The Sun.
London, England, 1831-02-22 00:00:00

papers, of which he had given notice, relative to our coin-
tnercial relations with Portugal. It was not necessary for
him to trouble their Lordships with a history of the Me-
thuen treaty, which gave, as their Lordships knew, cer-
tain advantages to the manufactures of this country on
their admission into Portugal, as a return for correspond..
ing advantages given by this country in the admission of
the wines of Portugal at a lower scale of duties than the
wines of other countries. He did not then intend to dis-
cuss the policy or impoticy of the treaty. All he wished
to show was that, up to a certain period, either party was
at liberty to put an end to it when they thought proper ;
but that, atter that time, the NS\ er to put an end to the
terms of the treaty were limited and circumscribed be cer-
tain regulations and necessities for notice, which he hoped
that the Government of this country had not in the present
instance disregarded; because it would he a violation of
national faith, a proof of disrespect to sew ancient ally,
and of disregard to our relations with a State
which did not possess the ability to resist it. Their
Lordships were probably not aware that the attempts
to introduce a reciprocal system of trade were not new in
this. country. France had been before selected for an ex
pertinent of the same description as that about to he tried.
At the close of the brilliant campaigns of Marlborough,
too treaties were laid before the louse of Commons---one
of peace and the other of commerce—in which it was
proposed to take the duties off French wines for two
months, so as to break in by a side wind on the Methuen
treaty. Although this plan was supported by the great
grandfather of the Nettle Lord opposite him (King), and
by the ancestor of his Noble Friend near him (Stanhope),
and by several other men of eminence in those days, it
was decidedly rejected, and thus ended the first attempt to
make an inroad on the Methuen treaty ; the opponents of
the measure declaring one and all that the preservation of
the rents and support of the woollens of England was of
much greater importance than the supply of French wines,
however agreeable they might prove to the palate. It was
a fact well known end established, that France, under
whatever form of Government, was a commercial rival
of this country, who never could be brought to enter
Into treaties of reciprocal advantage which could by any
possibility advance the trade or manufactures of Eng-
land. It had been always so under the Bourbons, and
how could they suppose it would he less so now under
France, governed as it is at present? Mr. Pitt, in 1787,
again attempted to invade the principle of the Methuen
treaty, by laying an Equal tax on the wines of
Portugal and of France. He (Lord Strangford) con-
fessed he exercised a great deal of self-denial in refrain-
ing from reading to their Lordships the admirable speeches
delivered net that occasion, by those who contended with
so much eloquence that we should not flatter a rival at
the expense of an ally. He refrained, however, from this
task, although, hosnener feeble the extracts from Fox and
Grey would fall from him, compared with the effect pro-
duced by their delivery, they would supersede all argu-
ments that could be advanced on the subject; and would
merely content himself by observing, that although Mr.
Pitt carried this proposition, as he had carried many
others, the Methuen treaty was, shortly afterwards, as
their Lordships well knew, brought back to its original
force. From this until 1810 the Methuen treaty re-
mained untouched ; and in that year a new treaty was
concluded, in a clause of which the Methuen treaty was
noticed, and it Was stipulated that the same system of
duties should be preserved for fifteen years longer, and that
for the sake of avoiding all inconvenience between the
parties, notice must he given by either party of their in-
tention to abandon the terms of that treaty, in order that
measure, might be taken for a joint revision of the prin-
ciple on which it was founded ; it being understood at
the same time, that if any suspension of the provisions of
the treaty took place on either side, due notice of the in-
tention to make such suspension was to be given to the
other side) in order that they may have :time to enter on
the stipulates! revision. Now he wished to know, for the
satisfaction of the country, whether the Government had
given this notice ? because he thought it quite impossible
that they could have refrained from doing so with the
knowletlee possessed of the prospective nature of the trade
which the trerchants of this country carried on with Por-
tugal, and of the state of distress which they must bring
on some, and the state of jeopardy in which they must
place all connected with that trade, if its dealings were
broken in open without due notice to those engaged in it.
He was sure, indeed, that at the moment when the Go-
vernment of this country was pressing with the utmost
strictness on Portugal the treaties she had with England,
that the Government would net exhibit the bad faith and
the injustice of violating the national faith, and seeking to
get rid of treaties equally binding on us ; and lie was also
sure, that the Government would not put an end to those
treaties, which must totally alienate the effectioas of our
ancient ally, without taking precautions for the preserve-
t. on of the property of British subjects, and for allaying
the apprehensions of those connected with the commerce
of that country. The Noble Lord concluded by declaring
that he asked these questions without the slightest inten-
tion to embarrass the movements or negeciations of the
Government. He felt too strongly the difficulties of their
present position.
