Slike strani
PDF
ePub

;

selves with that power against which na ture designed us as a balance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had animadverted upon his right hon. friend, Mr. Fox. When animadversion was accompanied with wit, the satire was softened though severe but when gross, miserable, and stupid abuse made up the whole of what was urged, the effect was lost, and the shaft recoiled on the person who threw it. The right hon. gentleman (said Mr. Burke) dwells with some degree of pleasantry on the short time he had the mortification to sit on this side the House, and in the plenitude of present power, triumphs in that pre-eminence which he now enjoys; but let me tell the right hon. gentleman, that the difference between this side of the House, and that, is as opposite as the equator to the pole. There is a great gulph divides us, and I am proud to say, that the ladder by which we aspire to climb the height of power, is supported by integrity, consistency, and sound policy. We have no merrymen to distribute our quack medicines; bishopricks to bestow after bishopricks, or embassies upon embassies. After animadverting with great force on the conduct of Administration, and drawing a ludicrous comparison between the coalition of lord North, and that of Mr. Eden, he pointed out in severe terms the apostacy of the latter.

strongly interwoven with censure and disapprobation. However, as he wished to stand well with the House, he would only appeal to their recollection, whether, in the numerous debates in which he had taken a part, he was ever known to have proceeded to personalities? The other side of the House might laugh if they thought proper; but he was too much accustomed to that species of insult, not to be able to bear it with patience; and, indeed, he addressed himself to the member who preceded him in the debate, and not to the chorus which surrounded him.

Mr. Wilberforce confessed, that the right hon. gentleman who spoke last, had frequently in his happier days arrested his attention by the great abilities which so eminently distinguished him; but he was sorry, in the present instance, to find that his temper so far forsook him, as to lead him into a warmth of argument but ill suited to the important business now in agitation. The hon. gentlemen over the way contended for the little space of one week. They were either asking too little or too much. So short a period might possibly throw a radiance of light, which the powerful voice of the right hon. gentleman would nevertheless find it difficult to illumine into a flame. Mr. Wilberforce concluded by observing, that no petitions had been sent from the manufacturing towns, and that he did not see why the Treaty should not be concluded with all possible dispatch.

Mr. Burke answered, that the compliments which were so undeservedly bestowed on him he would forbear to return, as their scope and meaning were so

Mr. Pitt said, that he should not have troubled the House again, if he had not been called upon to answer a question which was pressed upon him, relative to our negociations with Portugal. As to the torrent of invective which had been so illiberally thrown out, he would not condescend to answer it; nor would he even now have deigned to advert to it, if he had not heard the flimsy justification on which the right hon. gentleman that moment excused himself. The manner in which it was delivered, there were few who wished to recollect; and the matter was the more unjustifiable, as whatever personality appeared before in the debate, did not by any means take its rise from him. In abuse and personality to contend with such an opponent, was very far beyond his powers, and much more beyond his wishes: there were some occasions, indeed, when he found himself warm in debate; and for the most natural of all reasons-having so many topics of discussion in which he was materially interested, and peculiarly agitated; but such intemperate, gross, abusive, and outrageous language as had that day been made use of, surpassed, beyond comparison, the most violent and injurious expression which ever escaped the lips even of that right hon. gentleman, and consequently of any other person who ever spoke within those walls. For his own part, he avoided, even in the most hasty moments, the introduction of personality; not so much from an apprehension of the consequences which might flow from it, and the no less so, when the vengeance was to be taken by the person to whom he alluded. Whenever he met a man whose conduct had produced an unfortunate change of character, and whose ill-temper and spleen were proportioned to the disappointments experienced and the odium which surrounded him, however such a man might

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

be inclined by abuse and malevolence to reduce other characters to a level with the wretchedness of his own-though such a situation might lay claim to his compassion, that sentiment must naturally be blended with a portion of disgust.

A call of Order! order!' prevailed, and Mr. Fox requested an answer to his question, when

Mr. Pitt assured the House, that so far from a peremptory refusal having been given to our negociator at the Court of Portugal, a commission was now actually made out, giving the British ambassador powers and instructions to that purpose.

The question being put on the original motion, the House divided: Yeas 213; Noes 89. Lord G. Cavendish's amendment was consequently rejected. Sir Francis Basset then moved, That the House be called over on this day fortnight, which was rejected without a di

vision.

