« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
arrangements should be entered into be- , the present Government ever think that it tween the two Powers on the basis of reci- inferred the necessity of reducing the duty procity and mutual convenience, that en- on Spanish wines ? Never for one moment. gagement is as much in force now as at any Therefore your Lordships see, that Treaty, former time; but that as there is no reci- which might have been signed, and would procity they are not bound by the provisions have been signed, had it not been for the of the Treaties to which my noble Friend unfortunate events of the year 1840, which refers. And so throughout we are met | meet us so frequently in our relations with a denial of the validity of any of these with France that Treaty would have existing Treaties ; and to the extent to been concluded, the duty on French wines which my noble Friend would press inter- would have been greatly lowered, and the pretation of them, this country has adopted duty on Spanish wines would have been a the same right of construing them as Spain matter of negotiation with Spain, whether had done ;-such has been the case on va- it should be reduced or not. So far adrious occasions. For instance, my noble vanced was that Treaty, that the late Friend says, that Spain has the same Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in claim to be treated in British ports as the the House of Commons the loss he expected subjects of the most favoured nation. Very to the Revenue in consequence of the rewell. We make a reciprocity Treaty with duction of the duty on French wines from France—we admit French ships into Bri- that Treaty. Still more recently a Treaty tish ports as English ships- would Spain was under negotiation with Portugal; that think of making such a demand? Ac. Treaty arrived very nearly to completion ; cording to the argument of my noble unfortunately, at last, circumstances renFriend, Spain would have a right to de- dered it impossible to conclude it, but it mand that Spanish ships should be admitted had advanced very nearly to the point of into British ports upon as favourable terms conclusion; a large reduction of duty as French ships are admitted.
on Portugal wines was stipulated in that The Earl of Clarendon : On the same Treaty; but was it ever imagined for a conditions.
moment that that could necessarily infer a The Earl of Aberdeen : No, it is not on reduction in the duty on Spanish wines? the same conditions. Their claim is to Never. It is very probable that a Comstand on the footing of the most favoured mercial Treaty would have been made nation, without reference to conditions. with Spain ; and I well recollect that the That is quite a different subject. But they Spanish Minister of that day, a very excelmake no such demand ; and for a very good lent and enlightened person, used to come reason. Of course, they could not make to me repeatedly, with the greatest anxiety, such a demand, because they impose heavy to know the progress of our Treaty with discriminating duties on our shipping. But, Portugal; because, he said, if we succeeded nevertheless, if the argument of my noble in concluding a Treaty with Portugal, he Friend were sound, it would entitle Spa- had no doubt we should compel Spain to nish ships to be received in English ports enter into a Commercial Treaty with us, as favourably as French ships. That would, which he was most anxious to see effected. undoubtedly, be the consequence of his ar. But it was only as the result of negotiagument if it were sound. I think that this tion and a Commercial Treaty, that he is decisive with respect to the large claim looked to any such a result; he never imaput forward by the Spanish Minister, and gined that because we reduced the duty on supported by my noble Friend. I would Portugal wines, therefore Spain would beg, however, to ask a question of my have a right to claim an equal reduction. noble Friend, who, I believe, had some Such a thought never entered into his concern in the transaction to which I am imagination. My Lords, there are various about to refer ; at all events, it is perfectly other instances in which this country has well known that Her Majesty's late Go- acted thus in the interpretation of these vernment had proceeded very far in nego- Treaties, besides those to which I have adtiating a Commercial Treaty with France; verted. My noble Friend relies on the that Commercial Treaty I myself took up Treaty of 1667 as giving the Spanish Miand carried also nearly to the point of con. nister (although he does not refer to it by clusion. Well, that Commercial Treaty name, yet it is embodied in the Treaty of stipulated for a a very large reduction in the Utrecht, word for word, and therefore fornis duty on French wines, but did my noble part of it-my noble Friend