annual average of foreign trade in our | near 400.000l. though at present, exclusive of the Newfoundland fish, it did not much exceed 150,000l. a year. With North favour, the next inquiry was, from what countries this balance was drawn. He would not trouble their lordships with calculations, but with the results of calcu lations. He began with Holland. About the year 1745, our trade with Holland was at its height; it then gave us a ba lauce of near two millions a year. It was not now so great as it had been formerly, but was still the greatest we had, and for the last 40 or 50 years, we had annually gained about 1,400,000l. He knew not by what injudicious policy it had happened, in one country or in both, that the friendly intercourse between Great Britain and Holland had been interrupted; sure he was, that it would be for the interest of both parties to see it speedily restored, for he had been taught to look upon the Republic of Holland as one of our strongest barriers against the ambition of France. Let France, he said, by intrigue or violence, by secret negociation, or open aggression, once become possessed of the marine of Holland, in addition to her own, and there would be an entire end of our history as a great, a wealthy, and, what was above all, a free people. And as to Holland, her councils must be infatuated to a great degree, if she did not perceive that she could have no protection against the selfish machinations of continental despotism, but under the shield of Britain. He considered our trade with Germany as the next in importance, both with respect to its stability and extent, to our trade with Holland. This trade had not been subject to any great fluctuation from the beginning of the century; we had from that time cleared from it about $00,000l., and for the last 40 or 50 years, above 700,000/. a year. After Holland and Germany, our next most beneficial trade was with Flanders. This trade was not great in the beginning of the century; since the year 1740, it might be estimated at 600,000l, a year; since the year 1770, it had been, on an average, 800,000l.; and in 1785, it was within 50,000/. of a million in our favour. It deserved all possible encouragement and protection. The balance of trade with Portugal was, at an average, for 30 years previous to the peace in 1763, 800,000l.; from the year 1740 to the present time, it had amounted to above 400,000l. a year; and though it had been some years less than that sum, yet in 1755 it exceeded it. Our trade with Spain for the last 40 years had given us America there had been a balance in our favour since the year 1740 of near 500,000/. a year. He In this short abstract he omitted the mention of Ireland, because, on account of the different modes of valuing her linens in the English and Irish Custom-house, there was a diversity of opinion as to the balance. He omitted the mention also of our trade to Africa, because the greatest part of it was a scandalous trade, repugnant to every principle of humanity and Christianity, and not to be justified by any arguments drawn from its utility. omitted the mention of some other sources of trade from which we derived considerable advantage, because they only served to supply the drain which the nation experienced in its trade with Russia, Sweden, Turkey, &c. from which countries, though the trade was beneficial on account of our importing raw materials and exporting manufactures, yet the balance was against us. Thus had he brought to their lordships recollection, the great and the ancient channels in, which our commerce had flowed with uninterrupted success for half a century. From the vicissitudes incident to the current of all human affairs, a few obstructions had of late years been formed in some of these channels; but surely, he said, the wisdom of the nation would have been much better employed in removing these obstructions, in cleansing, in widening, in deepening, in fencing and securing these ancient channels, the advantages of which had been known to our fathers and ourselves, than in opening a new one, the rocks, and the shoals, and the whirlpools of which were unexplored; the dangers of which no mortal eye could foresee; the advantages of which were certainly speculative, might be delusive, and, if delusive, must be ruinous to our wealth, our consequence, our independence, to every thing we held dear, as men and aş Englishmen. Hitherto we had prospered, greatly prospered in our commerce, without having had the French markets open to us, without having had our markets open to them; and though he did not say that this mutual' interdiction of commerce had been the cause of our prosperity, yet he did say that we had prospered in commerce to a degree which had raised the nation to the highest pitch of strength and glory, without allowing the French the use of our markets, without our being allowed the use of theirs. This, he observed, was an argument founded on fact, on the experience of half a century and more; and it was not less clear in its principle than certain in its conclusion; and the conclusion was, that no advantages in speculation should induce us to risk advantages in possession. We had prospered, and we did prosper, without an open trade with France; why then should we risk a change of system? He felt this argument in all its force, and he had too much deference 5 for their lordships' wisdom to add one word more in its support: if there was no other argument against the Treaty, this would be sufficient to make him reject it as a rash and dangerous measure. trade with France was shut, men of plain understandings would suspect that there was some such connexion between the commercial prosperity of Great Britain and the interdiction of commerce with France, as subsisted between effect and cause. It was happy for us when we could illumine our prospects into futurity by the light of experience; he could appeal to various documents