the balance of trade. Wanting cotton, we are obliged to get it from Egypt, Turkey, and India, countries which will only take specie, and we gain by the exchange, as it enables our operatives to live, and promotes trade at home. We are not so badly off as was asserted yesterday. Look also at other industries. Our coal mines now produce 10 millions of tons yearly, which they never did before. As to the woollen manufacture, the explanation given yesterday is inadmissible. Two years ago the representative of Roubaix repeated here the lamentations of the Chambers of Commerce. But what has happened since? Never has Roubaix enjoyed such prosperity as at present. We are told that this prosperity is owing solely to the scarcity of cotton. On this head I reply that we now export woollens to the value of 100 millions more than in 1859, which shows that we are fully able to compete with England in that branch also. With regard to cotton goods, I have to remark that England has sent us one-half less this year than last. Our markets are, therefore, not overwhelmed with English products. Having said thus much in reply to M. Pouyer-Quertier, I now proceed to defend the Treaty of Commerce, and consequently the language of the Address. We have heard much of sacrifices. I will show you what sacrifices the country makes under the protective system. The other day we heard great lamentations about the expense of the Mexican expedition. Well, if France economized only one-half of the mysterious bounty which she pays in a year to protected industries, it would cover the cost of the war in Mexico. The Treaty of Commerce has reduced the secret bounties paid under prohibition by very considerable sums, which have been expended in the consumption of other articles, to the great increase of the general wellbeing. To the relief thus occasioned I attribute the greater part of our increased revenue. I now turn to another subject, and I regret that our eminent colleague, M. Thiers, should be leaving the Chamber, as what I am about to say will, I believe, interest him. (M. Thiers, who had risen to go out, immediately sat down near the speaker.) The amendment has received considerable support by the signature of our illustrious colleague, of whom I shall never speak but with the greatest respect. Most of those who have attached their names to it are men who pretend to guide us in the way of liberty, in which they think we are behindhand, and nevertheless, in my opinion, the amendment is an attack on liberty and on property. Our eminent colleague has pointed out the conditions necessary to constitute liberty in free countries, but he has forgotten the most important of all, and one inscribed among the great principles of '89-liberty of labour. It is one which presents no danger, for it requires order and security. England is every day held up to us as an example; why not, therefore, follow that country as regards freedom of commerce and labour? No branch of manufacture is there pro

:

tected; the customs' tariff of England is, since 1860, the most simple of all, as it is contained on a single sheet of paper, while ours fills a volume. The former bears on the following articles :chicory, chocolate, coffee, corn, currants, figs, pepper, raisins, and prunes, spirits of different kinds, raw and refined sugar, molasses, tea, tobacco, wine, and timber. In those articles, which produce a sum of 600 millions of francs, there is not a single branch of manufacture protected."

A Voice." The English do not require protection."

M. Chevalier. "That is more easily said than proved. I have resided in that country a long time, and I can assure you that twenty-five years were required for it to achieve commercial liberty. The silk manufacturers in England long demanded protection against ours, but they at length found that competition would lead to great improvement in their articles, and they gave up their opposition. I have said that the amendment is an attack on property, and I will endeavour to prove it. The suppression of the sliding scale was voted, and very properly."

M. Thiers.-"No; that I deny."

M. Chevalier.-"Our agriculturists are no longer protected, but when they require to purchase farming implements they must pay a duty, and they are in that manner attacked in their property. I go further, and say that France has no need of protection. She has 38,000,000 of inhabitants, of whom 20,000,000 are agriculturists, who do not ask to be protected, and there are 8,000,000 of workmen who do not ask for it. There are, moreover, 8,000,000 of persons devoted to the liberal arts-physicians, advocates, &c., who ask for nothing except that they may not have to pay dear for what they want. Ask the remaining 2,000,000 of men employed in large manufactories whether they stand in need of protection, and they will reply in the negative. Suppose it were announced to you that for each branch of manufacture a machine had been invented which would reduce the cost price by 10 per cent., would you oppose the introduction of such an improvement? Certainly not. But it is precisely such a saving that Free Trade effects. A celebrated writer on political economy, now deceased, M. Bastiat, had enunciated this rule, which cannot be contested-that when the produce is dear labour is cheap, and when the produce is cheap labour is dear, and the part attributed to wages augments unceasingly. The reason is, that when prices are low for goods the quantity produced is so great that where a middling workman was found previously you must place several able ones, and of course pay them more.'