relies on that Friend, did the late Government, or did Treaty of 1667 as placing Spain on the footing of the most favoured nation. Why, only, and for other services, the Spanish Governtwenty years after the conclusion of that ment proposed to admit this country to Treaty of 1667, in the first year of the reign exclusive privileges in that trade; but of James II., in 1686, when that 'Treaty must these proposals were invariably declined ; have been supposed to be at least as well and all that was stipulated for and exactunderstood, so shortly after its conclusion, ed, was to be admitted to an equal footing as it can be now, the Parliament of that with other countries. But this engageday imposed a duty of 81. a tun on French ment on the part of Spain, it must be obwine, and 121. per tun on Spanish and all served, is unilateral. There is no corre. other wines. Undoubtedly, this country sponding engagement on our part. You acted in the full exercise of its discretion in may say that is ungenerous and illiberal; the application of these respective duties. but such is the fact; and I do not see that But, still later, until a very recent period, in the circumstances in which we were the duty on Spanish tobacco was 6s. per placed in relation to Spain at that time, pound, while the duty on United States there was anything unreasonable in the tobacco was only 4s.; and this continued demand, even although we did make it in till 1822, when a general equalization of reference to that concession. At the same the duties took place. I may just mention time, we entered into a stipulation with another proof, which applies to Spanish Spain, which I hope they will also observe, wines as compared with Portugal wines. although I have seen some indications of a From the time of the Methuen Treaty design elsewhere to defeat it. By a separate down to 1787, there was a duty of 11. per Article of the Treaty of 1814, we did extun on Spanish wine higher than levied on act that the Family Compact should never Portugal wine; and the duties on Spanish be renewed, nor any Treaty resembling it. and Portugal wines were equalized in The engagement in 1814 was, that when 1787, and continued equal to the present the Spanish Colonial trade was opened, we time, with the exception of the interval should stand on the footing of the most between the 5th of July, 1809, and the favoured nation. In the year 1824, by a 1st of January, 1813, during which period decree of the Spanish Government, the trade an additional duty of 12l. per tun was lea with the Spanish Colonies was nominally vied on Spanish red wine, which was re-opened. It is perfectly true, as my noble pealed by the 53rd George III. There- Friend observed, that before this, England fore, there is no doubt we have repeatedly, had, although not officially, in the last die constantly, and in every mode, exercised an plomatic form, yet practically, recognised entire discretion in the relative proportion the independence of the Spanish Colonies. of duties imposed on Spanish produce. My Consuls had been appointed: the Spanish noble Friend says that still, after the Colo- Government were informed that the formal nial trade was opened, we were bound to recognition could not be long delayed; and admit the produce of Spain on the footing then the Decree of 1824 was issued—but of the most favoured nation ; and my noble not in compliance with the Treaty of 1814 Friend has given a representation of the —not at all. The Decree was issued when mode in which the condition for admitting the Spanish Government thought proper ; England to trade with the Spanish Colo- when they thought it would suit their own nies, was exacted from the Spanish Govern- convenience or the necessity of the case ; ment.
I am not here to say anything and when they had done so, as a matter of about the liberality or generosity of impos- course, and in consequence of the stipulaing such a condition; at the same time, I tion, they were adınitted to whatever was must say, that after the great services ren- granted to others on that occasion. But I dered to Spain previously, I suppose it may must say, that so little did it appear that any have been considered a not very unreason obligation was imposed upon Great Britain able return, to stipulate that if the Spanish in consequence of this so-called concession, Colonial trade were opened at all, this that until the year 1828, no return whatcountry should enjoy equal advantages ever was made by this country to the conwith other nations ; the truth of the matter cessions so acquired in 1824; and even in being, that Spain, on more than one occa- the year 1828, when the Order in Council sion, had offered to this country to admit was issued, it did not confer on Spain the England to exclusive privileges in the Co- full privileges of Colonial trade, but was lonial trade.