in proof of the pernicious tendency of an open trade with France; but, to spare time, he would confine himself to one. It was a proof which all their lordships were acquainted with; it was the preamble to an act of parlia ment passed in the time of Charles 2, prohibiting an open trade with France. The preamble was to this effect:" Whereas it has been by long experience found,”— he begged their lordships attention to the two words, long experience,'-" that the importing French wines, &c. had,much exhausted the treasure of the nation, lessened the value of the native commodities and manufactures thereof, and brought much detriment to this kingdom in ge It would probably be said in answer to this, that the fact here referred to ought not to influence our present conduct; that the improvements which our manufactures had received since the reign of Charles 2 rendered an appeal to the experience of that time wholly nugatory, that we had then little manufactures of any kind except our woollen manufactures, In this short statement of our foreign trade which he had submitted to their lordships consideration his conclusions were derived from estimates previous to the last peace; he did not certainly know whether for the last five years our foreign commerce had been more or less flourish-neral." ing than it had been for the forty preceding years but he would state this dilemma. If the balance of our foreign trade has been stationary or increasing during the last five years, beyond the medium standard of four millions a year, where is the wisdom of interrupting its course by new arrangements? Why should we not leave it to its own successful operation? If, on the other hand, our ba-which, by Colbert's policy, was loaded lance had been decreasing, why should we risk its farther diminution by opening a trade with France? for it must have been by her rivalry in foreign markets, and by hers alone, of all the powers in Europe, that our foreign commerce had been diminished: it was not Germany, it was not Russia, it was not Spain, which had broken in on our foreign commerce; but it was France, and France alone; and if she had driven us out of foreign markets, what chance could we have of meeting her in her own? He had said, that he would not assume the prohibition of our commerce with France as an efficient cause of our commercial greatness; two simultaneous events might exist together, without one of them being the cause of the other: but if it could be shown that our commerce did not flourish when the trade with France was open, as clearly as it had been shown that it did flourish when our with a duty almost equivalent to a prohibition, and that we exported to France few articles of value except our woollens. All this was sooner said than proved. He begged leave to doubt the truth of the observation. He had carefully examined the account of the articles which were exported from this country to France above a century ago, when the trade was open; and so far from finding the fact to have been that we exported little except our woollens, he found, that we exported, exclusive of our woollens, above two hundred articles. We then exported of our manufactures, wrought pewter, wrought copper, iron wrought into hoops, nails, and other articles of hardware; we then exported tin, lead, alum, corn, coals, gunpowder, glass, earthen-ware, leather wrought and unwrought, and a variety of other articles, which it would be tedious to enumerate, and which did not then occur to his memory: so that he really saw no reason for presuming that the circumstances of the nation were so entirely changed, as to render a trade which, in the time of Charles 2. was thought highly detrimental to the kingdom, and by which we lost a million a year, safe and lucrative at present. Our manufactures were undoubtedly improved since that time, but so also were the manufactures of France. He could not think that there was good ground for admitting that the relative situation of the two countries was not much the same now that it was then; and, if it was the same, then was the argument from experience conclusive against the Treaty. He had dwelt longer than he intended on this subject, and yet it was material to consider what a great people we were become without having had an open trade with France. It was material to consider how detrimental our ancestors esteemed that trade to have been before we consented to abandon a system of commerce which had been sanctioned by the experience of a century. He would sum up what he had observed on this point in the two following propositions: That to abandon a commercial system, by which we had risen to our present height in the scale of nations, was a measure, abstractedly considered, dangerous and impolitic, and not to be justified except by some urgent necessities of the state, which necessities did not at present exist: That to adopt a commercial system, which our ancestors, from long experience, had reprobated, as detrimental to the kingdom, was an unwise measure, and not to be justified except by a change in the relative situations of Great Britain and France; the certainty of which change having taken place since the time of Charles 2 had not been proved, or rendered highly probable. The Duke of Manchester rose to exculpate himself from a charge, which, as he understood, had been imputed to him in another place, viz. that in negociating the Definitive Treaty of Peace at Paris in 1783, he had bound this country to the obligation of making a Commercial Treaty with France. The duke produced the Treaty, and justified himself from the imputation, by a discussion of the 18th article, and the declaration subjoined to the Treaty. He took notice of an inaccuracy in the translation of the verb pour travailler,' which in the English version of the 18th article is rendered to treat; ་ and in the version of the 18th article of the Preliminary Treaty to inquire into.' This