remained in force for a long series of years, and formed the basis of our customs' laws until a recent period, granted tonnage duties upon French wines imported into the port of London by British subjects of 47. 10s., and of 6l., if imported by aliens; upon the like wines at our out ports of 37., if imported by British subjects, and of 41. 10s. by aliens; upon Spanish wines imported into London by British subjects, 21. 5s.; by aliens, 31.; Spanish wines imported into any outport by British subjects, 21. 5s.; by aliens 31; upon Rhenish wine, into whatever port, if imported by British subjects, 11.; if by aliens, 17. 5s. There was also another tax imposed by the same measure upon exports, called poundage, which differed in like manner according as the exports were made by aliens or British subjects, between whom the House could not fail to observe there was throughout a desire to establish a distinction. Now, he felt convinced, that the interpretation he put upon the Treaties with Spain, viz., that they were intended only to secure, the interests of the subjects of the two countries respectively, was the correct one, and that the noble Lord's interpretation, which extended it to the produce of the two countries generally, was not the correct one. It was stipulated by England, that the goods of Spanish subjects should be treated in all respects the same as goods belonging to the subjects of the most favoured nation; but if the noble Lord's construction were the correct one, foreigners, who were the subjects of neither country, might import Spanish produce into England upon the same terms as could be imported by the subjects of Spain. The spirit of commercial legislation of that age generally, was to keep a monopoly of the trade of each country in the hands of its own subjects; therefore it was not likely that the King of Spain would stipulate that Spanish produce should be received by Great Britain from foreigners of whatsoever country, upon the footing of the most favoured nation; but what he stipulated for, no doubt, was, that Spanish produce belonging to Spanish subjects should be received on the footing of the most favoured nation. The spirit as well as the letter of the Treaty was in favour of that construction which the noble Lord treated so contemptuously. The noble Lord might urge that if his construction of the Treaty were too wide, it were better to err on the liberal side, and rather to put a construction too wide than too narrow upon any Treaty; but he would meet this argument by proceeding to show that if the noble Lord's construction of the Treaty was too wide as to imports, it was too narrow as to exports. How, for example, could it answer the purpose of the Spanish exporter of woollen cloth, that there should be a relaxation of the duties on the import of Spanish goods? Such a Treaty as we had with Venezuela would not be sufficient to answer the conditions under which trade was formerly carried on. It would not have met the enactment of the law by which the alien was taxed; and if the stipulations were interpreted in the sense of the noble Lord, they would, so far, be useless for Spanish subjects residing in England. He contended, then, that the rational construction of the Treaty was as much in favour of his views, and against that of the noble Lord, as was the literal one. Again, he would show that the distinction he had attempted to draw between the subjects of a country and its produce was not a mere fanciful one, but was supported by history. It was well known, he believed, that the Treaty with Portugal - the Methuen Treaty, had never been made the subject of evasion, and had never failed to cover those cases in regard to Portugal which it was now alleged the Spanish Treaties did not cover in reference to Spain. It had been effective for all its purposes. That Treaty provided that the wine of Portugal should pay a less customs' duty than was charged upon the wine of France. If this Methuen Treaty had been framed in the same terms as the Spanish Treaty, he admitted that would be a strong point in the noble Lord's favour; but if he could show that in that Treaty a form of expression altogether different was adopted, that was a strong though a negative argument in favour of the interpretation for which he (Mr. Gladstone) contended. By the second Methuen Treaty we were bound to admit the wines of Portugalnot of the subjects of Portugal, be it observed, into Great Britain at a rate of duty one-third below that which was charged upon French wines; and the Treaty further stipulated, that at no time and under no circumstances, whether there were peace or war between the kingdoms of Great Britain and France, should a higher rate of duty be demanded upon such wines, (not from such subjects, remember,) either as customs' duties or otherwise, and | admitted into Great Britain on equal terms whether imported in pipes, hogsheads, with those of the most favoured nation, bottles, or in any other way. The House and would be supported by the noble would observe, then, that when the object Lord's argument of to-night. But was was to secure a minimum duty on the pro- that the view of the noble Lord in 1837 ? duce of a country, a form of expression No such thing. Another clause was was adopted differing from that which was inserted with regard to produce. The to be found in the Spanish Treaties. noble Lord, wishing to provide for the Again, the Treaty entered into in 1787, produce of the two countries, did it by a by Mr. Pitt with France; that was a distinct stipulation properly framed for Treaty for the benefit of the subjects of the purpose, which he would proceed to Great Britain and France as to the duties quote: charged in respect to their goods, on the produce of either country, and the form of expression varied accordingly. He was going to quote another authority, to which he begged to call the attention of the noble Lord, because he was going to quote the noble Lord himself. He would show as plainly as possible, that in the Treaties