Debate on Mr. Fox's Motion respecting the State of our Trade with Portugal.] Feb. 9. Mr. Fox observed, that it gave him pleasure to assure the House, that he should trespass but a short time upon their patience, as the documents for which he meant to move, went merely to the situation of our present, and the probable state of our future trade with Portugal, which though an object essentially necessary to be known in that House, previous to their coming to any decision upon the Commercial Treaty with France, yet, as far as it opened a field for argument, could only be considered in one of these two points of view, viz. Whether before we had entered into a Commercial Treaty with a new customer, we had taken care to secure our connexion with an old and valuable one; or in case of not having done so, whether having made a Treaty with France we were likely to keep our connexion with Portugal, our old customer, if the Treaty was to be commercially considered; our old ally, if the Treaty was to be considered politically; or solely trusted to putting ourselves exclusively into the hands of France, both as a customer, and not an ally, for that she certainly could not be called, but as a new political friend..

These were the heads under which every argument upon the subject must range; and the better to make himself understood by the House, he would point out the three periods of time, at which the

Treaty with Portugal could alone have been made, but at each of which periods undoubtedly there was a material difference in point of ease and advantage. The first of these periods was that of all others most desirable, because it must have been free from every imputation, either on the score of impolicy or suspicion of any kind whatever; the last of the three periods was certainly open to a proportion of suspicion; but he really thought, that though some suspicion might at first attach to it, in a very short time that might be done away: but there was between these two periods, an intermediate period, of a very doubtful and suspicious nature indeed, and that of all others was the most objectionable. The period most advantageous of the three, obviously was, that prior to the conclusion of a Treaty with France. Had a Treaty with Portugal been secured and settled at that moment, it would have manifested a fairness and a decency on our part to an old ally; and it would have exhibited a good example of the dignity of this country, by showing, that before we entered into new treaties, or sought for new friends, we took care to secure the continuance of our old connexions. At that time, therefore, in his mind, the Treaty with the court of Lisbon ought to have been adjusted, because he never could be brought to admit, that our commercial connexion with Portugal ought to be blended with, or make any part of the measure of a Commercial Treaty with France, though the converse of the proposition might be true, and indeed was so. The next best period for making a Treaty with the Court of Lisbon, was subsequent to the parliamentary sanction and final carrying into effect the Commercial Treaty with France, and after the reduction of Portugal wines, according to the reserve made in the 7th article of the French Treaty. That period, as he had before said, was certainly not so free from objection as the former one; but most objectionable was the intermediate period, namely, that between the signing the French Treaty, and the Parliament of Great Britain giving it their sanction, and engaging to carry it into execution. In order to illustrate this assertion, and explain more fully what he meant, Mr. Fox went into a good deal of argument to prove, that if Portugal should, through any perverseness, or ill-judging obstinacy, (which Heaven forbid should be the case!) refuse to continue the same con

تو

nexion with us that had subsisted between the two countries under the Methuen Treaty ever since the year 1703, France would, in that case, derive a great additional advantage from us, for which we neither should have an equivalent, nor could claim one.

He knew that some doubts had arisen as to the right construction of the Methuen Treaty as a minister, when in office, he had felt it to be his duty to negociate it one way, but he was aware that the Court of Lisbon had contended that Irish woollens were not comprehended under the Methuen Treaty. [Mr. Pitt said across the table, if the right hon. gentleman acted one way as a negociator when in office, he hoped he would not lend the weight of his authority the other way, now he was not in office]. Mr. Fox said, if the right hon. gentleman had heard him to the end of his sentence, he was sure he would not have thought what he meant to have expressed, to have been wrong, or injudicious, or ill-timed. What he was proceeding to say, was this, that the Court of Lisbon had contended that Irish woollens were not comprehended within the meaning of the Methuen Treaty; but that was an idle and a mistaken notion. The spirit of the Methuen Treaty undoubtedly went to Irish as well as British woollens; and to lay down any distinction between the two, was narrow and impolitic, and by no means consonant with that generous and liberal line of conduct that the Court of Lisbon and the Court of London should mutually take care to follow, respecting the concerns of each other. His opinion was, and that an opinion founded on conviction, that Portugal was bound to listen to the complaints of our merchants, and that it was the duty of ministers to take care to enforce their just demands, so as to have the Methuen Treaty observed as to its spirit, rather than as to its mere letter. On our part we ought to act with equal liberality, and rather grant to Portugal more than she could claim by treaty than less. Upon that principle the two countries might continue connected and be useful friends to each other. If Portugal should, either by the influence of other powers, or the perverseness of her own ministers, break with us entirely, and an end should be put to the Methuen Treaty, we should lose a useful friend, and should undoubtedly feel the loss; but Portugal would soon find, that she had acted rashly and injudiciously, that she had injured herself most essen

tially by breaking her old connexion, and that no new commercial treaty she could enter into or conclude, could possibly prove in every point of view so serviceable and so advantageous to her, as her connexion with this country had proved. In that light, he had uniformly considered the Methuen Treaty and the connexion between Great Britain and Portugal; and so, he believed, every man who knew any thing of the commercial interests of the two countries must have considered them.