incorrectness was an additional proof of the disadvantage, which, he had ever contended, it was for this country to make a Treaty in any language but her own. Having fully shown, that though he had been the peace-maker, he had in no sense bound down the country to make a Commercial Treaty with France, but merely to treat upon the subject, he proceeded to state his objection to the Commercial Treaty, on the ground of its endangering the loss of Portugal; for, he contended, that with her commerce we should lose her alliance. He also condemned the Treaty on a still more serious ground, inasmuch as it revived and admitted the existence of the Family Compact, which had never been allowed, and which, by the second article of the Treaty of Paris in 1763, had been virtually done away. The Earl of Carlisle supported the motion, and condemned the Commercial Treaty, as tending to destroy our beneficial connexion with Portugal. He stated the advantage under which Mr. Eden would have treated, had Great Britain either previously concluded her negociation with Portugal, or previously broken with her entirely. In the latter case, the negociator might have said, "I come to you with an additional benefit; you must grant Great Britain an equivalent equal to its value." As the matter stood, we had run the risk of making up our differences with Portugal, or suffering the advantage of an unrivalled market to fall into the lap of France,, without entitling ourselves to ask for any compensation whatever. Lord Porchester observed, that the noble earl had forestalled him as to one of the points of objection that he entertained with regard to the mode of conduct pursued by Administration in respect to their negociation with France and Portugal. Nothing could, in his mind, be more obvious, than that they ought at all events to have brought matters to a termination with Portugal before they signed with France. From not having done so, they had put themselves into a singularly awkward predicament. They had reserved a right to do a favour to Portugal, which, if Portugal did not accept, we could not offer to any other power, and all the good consequences of Portugal refusing it would be so much gain for France. When we treated with France, we could only offer her an unequal market; a market in which her wines were to meet a competitor. Treating upon such terms, we could only expect terms from France proportionably beneficial; and having concluded the Treaty under such circumstances, we had left ourselves exposed to the danger of Portugal's refusal to accommodate with us, and then what became of our reserve? His lordship contended, that by such conduct we had put it in the power of France to buy the unrivalled and open British market of Portugal, and not of ourselves. He said, that report talked already of France's being in negociation with the Court of Lisbon, and spoke of the inconvenience, her taking the Brazil cotton from Portugal, would bring down on our boasted cotton manufacture. Viscount Stormont supported the motion, and objected to the mode of proceeding that Government had adopted. He asked, if it was determined to give up the valuable trade of Portugal? If so, why not tell the woollen manufacturer of Yorkshire, that he was not to expect that any more of his woollens would go to the Portuguese market? That would be fair, and it would be plain dealing. It fell to his lot that day, in common with the noble lords who had preceded him, to stand up in defence of some old antiquated notions, which he had early imbibed, and in entertaining of which he verily believed that he should die. He then went through all the arguments in favour of a commercial connexion with Portugal, in preference to France, that had been urged by Mr. Fox in the other House of Parliament. He said, that the papers upon the table gave but an imperfect light into the Methuen Treaty and its advantages, and that consequently their lordships could form but an inadequate idea of either. He had seen papers himself, which had he known how to have described, so as to have brought them before that House, would have thrown much light upon the subject. Since the year 1703, our exports to Portugal had amounted to eighty millions, and our imports to forty, consequently the balance in our favour had been enormous. Ministers seemed determined that the advantage should cease. In that case, where would they direct our manufactures to be sent which no longer would go to Portugal? If it was said, Spain would take them, were they prepared to declare that the treaty with Spain was concluded, and that she was ready to open her arins to us, and to take our exports of woollens, of salt fish, of hardware, and of various other articles? He went at large into the argument advanced by Mr. Fox, that in the article of the Treaty, France had artfully drawn us in to recognize the 24th article of the Definitive Treaty, which by the second article of the Treaty of Paris in 1763 we had forced her to disavow. He read the 24th and 25th articles of the Family Compact, and contended, that by recognizing the first we had given life to the spirit of the second of the two articles. He expatiated on the different nature of our reserve in favour of Portugal, and France's reserve in favour of Spain, and showed that France had made it on condition with us, that if we kept our faith with an old ally, she should be allowed to put an article of the Family Compact in force that had never been recognized by us. His lordship appealed to the gratitude of the country towards Portugal, and observed, that during the glorious war which preceded the peace of Paris in 1763, France had taken a resolution, which no man who walked the streets of Paris did not condemn, of forcing Portugal to desert her old ally, and join the Family Compact. What was on that occasion the conduct of the King of Portugal? Such as would have done honour to any country in any