concluded by the noble Lord, he recognised the distinction which he had called on the House that night to repudiate. He would take the Treaty which the noble Lord had concluded with the Netherlands in 1837, and which was to be found in the 5th volume of Hertslet. In this Treaty it was provided that" in matters of commerce and navigation," (and he had observed the triumph of the noble Lord when he noticed the word "commerce" in Spanish Treaties; that term, the noble Lord said, was so large, it covered every thing,) there should be hereafter granted to the subjects of the respective Sovereigns the same privileges which were granted to the subjects of the most favoured nations. The following was the Article: "No duty of customs or other impost shall be charged upon any goods the produce of one country, upon importation, by sea or by land, from such country into the other, higher than the duty or impost charged upon goods of the same kind the produce of or imported from any other country; and Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, do hereby bind and engage themselves, not to grant any favour, privilege, or immunity, in matters of commerce and navigation, to the subjects of any other State, which shall not be also, and at the same time, extended to the subjects of the other high contracting party, gratuitously, if the concession in favour of the other State shall have been gratuitous; and on giving as nearly as possible the same compensation or equivalent, in case the concession shall have been conditional." The First Clause was intended only to protect the persons of those subjects against demands; but not to protect the produce irrespective of ownership. He (Mr. Gladstone) had shown, therefore, that after the noble Lord had provided in 1837, in the largest terms, for the privileges of subjects, so sencom-sible was he then that this provision would not cover the produce of the country, that he inserted another clause, having that end in view. The " The village attorney" distinction was also recognised in the Treaty of Turkey of 1838. The First Article of the Treaty differed from the Article of the Treaty of the Netherlands in this respect, that it gave the privileges of the most favoured nation, not only to subjects, but to "There shall be reciprocal liberty of merce and navigation between and amongst the subjects of the two high contracting parties; and the subjects of the two Sovereigns respectively, shall not pay in the ports, harbours, roads, cities, towns, or places whatsoever in either kingdom, any other or higher duties, taxes, or imposts, under whatsoever names designated or included, than those which are there paid by the subjects of the most favoured nation; and the subjects of each of the high contracting parties shall en-ships :joy the same rights, privileges, liberties, fa"All rights, privileges, and immunities vours, immunities, and exemptions, in matters which have been conferred on the subjects or of commerce and navigation, that are granted, ships of Great Britain by the existing Capitu or may hereafter be granted, in either king-lations and Treaties, are confirmed now and dom, to the subjects of the most favoured nation." If that Article had stood alone, no doubt some plausible and able ex-Minister, 200 years hence, might argue that all articles the produce of that country, ought to be for ever, except in as far as they may be specifically altered by the present Convention; and it is moreover expressly stipulated, that all rights, privileges, or immunities which the Sublime Porte now grants, or may hereafter grant, to the ships and subjects of any other Foreign Power, or which it may suffer the ships and subjects of any other Foreign Power | exceptional privilege was in force when the to enjoy, shall be equally granted to, and exercised and enjoyed by, the subjects and ships of Great Britain." The very pointing out of "ships" made it clear what was the object of the contracting parties. The Articles also contained a stipulation that if hereafter better terms were granted to any other countries, Great Britain should have the benefit of them. But, notwithstanding that, although the Treaty was signed, he found a separate document added to the Treaty, under the name of Additional Articles." There was an Article providing that the produce of Great Britain should be admitted at the lowest duty of the most favoured nation. Its being appended to the Treaty in a separate instrument, showed more distinctly that the necessity for it was felt, and that it could not be treated as surplusage. Now the lowest duty paid by other nations was 3 per cent.; and on referring to the fifth volume of Hertslet, it would be seen that the Article provided that "All articles being the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and its dependencies, and all merchandise, of whatsoever description, embarked in British vessels, and being the property of British subjects, or being brought overland, or by sea, from other countries by the same, shall be admitted, as heretofore, into all parts of the Ottoman dominions, without exception, on the payment of 3 per cent. duty, calculated upon the value of such articles." They would observe that the Article stipulated not only for the produce of British subjects, but also for all produce owned by British subjects; therefore the object of the negotiators must have been to prevent its being supposed that the former Article was sufficient to carry all the stipulations in favour of " commerce." He had now illustrated the broad distinction of phraseology, which corresponded with the not less broad distinction of rights which the phraseology conveyed. He must now go to the evidence of facts; and again he entreated the attention of those who might be disposed, at first sight, to adopt the view of the noble Lord. He did not know how the noble Lord was to get over the facts he should adduce. He hoped they should have specific answers to them, and not generalities. The first of the Acts to which he