M. de Forcade La Roquette, Vice-President of the Council of State, said:- . "The new economic system has not entailed ruin on the country. The only question now raised is, whether the Chamber shall give to the Emperor's Government, a testimony of approbation for the reforms which have been accomplished. Facts fully justify the paragraph of the Address. It is well that

the Chamber should accept words, saying that France, which had felt doubts of herself, has now faith in the future. That is the idea which must be disseminated through the country, for the persevering efforts of our activity will be for France, not only a cause of wealth, but also one of glory and of honour. I will now proceed to show the general results of the Treaty of Commerce. From 1827 to 1836 the general foreign commerce of France was 1265 millions, imports and exports together. From 1836 to 1846 it amounted to 2112 millions. That is the average amount per annum. In 1847 the figure of foreign commerce was 2600 millions; under the Republic, in 1851, it had fallen to 2100 millions. In 1856, under the Empire, it had risen to 4487, in 1857 the figure was 4900, and in 1862 it was 5500 millions. I only speak of recognized values. Such, gentlemen, has been the progression, and it signifies that, with such an expansive force, the country could not fear competition at home with protective duties, when it could compete with other countries abroad without them. Let us examine in succession the exports of France to England, and those of England to France. Taking our figures from the latest decennial periods, we find our exports to England, from 1827 to 1836 at a mean term of 65 millions; from 1837 to 1846 of 97; from 1847 to 1856 of 239. In 1859 our exports had risen to 591 millions; but in that year there was an exceptional export of 100 millions, in grain and breadstuffs. In 1862, after the Treaty of Commerce, our exports rose to 619 millions, but here also we must take into account 15 millions in grain; thus leaving the figures for 1859 and 1862 at 491 and 604 respectively. During the three years that preceded the Treaty of Commerce, our exports increased by about 200 millions, but there the progress stopped. In 1863 a fresh development took place. In the first eleven months of 1863 our exports rose to 706 millions, being an augmentation of 300 millions since 1859, a greater advance than was made in the whole period from 1827 to 1861. Let us now turn to the imports of England into France. These imports are not always viewed with favour. Some economists say that it is most profitable to sell as much and buy as little as possible. There is, however, one thing evident-viz. that a great commercial country, both producing and consuming, must necessarily both export and import. Labour and well-being are necessarily connected; the labouring classes, after having produced, desire to consume, and we must find means to satisfy that want. Let us then examine these imports without prejudice. The imports of England into France from 1827 to 1836, were about 22 millions; from 1837 to 1846, 80; and from 1847 to 1856, 110. The increase was inconsiderable during this last period, by reason of the Revolution of February, for a poor country does not buy much. The imports were only 28 millions in 1848; they rose gradually under the Empire, and stood at 250 millions in 1856. The average term of imports for the years 1857, '58 and '59, was 287 millions. In 1862 they rose to 523

millions-an increase of more than 200 millions, but attributable to a special cause-namely, the American war. The cotton which

we received directly from America, now comes to us from the depôts at Liverpool. In 1862 we bought 73 millions worth of cotton from England, while before the war we bought for two or three millions only; so that we must deduct these 73 millions from the account. In 1863 affairs remained stationary. Such, therefore, is the result of the three years' experiment. English imports have increased by about 160 millions, and our exports have increased by 300 millions. May it not then be said that France can rely on her own strength, and look to the future with confidence; and ought not the Address to contain an expression of thanks to a Government that has conducted reform to this favourable issue? . . . .

"To return to English imports. They comprise 114 millions in silks and floss-silks, then 73 millions in wool cotton, cottons in great quantity, metals, coal, raw skins, raw material, &c., to an amount of 300 millions. The raw material we transform, and sell again at a high price.