Mr. Fox next proceeded to show the disadvantages of putting the finishing hand to the French Treaty, by Parliament coming to a vote upon it before they knew what would be the state of our trade with Portugal. The principles of the French Treaty were reciprocity of advantage in respect to commerce; not that each country was to do the same thing exactly in respect to each commercial commodity, because that would be im. possible; but where the duty was lowered upon any commodity in one country, an equivalent was to be granted by the other. But if the Treaty with France was sanctioned without knowing what was to be done with Portugal, we must remain in the dark, and might eventually give France an advantage for which we neither had the prospect of an equivalent, nor could set up any claim to one. Mr. Fox explained this, by putting the case, that Portugal should, either through her own perverseness, or the influence France was known to have over the Court of Lisbon, be so unwise as to refuse to come into any treaty wity Great Britain: in that case, we certainly should not lower the duty on Portugal wines, and then France would positively have a material advantage, in addition to the advantage already given by stipulation in the Treaty; for which additional advantage, we should not have a right to claim an equivalent. Thus France would be in the condition of a person purchasing an estate with a mine upon it, without having paid for the mine. Would not every man, in that case, blame the seller of the estate, for not having ascertained, whether there was a mine upon or not, before he sold the estate? The case stood exactly in that manner between Great Britain and France: if Portugal broke with us, France would have all the benefit, without having stipulated to give. any equivalent to this country. Mr. Fox put this very forcibly; and then mentioned, as another probable inconvenience, that if

it

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

we should lower the duty on Spanish wines, France would have a right to call upon us to make the same reduction in the duties on the French wines, because we had stipulated that her wines should come in upon as low duties as were paid on the wines of any country, except the wines of Portugal. The validity of this argument would be seen by reading the sixth, the seventh, and eleventh articles of the French Treaty. Mr. Fox said, that if the object he aimed at, which he hoped he had made sufficiently clear to the right hon. gentleman, could be obtained by any other motion, he was ready to alter it, though he could not give up his argument, as he conceived nothing could be more evident than the grounds he had rested it upon. Mr. Fox explained why he had selected 1782 as the date from which the papers were to be made out. He said, he would not go so far back as 1758, when the merchants began to complain of the conduct of the Court of Portugal as to the non-observance of the Methuen Treaty; but fixed upon 1782, as more modern, at the same time that it was not so modern, as to be a period that interfered with negociations of a nature too recent to be touched upon. He concluded with moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, humbly to desire, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this House, copies or extracts of the Instructions that have been given to his Majesty's ministers in Portugal since the first of May 1782, respecting the Complaints of the British merchants: As also the Answer or Answers of the Court of Portugal to the Representations which have been made in consequence of such Instructions, with the several dates of the said Instructions and Answers."

Sir Grey Cooper said, that no consideration should have induced him to second the motion, if it did not appear to him to stand on fair parliamentary ground, and if the right hon. gentleman had not, in his opinion, made a good case for this interposition, before the great and momentous question of the Commercial Treaty with France was brought into deliberation. In the preliminary and incidental conversation on the subject, which was now, for the first time, brought directly and regularly before the consideration of the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had informed them, that the negociation was now pending between Portugal and this

kingdom, and that he therefore could not, consistently with his duty as a minister, consent to the communication of any papers respecting the actual state of that negociation. This did not appear to him to be a satisfactory reason for the refusal of such a communication under all the circumstances of this case. With great deference, he thought the House was com. petent to inquire and to ask for information, in the course and during the pen. dency of any treaty or negociation, if it should have fair ground to believe, either from common fame, or by the disclosure of collateral circumstances, that any engagement was about to be made derogatory to the honour, or injurious to the interests of the nation. He was aware that ministers had generally resisted such inquiries before the conclusion of the treaty or negociation, under pretence, that the production of the papers called for, and the agitation of the debates upon them, might give advantage to the parties with whom his Majesty was at the moment making the contract, and might perplex and embarrass the King's ministers, when, perhaps, they were on the point of concluding an advantageous treaty for the kingdom. This mode of reasoning might, perhaps, bear with some force against motions for papers respecting political treaties, or treaties of commerce, which required no alteration of duties to give them validity and effect; but not for refusing the communication of papers, materially relating to treaties of commerce, which were not valid and effectual until duties should have been altered, and laws should have been passed, or in the case of treaties of subsidy, where the contract was to have no energy or effectual existence, until that House could have voted and granted money for the subsidy to the foreign sovereign, or the pay of the troops. The right hon. gentleman's father had opposed, with all the power of reason and eloquence, the subsidy treaties in 1755. Would he have suffered any minister to have told him, without indig nation, that the debate must be confined to the approbation or disapprobation of the treaties before the House? that it was not proper or regular to inquire whether the consent of the House to those treaties would not give umbrage to the other great allies of the nation, the Emperor and the king of Prussia, and bring on a general war, instead of preventing it? The signa ture and ratification of such treaties by the