would refer, was framed before 1667, and it gave a privilege to the wines of Madeira and of particular countries, which was not extended to Spain. That Treaty of 1667 was made, and they who put the construction of the noble Lord on that Treaty must show that that privilege was abrogated. In 1668, the very first year after the formation of the Treaty with Spain, they would find in Anderson's History of Commerce, that a differential duty was laid on Spanish wine, as compared with French wine. Anderson said, that "A duty of 4d. was imposed on every quart of French wine retailed, and of 6d. on every quart of Spanish or other wine." That might be intended to operate as a discouragement upon Spanish wine, and to tax it according to its strength. It might be said that it was a duty of excise; but in its bearing upon the Treaty, he wanted to know how they could reconcile it with their construction, if the stipulations extended to Spanish wines. That Treaty, made in 1667, was, according to the noble Lord, broken in 1668. That breach, if such it were, was not remonstrated against, and the Treaty was renewed very quietly in 1670. He had another example, and with respect to examples there might be hundreds of them. He had picked out such as he could find by very limited inquiry; they must not suppose it probable that these constituted the whole. In the first year of James II.-he had given a case before the Treaty, and he had given a case a year after the Treaty; he would now give one fifteen years after the Treatyin the first of James II., in 1685, when we came into the most dishonourably close relations with France, there was a disposition to form a differential taxation in her favour; and a duty was imposed upon French wine of Sl. a tun, whilst upon all other wines, Spanish wines included, a duty of 121. a tun was imposed. How did the noble Lord get over that circumstance? He wished that the noble Lord had read the history and the facts of the case, before he had made his ingenious speech. It was not a small differential duty. Here was a distinction of 4l. a tun on the wine; 8. a tun on French wine at the time when these Treaties of the noble Lord were in full vigour, and 127. a tun imposed on Spanish wine, and that without the smallest intention of going against the Treaty on our part, or the smallest complaint on the part of Spain. He would now take the case of Snuff. By the 12th George I.— "Snuff, if imported in British ships, is this day charging differential duties on certain goods. With regard to the dif ferential duties on Spanish ships in different ports, at seventy-one ports in Great Britain there were charges made on Spanish vessels over and above those made on British vessels. They were most unequal at different ports; but at Belfast, for instance, on a ship of 600 tons and upwards, the charge on a Spanish vessel was 6l.; on a British vessel, or on a French or a Swedish vessel, not a steamer, 21. 10s. At Hull, again, the difference of duty was as great as at Belfast. And, again, as respected goods, we had in exports all that distinction which attached on the nationality of the vessel. While a Turkish ship was allowed, not by Treaty, but by discretion, to carry coals free, a Spanish ship paid 4s. a ton, and no Power had questioned our right to levy that sum. There was also a trifling dif rated to pay 2s. 6d. in the pound from the, of Spain, and that they were also at plantations in America and the Spanish West Indies, and 5s. if imported from Italy, Spain, Portugal, and all other parts, except France." This as it stood appeared to give a favour to France not enjoyed by other countries; but as he was not certain that he was in possession of the whole case, he would not greatly rely on it, and only quoted it as an apparent instance in his favour. In 1784 Spanish wines paid a small sum more duty than Portuguese wines. According to M'Culloch, Spanish wine paid 4s. 10d. per gallon, and Portuguese 4s. 83d., Spanish wine paying 14d. more. In 1787, they came to Mr. Pitt's tariff, which imposed a number of differential duties, operating, of course, against Spain, as compared with France. He would show them that after America had become independent, and while these Treaties were in full vigour, Spanish tobacco was liable to pay, and did pay, a higher duty than American tobacco.ference with respect to refined sugar. The In a table which he held in his hand the following duties appeared: Duty on American Duty on Spanish or s. d. 3 0 3 2 13-20ths. 5 1 1796 1 3 2 6 6 5 5 5 0 bounty on the exportation of refined loaf sugar in British ships was 17. 4s. per cwt. ; in a Spanish ship, it was 1s. less. Therefore he had shown, with respect both to ships and to produce, proof that restrictive Acts were constantly passed by the Legislature in the case of Spain, with the perfect consent of Spain, and without the smallest taint on 4 19-20ths our honour. The produce of Spain, and even the ships of Spain, were taxed from time to time, according to the good will and pleasure of the British Parliament, which was not limited by any stipulations of Treaties, which were clearly shown to be irrelevant with reference to this subject. It might be said that the precedents he had shown were more on the side of England than of Spain. It might be said, that for a period of 200 years they had misconstrued the Treaty on the side of England. But he had already reminded the House of the Family Compact which had been entered into, by which Spain put the same construction on the Treaty that they had. They would admit that these Treaties had bound Spain to give to England the same footing as that of the most favoured nations; but the Family Compact said "no," France and Naples would be entitled to protest against it; and of the Family Compact he must observe, that it was undoubtedly at variance with the Treaties. The personal privileges which, as he contended, they guaranteed upon the footing of the most favoured nation, were the very privileges in which it granted peculiar and exclusive