PAPERS MOVED FOR. (Hansard, 17 March 1857)

MR. BRAMLEY-MOORE

claimed the attention of the House for a few moments, wishing to call their notice to the subject of the Sound Dues, and to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if a treaty had been signed to capitalize those dues, and indemnify Denmark for giving up her reputed rights; and if it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government that such treaty should be acted upon before Parliament had voted the money for such object? The subject was one which had engaged a considerable degree of attention, and it was absolutely necessary to have further information with regard to it before Parliament committed the country to an expenditure of £1,000,000 sterling for the capitalization of those dues;—for it was stated 2401 that a treaty had been entered into with Denmark for their capitalization. A Committee sat last Session on the subject, and it was in accordance with one of its recommendations that the treaty was now about to be concluded with Denmark. He was one of those who had had the honour of a seat upon that Committee, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, had devoted a great deal of attention to this question; but he must state, as far as the evidence adduced before them went, it was entirely, or nearly so, the evidence of persons interested in the abolition of the dues. Now, inasmuch as the claim for dues affected only a special class, he did not think that their abolition ought to be taken as a national question. The claim was one of great antiquity. So far back as the year 1645, Sweden was specially exempted from the payment of the dues; she afterwards, however, in the year 1720, renounced the privilege in consideration of large concessions made to her in the shape of territory. But when Denmark ceased to be the owner of the two shores, it became a legitimate question with all nations whether they should any longer pay the dues. The Americans had recently reopened the subject. He had been always of opinion that the matter was one for adjustment by treaty, instead of being determined by a heavy expenditure on the part of the nation. But there was another consideration involved in the settlement. It was generally understood that the dues had been hypothecated in London for a loan of some £3,000,000 or £4,000,000, and, therefore, it ought to be declared how this payment of £1,000,000 sterling to the Danish Government would be appropriated; whether it was to be appropriated in payment of the loan, or whether the bondholders would lose their security. They ought, also, to be informed whether the proposed capitalization of the dues was founded upon a prospective increase or decrease in trade. This was important, because, if they referred to their experience since the repeal of the navigation laws in 1849, they would find that there had been a gradual decrease in trade as far as tonnage was concerned. The Returns established the following important facts:—The number of British vessels that had passed the Sound in 1849 was 6,876; in 1850, 5,464; in 1851, 4,794; in 1852, 3,902; in 1853, 4,654; and in 1854, 2,000. It was hardly fair to carry the figures farther, on account of the interruption of the war. But, on 2402 the other hand, it was necessary to guard the House against being led away by the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing his Budget, as to the prosperity of the shipping interest. He stated that there had been a large increase in British tonnage between 1853 and 1856, and a small increase in foreign tonnage in the same period. There was considerable ingenuity in the selection of these two years for the purpose of comparison, because the first of them was the date at which British tonnage was at its lowest ebb since the repeal of the navigation laws; and if the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to look into the Returns for 1853, he would have found that between them and the Returns for 1849 there was a difference in favour of the latter year of 222,000 tons; while, if he had pursued the inquiry up to 1856, which could count all the advantages of a resuscitated trade after the war, and compared that year with 1849, he would have seen that while the foreign tonnage had increased in this kingdom 180 per cent, British tonnage had increased only 33 per cent. However, to return to the subject more immediately before them—according to the evidence of the witnesses before the Select Committee the chief ground of complaint was not the expense which shipowners were put to through the levying of these dues, but it was the delay that was caused by their collection. Now, surely some arrangement might be made to obviate that delay. In the case of steamers that had been already done, for they merely delivered their papers and were not called upon to pay the dues until they got into the port of discharge. A similar arrangement for the benefit of sailing ships might be made by treaty, and then the dues, whether light or heavy, would fall upon those who ought to bear them. He believed the new treaty was to come into operation upon the 1st of April, and unless the explanations of the Government were satisfactory he should be prepared to give it his determined opposition. He should conclude with moving that the Papers relative to the treaty be laid upon the table of the House.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said that the evidence taken by the Committee of last Session, as very truly stated by the hon. Member for Maldon, showed most conclusively that the Sound dues were onerous to navigation and detrimental to the trade of this country with the Baltic, not only on account of the sums which were levied upon ships passing through the Sound, but also by reason of the delays which they occasioned, and the additional charges incidental on those delays. It had been admitted on all hands for some years that if these dues could be extinguished by some sort of equitable redemption the change would be beneficial; and, in consequence of a question raised by the Government of the United States, negotiations had been going on during the last twelve months between the Danish Government and the Governments of all the principal States of Europe for the redemption of these dues. With that view, on the 14th of the present month two treaties had been signed at Copenhagen; the first between the Government of Denmark and the Governments of Russia, Prussia, France, Great Britain, and other States, which contained the general stipulations referring to all these States; and the other, a separate convention, signed on the same day, between the Governments of Great Britain and Denmark, which contained the particular stipulations affecting these two countries. Her Majesty's Government only knew of the signature of these treaties by a telegraphic despatch, and at present they had no copy of them as they were signed; but from the draughts in the possession of the Government, which he believed to be identical with the treaties signed—though, of course, he could not pledge himself that such was the case—he would shortly state what the effect of these treatise was. By the second Article of the general treaty the Sound dues were to expire on the first of April next; the amount of compensation to be paid by each State was fixed by the 4th Article; the 7th Article made the execution of the treaty dependent upon the sanction required by the constitutional laws of the respective countries; 2404 and the 8th Article stipulated for ratification in the usual manner. By the separate convention between Great Britain and Denmark it was provided that the amount of compensation to be paid by this country should be paid, in the event of the assent of Parliament being given to it, within three months after the passing of the requisite Act of Parliament ratifying the treaty. Although an early date had been fixed for the opening of the Sound, in order to meet the convenience of those States which had no Parliamentary Government, and were therefore able to pay their stipulated amount of compensation without consulting any legislative body, the Danish Government, by a protocol signed on the 16th of February, retained the right of maintaining a sort of status quo until the engagements of the 7th and 8th Articles of the general treaty were fulfilled. This would be done by taking a security from the vessels passing through the Sound for the eventual payment of the dues in case the arrangement made by the treaty was not sanctioned. The faith of Parliament was in no way engaged by the arrangement, and whatever change might take place on the first of April the next Parliament would be left quite free to come to whatever decision it might think fit. It would be the duty of the Government to lay the whole subject before Parliament at the earliest period, to explain on what grounds the negotiations had been carried on, and to suggest such means as it might think most advisable to carry out the arrangements arrived at. He was not aware that the treaty contained any engagement with respect to the application of the compensation received by Denmark. That was a matter between the Danish Government and the bondholders, and it would not be competent for the British Government to make any stipulation on the subject. As to the question of the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) respecting the transit dues, he believed that four-fifths of them were to be remitted. He was not in a position to give the details of the stipulations on that point; but the proper time to explain the ground on which that arrangement was made would be when the treaty was before the House.