More than once, in con- couched in terms much less favourable than si jeration of assistance rendered to Spain were applied to several other nations. It for the recovery of her revolted Colonies, merely sanctioned a trade between the Co
lonies of Spain and the Colonial possessions “All rights, privileges, and immunities of Great Britain. His noble Friend (the which have been conferred on the subjects or Earl of Clarendon) said that the Spanish ships of Great Britain by the existing CapituGovernment did not remonstrate on that lations and Treaties, are confirmed now and sion, because they were ignorant of
for ever, except in as far as they may be spe
cifically altered by the present Convention; their rights. That is a strange reason to and it is moreover expressly stipulated, that allege; it is not very likely to have been all rights, privileges, or immunities which the the case with Spain. As far as I have al- Sublime Porte now grants, or may hereafter ways seen, no country is more ready to make grant, to the ships and subjects of any other large pretensions than the Spanish Govern- Foreign Power, or which it may suffer the ships ment. My noble Friend certainly may and subjects of any other Foreign Power io call this special pleading; but the question enjoy, shall be equally granted to, and exeris the correct interpretation of the Treaty; of Great Britain."
cised and enjoyed by, the subjects and ships and as this is a compact, of course it must be strictly examined and interpreted. I And there are various passages to the same have shown you how the relations be- effect; and after all, there are additional tween the two countries have been under- | Articles to the Treaty itself, in which it is stood, and the Treaties acted upon by both provided that all articles being the growth, parties; and I, therefore, see nothing in produce, or manufacture of the United the present relation of the two countries Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which can possibly justify Spain in claim and its dependencies, and all merchaning as a right the admission of her produce dise brought in British vessels, being the into British ports, which my noble Friend property of British subjects, shall be so puts forth. My Lords, I will now say a admitted. So that there are some Jarge few words on the last part of my noble concessions to subjects and their ships and Friend's speech, in which he treats with goods; but they do not include produce ineffable contempt the distinction which without reference to ownership, and that has been drawn between the rights granted is the reason why, in the Treaty with the to subjects of a State, and the manner in United States, there is an Article giving which the produce of that State is regarded. \ large privileges to subjects and inhabitants Now, in the first place, I must observe, of the countries, their ships and goods ; that the Treaties with Spain to which my yet the Second Article provides that the noble Friend has referred, and all the duties imposed in the ports of Britain in Treaties of that day, are framed on a very Europe on articles the growth and produce different basis from what exists at present. of the United States, shall not be higher These Treaties stipulate in favour of personal than those imposed upon those of other privileges, and they have no reference to countries, this Article being quite irrespecgoods, except as connected with the persons tive of the privileges granted to subjects. possessing and dealing with those goods. So with Venezuela : Venezuela at first By those Treaties, Spanish subjects were claimed exemption on the ground of her entitled to enjoy all the same privileges as sugar being free grown; and I hope that the subjects of any other foreign country; in a very short time it will be so; but, upon whether in respect of their persons, their inquiry, our Government considered that ships, or their goods; but with the pro- it could not be strictly called free-grown duce apart from the ownership of it these sugar, and the demand of Venezuela was Treaties have nothing to do. They have consequently refused. Venezuela then put no reference to it. For instance, they say forward a claim founded upon this particuthat any article whatever owned by a lar Article of the Treaty, which provides Spaniard, shall pay on coming into this that no higher duties shall be imposed country no more duty than the same ar- upon the produce and manufactures of l'eticle owned by a Frenchman; but they nezuela, than was imposed upon those of the leave it entirely free to us to provide that most favoured nations ; and their claim the wine of Spain, for example, shall pay was at once conceded ; and, I think, if it twice as much as the wine of France, if was not so, it would lead to much confuonly it pays no more when in the hands of sion and to absurd consequences ; because, a Spaniard, than when in the hands of a on what is the claim of my noble Friend Frenchman. The modern Treaties show founded? It must be founded at least on that this distinction is real. Take the the relation to the subjects of the King of Turkish Treaty of 1838, which is one of Spain, who had this right; but this right, the most recent. The Sublime Porte under the Treaties, applying to Spanish grants