age. That monarch said, that "he had rather suffer the roof to be torn off his palace than act so disgraceful a part as to take up arms against his old ally." He begged their lordships would permit him to present them with a contrast to this picture. In the midst of peace with Great Britain, France, who till after the battle of Brandywine, held forth the most courtly language, and dealt in the most profuse assurances of amity and regard to this country, without a provocation of any kind whatsoever, pulled off the mask, plunged into the war, and sided with America against Great Britain. Happily her designs, covered as they had been with professions of attachment, had not been unknown to all the Administration of that day; they were suspected, and the nation had not been taken by surprise, when that declaration, was issued by France, which they had all beheld. He meant not, by presenting this picture, to insinuate that the Treaty of Peace did not put an end to all resentment; it undoubtedly did, and it ought so to have done. Resentment was passion, and all passion was founded on weakness, and possessed an inherent tendency to rottenness and decay. Such principles ought not to regulate the conduct of nations; but principles immutable in their nature, and not depending upon such a precarious foundation. Though resentment, however, was at an end, recollection of such conduct was not obliged to abandon their lordships minds, nor could it be effaced from their memory. nuance of our connexion with that country under the Methuen Treaty. Much as he had reason to differ from other noble lords respecting the value and importance of our trade with Portugal, he nevertheless sincerely hoped that trade would continue, and had reason to expect that the present negociation would be terminated Lord Hawkesbury observed, that he to the satisfaction of both countries. could not avoid concurring in what had Having stated this, he proceeded, to menfallen from a right reverend prelate, rela- tion the nature of our trade with Portugal tive to the flourishing state of the com- for many years past, which, he said, he merce of this country. It was, he said, as should ground on papers then upon the he could inform their lordships upon good table of the House. He observed, that as grounds, extremely flourishing at present, the meaning of the Methuen Treaty had nearly as much so as it ever had been at not been particularly the object of arguany the most flattering and prosperous ment in the debate, it was unnecessary period; but flourishing as it was, consider- for him to go into that consideration, ing the size of the public debt, it would otherwise he could have shown their lordhave been an unpardonable neglect of ships what Mr. Methuen's opinion had duty in Government, had not an endeavour been of the meaning of his own treaty. been made to open new markets to our But, the better to see in what degree our manufactures, and to extend the trade of trade with Portugal was affected by that Great Britain as widely as possible. To Treaty, it would be necessary to inquire what market could they look with such into the state of it before the Methuen hopes of material advantage as the market Treaty had been concluded, and the state of France? What could promise so much of it since. Custom-house books, he adbenefit to the commerce of the two coun-mitted, were not the best authorities, tries as the reciprocal exchange of the because they were, from various causes, commodities of both? It had been much imperfect and incorrect; but, in one view, rested on, that the trade of this country they might be referred to as useful sources had not prospered greatly, when we were of information; he meant, where a comconnected by a commercial treaty with parative state of our trade with any counFrance; and it had been asked, whether try for several years together was wished the state of this kingdom, and the state of to be seen. Upon referring to customthe kingdom of France, was different at house books, it would be seen that in the the time of passing the Treaty of Utrecht last century, when the Court of Portugal from what it was at present. To which he imposed a partial prohibition on should answer, that the state of the manu- woollen trade (for entirely prohibited it factures and trade of this country bore no had never been) between 250 and 300,000l. sort of comparison to the state of its worth of woollen cloth was purchased of manufactures and trade in 1713. The this country by Portugal. We at that articles of the Treaty of Utrecht might time continued to take the wines of Porhave been very inexpedient for this coun- tugal as before, till the year 1703, when try to have adopted when that treaty was Mr. Methuen had been sent to Lisbon to made; but they were by no means so, conclude the Treaty with the Portuguese under the present very different circum- court, by which that court bound itself to stances of our commerce. To open the take our woollens at a certain low rate of market of France to British manufactures duty. That Treaty was concluded, and it was an object extremely to be desired, and had been religiously adhered to on our in effecting it, Government had shown part, though Portugal had in a variety of themselves the best friends to the manu- instances departed therefrom. Since the facturers of their country; and so, the conclusion of that Treaty the amount of event would, he had not the smallest our exports to Portugal, and the balance doubt, very sufficiently prove and esta- of trade with that kingdom in our favour, had, from time to time, been extremely With regard to Portugal, before he prodifferent. Lord Hawkesbury stated its ceeded particularly to take notice of the amount in different periods, taking as one motion, he begged leave to premise, that period, from the year 1730 to 1760, a he was a sincere well-wisher to the conti-period of thirty years; and as another, the blish. our |