sovereign, gave them no effect. They were to be considered merely as propositions recommended by the Crown to Parliament. It was the act and deed of that House, in the alteration of the duties, or the grant of the money for the subsidy, which gave such treaties effect; and the House was therefore responsible to their constituents for the consequences which might fall on their country by their consent to the propositions. They in a great degree exonerated the minister. He took this to be a solid distinction, and applied it to the case before them. It appeared to him to be the duty of the House, to endeavour to make the best use of the short interval allowed them, in obtaining every material information, touching any matter necessarily to be connected with the French Treaty, and every possible light to direct their steps, when they were hurried with such rapidity, not only to deliberate, but to give their judgment on the important question of the French Treaty. Without entering into the principle, or the detail of the French Treaty, which would be premature and irregular at that time, it must be confessed, by all the members of the House, and of the whole community, who were deeply interested in it, that it was an experiment of the greatest magnitude and extent, and that it was an innovation which made a wide alteration in a system, which had long prevailed in this country, and which had taken so deep a root, that the sudden disturbance and change of. it might shake and impair the foundation of the main pillars which supported the strength and power of the kingdom. The right hon. gentleman had said, in former debates, that the French Treaty might be considered and decided upon independently and separately from the present state of the negociation with Portugal. He owned, that it appeared to him, that the fate of the Methuen Treaty could never be totally separated from the votes in the committee on the French Treaty; and that if not directly, it must be virtually affected by those votes. If the right hon. gentleman would condescend to inform them, if he would give them papers to show that the power reserved in the close of the 7th article would be executed, in order to prevent the extinction of the Methuen Treaty, and that the grievances and complaints which our merchants had against the Court of Portugal for what they construed to be infractions of that Treaty, would be referred to com

missaries to be settled in the same manner as the grievances of the merchants stated during the course of the Treaty of Seville in 1729, he, for one, should be satisfied. The Treaties with Spain were confirmed as being very advantageous to the political and commercial interests of Great Britain; and the complaints and grievances were referred to the commissaries to be settled, and reparation made to the merchants. It was not the intention of this motion to put the minister under any disadvantage in the representation, and if they were founded in justice, in the demand of redress of those grievances. But let the great condition of the Treaty be preserved inviolable, and then let no time be lost in the examination of the complaints. The attention of the whole world was directed towards the Methuen Treaty. It was upon a motion laid before the House in 1713, under the title of " A Treaty with Por tugal for taking off the prohibition of the woollen manufactures of this kingdom." It was the shortest, it was the best Treaty we ever made. The Treaty had reference to the treaty made by Cromwell in 1654, by which the nation obtained great and extensive advantages of trade in the supply of Portugal, as well as the Brazils with its manufactures. In 1678 there was passed an Act for prohibiting for three years, and to the end of the next session of parliament, the importation of all French. commodities whatsoever. This prohibition continued to 1685, as no Parliament had been held from the dissolution in 1681; and at the end of the session, (at the accession of James 2,) it expired, and was not to be revived. In 1685 it appeared that woollen cloths were actually prohibited in Portugal; and Sir Grey admitted it was the year before the prohibition of the French trade expired: this prohibition in Portugal lasted for 19 years, and during that interval down to the Methuen Treaty, Portugal supplied her home market and her colonies with cloth of her own manufacture. This evidence was laid before the House in 1713, when the merchants and manufacturers were heard in the committee on the Bill in support of their petitions against the 8th and 9th Articles of the Treaty of Utrecht. The prohibition in 1684 was said to be a project of their great and patriot minister Conde d'Eveceira, to establish manufactures in his own country; and it was also said, that he was assisted in carrying his plan into execution, by the opening of the French trade

« PrejšnjaNaprej »