"Now let us see what we send to England. In 1862 we exported silk tissues for 154 millions, woollen cloths for 65, dressed skins and articles made with them for 42, haberdashery for 31, and articles of dress and toilette for 20 millions. It is thus that we take from England rough and gross materials, and return them in the form of costly articles of luxury. Nor is that all. We also send to England the produce of our soil in wine, fruit, and grain, for France stands not only in the first rank of nations by her industry, but also by the bounties of nature.

"Several large branches of manufacture expressed great alarm at the Treaty of Commerce; they were principally those in iron, cotton, woollen, hemp, and linen. With regard to the first-mentioned, I am aware that there have been some individual sufferings, but, taken in the whole, that branch of business has improved by the trial. The iron and steel imported from England amounted in 1861 to 16 millions; in 1862 to 33, and in 1863 to only 16. Has the production decreased in France? First take cast iron. In 1858 the quantity produced was 871,000 tons; in 1859, 856,000; in 1860, 898,000; and in 1862, 1,052,000. The increase in 1863 may be estimated at 100,000 tons. A similar result has taken place in other kinds of iron, and the paragraph of the Address is right in saying that France has confidence in herself. As regards cotton, a greater degree of alarm was felt among manufacturers. It has been said that there is no discussion possible on that subject, as the article is not to be had, and that the scarcity of cotton has saved us from the danger. That peril has been perhaps greater than if the supply had not failed. Let us examine what has occurred. The American war began in 1861. England then held a considerable stock of cotton, and that year she exported cotton. fabrics to the amount of 1,273,000,000f., in the following year 845

millions, and 904 millions in 1863. Of these exports France received to the value of 8,200,000f. in 1861, 12,350,000f. in 1862, and 4,800,000f. in 1863. The imports of English cottons into France have therefore diminished. France has also exported cottons, and even sent more to England than she received. The general exports of French cottons were 49 millions in 1861, 56 millions in 1862, and 65 millions in 1863. Of these, three millions were sent to England in 1861, five millions in 1862, and ten millions in 1863. Our manufacturers are, therefore, more skilful than they think; they have acquitted themselves as Frenchmen always do, when competing with foreigners in the great applications of intelligence and genius. The woollen interest was also greatly alarmed; it had always been protected till the Treaty of Commerce. Roubaix, Elbœuf, and Tourcoing, were afraid of the competition which was destined to show their superiority. In 1861 England sent to France woollen goods to the value of 15,900,000f., 34 millions in 1862, and 21 millions only in 1863. Before the Treaty of Commerce France exported woollen tissues to England, and the average value in the three years previous to the treaty was 32 millions. These exports rose to 65 millions in 1862, and to 75 in 1863. So that, while the English imports diminished, the French exports have increased. According to all the trade reports, and the opinions of the most competent judges, the superiority of Elbœuf, Roubaix, and Tourcoing, is great and indisputable. The Treaty of Commerce has therefore revealed to France the strength of her productive powers. Our hemp and linen manufacturers also dreaded the competition of English products. Our exports in this branch have nevertheless greatly increased. They were 16 millions in 1850, but reached 37 millions in 1863. ..

"The experiment has been made, and the industries menaced have held their ground against English competition, they have been developed at home under the protection still afforded them, and abroad without protection. For you must not lose sight of the fact that, if you can protect industry at home, you cannot do so in the world at large, and recollect, that if France is a great market, the world is a still larger one, and you cannot maintain your place there without resolutely entering on the path of competition and liberty. There lies our path in the future. I will conclude with a remark which is connected with politics and the wishes you have often expressed. We have lately heard much of peace within these walls. Well, do not forget that the multiplicity of exchanges and national independence are the best guarantees of solid and durable peace.

At the sitting of the Corps Législatif on the 22nd of January, M. Granier de Cassagnac, in reply to M. Jules Simon, said he considered the press as a dangerous power, and as an institution to which no strong Government should grant liberty, but only a toleration, regulated by the Administration. "Cowardly Governments," he said, "have alone been able to believe in the liberty of the press and this liberty has overthrown them." M. de Cas