Lord GODERICH trusted that he should he able to
show that the Government had been guilty of no breach
of faith. It was true that we had not given Portugal no-
tice, and the Noble Lord (Strangford) said that he hoped
the Ministers would be able to satisfy him, to satisfy their
Lordships, and to satisfy the country, that they had not
violated any treaty, and had acted in strict conformity to
the treaties that were in existence, and that Portugal had
received no cause to complain of our injustice. This was
what he meant to attempt. The Noble Lord had stated
the treaties by which they were bound ; they were, first,
the treaty of Methuen, signed in 1703 ; and, secondly,
the treaty of February, 1810, concluded by the Noble
Lord himself. The treaty of 1703 had not been quite
correctly quoted by the Noble Lord, lie had ingeniously
left out that part of the treaty on which the major part of
his (Lord Goderich's) case depended. His Lordship here
read the first article, and dwelt emphatically on the latter
pelt ; which stated, that if there should be any abatement
of the advantages given to Portugal by the treaty—that
Government should receive—notice? No ; but that " it
should be lawful for the Government of Portugal to pro-
hibit the woollens of England." That was a provision
made in the treaty, by which Portugal might right her-
self, should we r.ot choose to act upon those conditions
implied in the treaty. The treaty was a concession mad.e.
by Portugal to England under certain conditions, and it
England did not observe the conditions, Portugal got
back her rights. There was not a word about notice, and
the Noble Lord could not argue from that any want of
good faith by our not giving notice of our intention to
depart from the treaty of Methuen. • He should they pro-
ceed to show that there was no obligation to give notice
imposed on us by the treaty' of 1810. That treaty began
in a remarkable way, which the Noble Lord had omitted.
The thirty-third article of that treaty contained a re-
ference to a notice, but it was impossible not to per-
ceive that the notice there required did not refer to
the Methuen treaty, but to the other treaty then con-
eluded. The second article of that treaty stated, that the
high contracting parties would proceed to a revision of all
former treaties between Portugal and England, and then
the parties proceeded to revise the treaties. His Lordship
referred particularly to the 32d and 33d articles, which
contained the allusion to the notice, and contended that
these articles related only to the treaties then revised and
concluded, and not to the Methuen treaty. The treaty
was to be perpetual, but the parties were to be allowed to
revise it at the end of fifteen years. He contended that
unless the Noble Lord could being the treaty of Methuen
under the operation of that article, which said that at the
expiration of fifteen years the parties should revise the
treaty—unless the Noble Lord could show that by that
article we were bound to give notice to Portugal of our in-
tention to equalize the duties on French and Portuguese
wines, he could not make out any breach of faith.—
( Hear, hear.)—The whole subject was one which had not
been altogether withdrawn front discussion between the
Government of this country and that of Portugal. The
Noble Lord argued as if the Methuen treaty had been one
of unmixed advantage to this country—as if it had ope-
rated most beneficially, and been the source of reciprocal
advantage and of harmony to both countries, and as if
Portugal had gone great lengths in making concessions to
us, which she had denied to other Powers, and which we
were bound to repay. Had the Noble Lord then never
heard of the Oporto Wine Company ?—(Hear.)—Was
that the first night that his Lordship had heard of its
effects? He could not suppose that the Noble Lord had
heard of that Company for the first time that night, or et
the remonstronces made against it by the British Govern-
ment. It was established, he believed, in 1750, and it was
one of the most detestable monopolies which ever de-
stroyed the commerce of the country that was afflicted
with it, and that ever injured the tilade of all the countries
connected with it. The Company was established in disre-
gard c.f the Methuen treaty. The British Government re-
monstrated, and considered the establishment of that Com
puny by the Portuguese Government as done in violation
of our rights. It blew up the very foundation on which
the Methuen treaty rested. In the year 1757 a strong
representation was made to the Portuguese Govern.
went against that Company ; it was described as doing
mischief to the trade of both countries, and the Govern
merit spoke as if the existence of that Company were in-
compatible with the Methuen treaty. The treaty' of
1810 was to be revised is 15 years but in 1813, or only