favour to Naples and to France. They would observe that he had now shown them an immense number of differential duties and privileges, reaching from 1663 to 1825. It might be said that was a good arrangement for us to act upon with the United States; but what came of the construction of the noble Lord with respect to tobacco? He had shown them that in many things, from a long continued stream of precedents to this hour, we laid on particular articles of Spanish produce a very much higher duty than we placed on the same articles coming from other dominions, which were, therefore, mere favoured nations with respect to this produce. [Mr. Ward: Was the tobacco in the same state?] In the same state. He had wearied the House with these instances; because he had shown a series of laws embodying from time to time provisions that perhaps could only be justified by what the noble Lord called "the village attorney's argument." He had told them that at this day they were charging differential duties on the ships VOL. LXXXII, With regard, then, to those privileges,, it had subsisted for 200 years, but as it stood there was considerable reason to think at the present day. Let it be remembered that the Family Compact was at complete that Spain was levying duties upon English variance with the noble Lord's construction ships which she did not impose upon the of those Treaties. By the consent of both vessels of France, even at the moment parties, these Treaties were allowed to go when her Envoy had presented the letter out of force; and if so, it could not now then upon the Table of the House. He be contended that they could bring them should certainly shrink from the responsiinto force again without the consent of bility of trying to force upon Spain such a both parties; and even if it were so argued, construction of those Treaties as that for he had shown that they would be utterly which the noble Lord had contended, in worthless, so far as supporting the noble opposition to the continued acts and the Lord's position-namely, equality of taxa- innumerable declarations of the organs of tion. There was one Article of these Government of both countries. He should Treaties that was remarkable, by reason of now proceed to examine what the results the solemn and peculiar language by which of the noble Lord's views would lead to; it was characterized in respect to its being and he thought he should be able to show made a provision for all times to come, by that the arguments urged by the noble wbich it declared that the subjects of Great Lord involved so much absurdity that they Britain should not be liable to pay any higher were actually fatal to his own interpretaduties in Spain, than those they were lia- tion of the Treaties. It was a rule in inble to pay in the reign of Charles II. of ternational law, long laid down, and always Spain. In the Treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, acted upon, that if a peculiar construction there was this singular expression-" His of a Treaty involved an absurdity, that the Catholic Majesty ordains now and in fu- very fact militated against the justice of ture, as an inviolable law,” &c. In the such construction. Now, he was prepared Treaty of Madrid, in 1750, the same ex- to show two consequences which must of pressions were used as to the inviolability necessity follow, if the interpretation put of the law. With regard, however, to this by the noble Lord upon the Treaties with so-called inviolable law, these duties of Spain were to be adopted and acted upon. Charles II. of Spain ceased to be in force The first of these results was the undoubtlong before the war commenced between ed one, that every reciprocity Treaty subGrent Britain and France, or France and sisting between England and any other Spain. These Treaties were incompatible country would be immediately cancelled with the construction put upon them by and rendered needless, or else there njust be a the noble Lord. In one place, this Treaty change made in the fundamental rules upon seemed to be equivalent to a limit of 10 which reciprocity Treaties were at present per cent. duty on the imports and exports based. The rule heretofore adopted as the of Spain. He was amused when he heard basis of reciprocity had been, that inasmuch the noble Lord say, - Don't force a con- as a British shipowner could not employ struction of the Treaty like this upon his ships under the heavy fines to which Spain ;” as if the noble Lord's construction they were liable on entering foreign ports, it could be enforced ! Did the noble Lord was therefore absolutely essential, in order think that the construction which he put that he might so employ them, that a reupon the Treaties, granted that mininum ciprocal Treaty should be entered into with duty which he argued in favour of, in those Foreign Powers, whereby those duurespect to British produce in Spain ? Now, ble duties were withdrawn. In all cases, he asked him, did he think that ihis country therefore, when reciprocity Treaties were would be justified in forcing the observ- entered into, Great Britain granted to the ance of his construction at the point of the ships of the Powers so treating, the same sword, and in the face of these Acts? privileges in her ports as were enjoyed by (Lord J. Russell: Spain seeks for i. ] her own ships, and received in return equal Yes; Spain seeks for it from us, but refuses advantages. But under the noble Lord's it to us. It was only lately that, in conse- construction of the Treaty with Spain, quence of events which had passed in this Denmark, which had Treaties country, Spain thought that there was a sponding, as he inclined to think, in subpoint to be raised-an opening for her to stance with those of Spain, would obtain all take advantage of-and she immediatelyprohe advantages of these reciprocity Treaties pounded a doctrine diametrically in opposi- on her side, without granting any in retion, not only to her own law and practice as turn, as he would show. Supposing the corre |