subjects, has no reference to British sub-, Treaty at all. He would ask any person jects; because if Spanish subjects in Cuba of common sense who read the Treaty, were to have this right under the Treaty, whether on the face of it Spain was not to it is clear that only Spanish subjects were be entitled to all the advantages of the intended to have it, and not British sub- most favoured nation ? He (Lord Radnor) jects. So that, suppose you admit, under read as a man of common sense, and he the Treaty, my noble Friend's right of found that the Treaties of 1667 and 1713 Spanish subjects, at the same time, under had been revived up to 1786. But the noble the operation of the same Treaty, you ex- Earl said that was not his argument toclude the claim on the part of British sub- day--that the Treaty of 1670 overturned jects. Now, that is reducing it to an ab- that of 1667. It did so in a particular surdity; it is impossible that it could be so point, and in that point only. But if their intended. Therefore, it is clear, that the Lordships looked at the Treaty of 1670, it right was personal in its character, and did said nothing of the produce of the Spanish not apply to proluce separate from owner- Colonies not being brought to the United ship. I can only say that the subject has Kingdom; and it was a curious fact, that been carefully considered by Her Majesty's in the book laid by Her Majesty's comGovernment with reference to the tenor mand before their Lordships, the Treaty of of the Treaties; and my noble Friend would 1670 was given in part only, and those fall into an error if he should suppose that parts referred to by the Duke of Sotomayor this has been unadvisedly done, and that did not appear. The Treaty said nothing the Treaties have been newly discovered by of the produce of the Spanish West us, and the effect and operation of them. India Colonies not coming to the terAi to the wisdom, or policy, or generosity, ritories of the King of Great Britain ; it or liberality, of the proceeding, that is a prevented the sailing of vessels from the matter which may be discussed if necessary, mother country to the Colonies, but it did at another time ; but, I must say, that ac- not prevent the bringing of the produce of cording to the strict and authorized inter- the Colonies to the mother country. With pretation of Treaties, we have done nothing respect to the latter part of the noble Lord's which is not just. I do not lay any claim argument, it justified what appeared to him to a liberal or a generous interpretation of a great injustice. Could any one of comthe Treaties; but I say it is a justifi- mon sense believe that the Treaty did not able interpretation with reference to the intend, in speaking of subjects of a State, policy which Her Majesty's Government “ their " produce and “their "trade? No have adopted, and which has been sanc- man of common sense, in his opinion, in tioned by this House and by Parliament. reading the Treaty, would not put a difThere is nothing in the interpretation of ferent interpretation from that put upon it those Treaties which I do not think per by the noble Earl. fectly justifiable, and borne out by the The Earl of Clarendon, in reply, said, letter of the Treaties themselves, and by his noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) the conduct of both parties for a long series had stated that Spain had always denied of years; and this being the case, I do not the right which the Treaty gave us; but think that we are at all liable to the impu- he (Lord Clarendon) could show the contation of my noble Friend, and I must op- trary, from his own personal experience. pose his Motion.
During the civil war, he had heen in Spain, The Earl of Radnor said, that the course and he had, by means of the Treaty, preof the argument of the noble Earl was dif- vented forced loans being exacted from ferent from that which he had employed in British subjects resident in Spain. He had his correspondence with the Duke of Soto- in bis possession a very magnificent piece of mayor. With respect to the Treaties, ac- plate which had been presented to him by cording to the noble Earl's interpretation, the British merchants for preventing their the Treaty of 1667 had been set at nought being subjected to forced loans, solely on nineteen or twenty years after; and yet he the ground of the Treaty. His noble (Lord Radnor) found in the book which Friend had said that the duties on Spanish had been laid on the Table of the House wines had been increased at certain times; by command of Her Majesty, that that but these were the wipes of places east of Treaty had been renewed over and over | Malaga, in order to defray the expense of again till 1783. What was the meaning resisting the Algerian and Mediterranean of Treaties if they were to be held of no pirates. He agreed with the noble Earl avail ? It would be better to have no behind him, that there was a difference be
tween the arguments used by his noble, not wefore the House was that of Friend to the Duke of Sotomayor, and in amount paid to each Commissioner. his speech to-night, which was somewhat Sir C. Napier said, that before he rein the tu quoque style—that the Treaty ceived his half-pay he was obliged to make had been so often set at nought by Spain a declaration ; and he did not see why and by ourselves, that it was no matter these gentlemen should not be subjected how often it was violated. With respect to the same test before they received their to the fine distinction of his noble Friend salaries. about persons and produce, he appealed Mr. Warburton saw no use in the de. to their Lordships whether, although his claration. noble Friend had said that the process of Lord Ashley said, that the treasurer's reasoning he employed had led his mind to accounts were a sufficient guarantee of the the conclusion, they were not convinced, rectitude of the payments, and for the as he (Lord Clarendon) was, that the con- travelling expenses there was also sufficient clusion was not his own, by which he had
evidence. adopted an opinion not very satisfactory in Mr. T. Duncombe said, that they ought respect to the interpretation of the old to have paid Commissioners, responsible Treaties, or to the spirit of the new ones. to the Government and the country, and Resolved in the Negative.
