Mr. Charles Grantsaid, he wished to take that opportunity to ask his right hon. friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, a question or two, which concerned not only the faith of treaties, but the commercial interests of this country. It was well known that the Treaty of Vienna, concluded in 1815, contained certain stipulations concerning the navigation of rivers. Amongst the Acts which formed part of the Treaty, the Sixteenth related expressly to this subject, and contained several stipulations with regard to the Navigation of the Rhine. He would take the liberty of reading the beginning of the first Article, which was quite explicit:—"The Navigation of the Rhine, from its source to the sea, shall be entirely free for all, on the payment merely of the dues which shall be necessary for preserving the police of the river." By these words all the Powers of Europe were entitled to the free navigation of that river. No vessels whatever were to be excluded, nor any duties levied, except such as were necessary for keeping up the police. The King of the Netherlands, however, had resisted that construction of the treaty, and had excluded all vessels from the navigation of the Rhine, by prohibitory duties, except vessels belonging to the Netherlands. In consequence of his conduct, a great deal of discussion had ensued, which was extremely interesting; but notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding the treaty of 1815, the navigation of the Rhine was still closed, except to the subjects of the Netherlands. The Treaty of Vienna had not, therefore, been carried into effect, which was a serious subject, calling for the attention of his Majesty's Ministers. The event had recently received a considerable accession of interest. About a year ago some of the Continental Powers resolved to make a common appeal to all Europe, and in this it was expected that England would take a prominent part. When he quitted office in 1828, he was persuaded 5 that such a united appeal would be made, and he expected, that it would be successful. It appeared, however, that in 1829 a treaty had been concluded by the Powers more immediately connected with the Rhine, excluding all but themselves, making no mention of England, and taking exclusively to themselves all the benefits of the Treaty of Vienna. The treaty these Powers had lately concluded secured the free and open navigation of the Rhine to vessels belonging to the States bordering on that river, though it was not yet, he believed, carried into effect, because France being somewhat jealous on the subject had not yet ratified it. It was understood on the Continent, however, and publicly announced, that France had only deferred the ratification, and that the treaty would speedily be carried into execution. In its effects it would give to those Powers the right stipulated for in the Treaty of Vienna, and England would be left out. Under these circumstances, he thought himself entitled to put some questions to his right hon. friend. He would first beg leave to ask if any official communication had been made to our Government of the conclusion of this treaty by the Powers bordering on the river? His second question was, when this treaty was communicated to his Majesty's Government, would there be any objection to lay it on the Table of the House, as it was a matter of such importance that the House ought to be made acquainted with it? Thirdly, he wished to ask if there were any measures now in progress for securing to this country the rights which were stipulated for by the Treaty of Vienna? He believed, according to the information he had received, there were now negotiations pending, to obtain the opening of the Navigation of the Rhine.
Mr. Secretary Peelstated, that he was willing to follow the example of his right hon. friend, and give a short explanation as well as an answer. In 1815, a treaty was made at Vienna, which he thought, and in this he concurred with his right hon. friend, and all his predecessors in office, intended that the navigation of the Rhine should be open to all nations. A doubt, however, had arisen as to the meaning of the treaty, which was drawn up originally, he believed, in German, and not in French, and the King of the Netherlands contended that the words of the 6 original treaty did not bear the signification other parties had assigned to them. What might be the meaning of the original treaty in German he would not decide, but looking at it as it was expressed in French, he had no doubt that it was meant to open the navigation of the Rhine to all nations. The words were, that the navigation shall be free—jusqu' à la mer. The government of the Netherlands interpreted this to mean as far as the sea, and not into the sea; which was not, he thought, a very good argument. Another difficulty had been raised concerning the channel of the Rhine, connecting it with the sea—whether it were the Waale, or the Leek exclusively; and the King of the Netherlands was disposed to determine that it was the Leek exclusively. If that were the case, as the Leek was not navigable for sea-going vessels, nor accessible at all times, it would so limit the navigation of the river, as to render it almost useless. England, he admitted, above all other nations, was interested in having the navigation of the Rhine free, or subject only to such very moderate duties as were sufficient to maintain the police of the river, keeping the towing-path in order, &c. His right hon. friend, after having stated the case, had asked if the navigation were not closed to all but those having a concurrent interest in the river? He had asked whether there had not been a treaty lately signed by the Continental Powers bordering on the Rhine? and he had also asked whether or not this treaty would be communicated to Parliament when it was ratified? As he understood the subject, it was somewhat different from the case as stated by his right hon. friend. There were assembled at Mayence, commissioners from all the States bordering on the Rhine, constituting what was called the Central Commission, which represented all these States, and no treaty had been entered into between them and the King of the Netherlands. There was, indeed, a projet convention between Prussia and the Netherlands, which had been communicated to the Central Commission, which had not stated that it would accept this projet. When the treaty was concluded and ratified, there was no doubt it would be communicated formally to his Majesty's Government, and when communicated, he had no doubt it would be laid before the House. He could not pledge himself, as the treaty 7 was not ratified, as to what would be the course pursued by his Majesty's Government. France, he believed, had some objection to the treaty; but he could have no doubt that when it appeared, England would claim her full share of the advantages. England was not prepared to acquiesce in any system for granting exclusive commercial privileges; she had signified to those Powers that they were not to prejudice her interests by their treaties, and that she should urge her rights according to the treaty of 1815. In the present state of the case, England claimed a free traffic, and declared, that till the treaty was ratified she would not consider her claims in any way prejudiced. In whatever view it might be ratified, England would not consent to any such exclusive scheme. He agreed with his right hon. friend that the interests of the commercial world ought not to be overlooked; and he was sure that his Majesty's Government was deeply alive to every measure which affected the commercial interests of this country.
Mr. C. Grantsaid, that the convention between Prussia and the Netherlands, mentioned by his right hon. friend, was different from what he described it to be. The projet, which he had seen in a German Paper, for December, was entered into by Prussia, Bavaria, France, Hesse, Nassau, and the Netherlands. It was not merely a convention between Prussia and the Netherlands, but an agreement entered into between all the parties. That was the general impression concerning it. When the treaty was carried into operation, England would be unable to claim any privileges under it, as it related solely to the Powers who were parties to it. The treaty, as he understood it, was so exclusive, that vessels from Baltic-Prussia were not to enter the Rhine, the navigation of which was to be confined to the vessels of the Powers seated on its banks. Under the treaty, England would have no privileges whatever.
Mr. Secretary Peelreplied, that he had stated what was, he believed, correct. He believed the projet was only for a convention between Prussia and the Netherlands. Prussia was the party most interested. The Central Commission consisted of a delegate from each State situated on the borders of the Rhine; and that commission had never consented to the convention entered into between Prussia 8 and the Netherlands. The Powers concerned had the convention under consideration; but what opinion they would form, it was impossible to say. He believed that the projet was formed on the principles of the treaty of 1815, which certainly his Majesty's Government would not lose sight of. England would not relinquish her claims, and when the treaty was ratified would not forget to urge them. He supposed that the case would be amicably arranged; but whatever might be the result, England would claim all the benefit which she had a right to. It might perhaps be satisfactory to his right hon. friend to know that an English vessel had proceeded up the Rhine with a cargo, which had been delivered at Cologne.
Mr. C. Grantknew that an English vessel had proceeded up the Rhine, but be also knew that there was no disposition to repeat the voyage. The duties levied on her were so enormous, that they destroyed all profit, and no other vessel would make the same experiment.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, the Government would protest as strongly against prohibitory duties as against actual prohibition.