not men who were part amateurs, and House adjourned.
part professional, and who were responsible io nobody. Before they passed this
clause, which made the Commission perHOUSE OF COMMONS.
manent, they ought to have evidence ihat Tuesday, July 15, 1845.
the Commissioners had hitherto done their
duty. He asserted that they had not. MInutzs.] Bills. Public.—10. Highways; Fees Cri- He thought they ought 10 see if they
minal Courts) ; Real Property (No. 2); Stamp Duties, I could not bave a better Commission formed Reported.—Coal Trade (Port of London); Geological Sur-than at present existed. He would not vey; Church Building Acts Amendment; Unclaimed press his Motion for the postponement of Stock and Dividends ; Criminal Jurisdiction of Assistant Barristers (Ireland); Bail in Error; Lunatic Asylums the clause, but would call upon the Chair. (Ireland),
man to read the clause at length. 3o. and passed :-Borough and Watch Rates ; Art Unions
Mr. V. Smith defended the conduct of (No. 2).
the Commissioners generally, and espePrivate.-90. Darby Court (Westminster). Reported -Epping Railway (No. 2).
cially with respect to the case of Mr. 34. Shrewsbury and Holyhead Road.
Percival. PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Pringle, from Presbyteries of Selkirk, and Forres, against the Universities (Scot
Mr. Christie trusted the noble Lord land) Bill.– From Inhabitants of Burnley, for Inquiry would not only be induced to reconsider into the Anatomy Act. - By Mr. T. Duncombe, from John Miller, late of Clerkenwell, but now of Brighton,
the present clause, but the effect of the against Lunatics' Bill. — By the Lord Advocate, from Bill allogether. He was sorry that his Alexander Bryce, Senior Magistrate of Canongate, in fa hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury did vour of Poor Law Amendment (Scotland) Bill. - By Mr. | 0. Morgan, from Inhabitants of Aberdare, residing near
not mean to press his Motion for postthe Aberdare Iron Works, for exempting Iron Works poning the clause. from Operation of the Smoke Prohibition Bill.-By Mr.
Mr. Wakley felt convinced that the Pringle, from Presbytery of Lauder, in favour of Turnpike Roads (Scotland) Bill.
present Commission would never work
well. He objected even to three ComThe Honse met at twelve o'clock.
missioners, believing that one Commis
sioner, who should be responsible to the Lunatics.] House in Committee on 1 Home Office for his actions, would do more the Lunatics Bill.
good than three or even eleven CommisOn Clause 3, relative to the appoint- sioners, of which the present Commission ment of ibe Commissioners,
was composed. He thought that amateur Mr. T. Duncombe said, that this clause Commissioners could never do that good had better be postponed until they had for the public that one properly paid got the returns from the Inspectors in Lu. Commissioner could do. It had been asnacy of the cost of visiting the several serted that insanity was a purely mental houses, and their state ; but this was a malady; now he asserted that in nine part of the plan of keeping the House in cases ont of ten it arose from disease. the dark.
case of insanity without Lord Ashley said, that the only return structural derangement. He trusted that