Mr. Herriessaid, he did not mean to delay the House by entering upon the various topics which had been urged in the course of this discussion, but he rose merely for the purpose of asking some information from the noble Lord opposite on a question upon which, after the noble Lord's speech on a former night, it was necessary that some information should be conveyed to the public. The noble Lord had stated, it was part of his purpose to equalise the duties on Portuguese, Spanish, and other wines; but he had not made any observation, or given any communication of facts, as to the proceedings, if any, which had taken place, to enable this country to dispense with that article of the treaty with the kingdom of Portugal which prohibited or prevented the proposed system of equalisation. In asking this question, he did not mean to pronounce any opinion upon the policy of the measure, or to offer any opinion whatever upon the propositions of his Majesty's Government at this stage of the proceeding; but it had been suggested to him, from several quarters, that there was a deep interest felt by many persons connected with the trade between this country and Portugal, which made it desirable that some information should be furnished, and that it should be distinctly communicated to the public, whether that provision of the Methuen Treaty which related to the admission of our woollen commodities into Portugal, and the reception of Portuguese wines here, did or did not offer any bar to the proposed arrangement. A deep interest prevailed upon this subject. The House was no doubt acquainted with the circumstances to which he alluded. The Methuen Treaty had reference specifically to the wines of Portugal being admitted into this country, and the woollens of this country being admitted into Portugal. The House also knew that in a treaty of 1810 was contained an article, declaring, that the articles of all former treaties should be subject to revision, and that that par- 540 ticular article should be continued, in the words of the article, "for the present." In the same article, also, there was a provision that, in fifteen years from the date of that treaty, either party should be at liberty to call for a revision of the articles of the treaty. It had been always understood by the Government of this country, that, after the expiration of those fifteen years (which took place in 1825), we should be at liberty to give an intimation to the Crown of Portugal that we intended to revise the treaty, and, consequently, that it was in our power to take the necessary steps for the purpose. He merely asked, on the present occasion, for this information—whether any steps had been taken, and what, consistently with these treaties, to enable the House, instanter, to adopt the equalisation which the Government proposed?
§ Viscount Palmerstonsaid, in answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman, that no steps of the kind alluded to had been taken, because none such were necessary in order to place this country in a condition to adopt the equalisation of the duty on wines, which his noble friend had proposed; and if the right hon. Gentleman would look more attentively into the treaties than, perhaps, he had done, he would see that the fact was so. The treaties could be easily explained in a few words. By the treaty of 1703, a reciprocal engagement was entered into between Portugal and England, that Portugal should abstain from prohibiting, as she had heretofore done, the woollen cloths of England, but on condition that England should permit the importation of Portuguese wines at one-third less duty than the wines of other countries—provided always, that if England should vary that duty, it should be competent to Portugal to deal with our woollen goods as she should see fit. That was the stipulation of the Treaty of Methuen, which left it optional with this country to alter the duties on wines, leaving, as he said, to Portugal a right to deal with English woollens according to her discretion. The treaty of 1810 provided, that the stipulations of the treaty of 1703, relative to Portuguese wines and English woollens, should remain unaltered. He apprehended that they did remain unaltered, and therefore, that the option reserved by the treaty of 1703 remained undestroyed by the treaty of 1810. There was a subsequent article in the 541 treaty of 1810, which said, that after the expiration of fifteen years, it should be competent to either party to propose an alteration of the stipulations; but, if the view which he took of them was correct, no alteration was necessary, and this country was perfectly at liberty to adopt the measure which had been proposed.
Mr. Herriessaid, that the measure, then, was to be adopted, subject to the understanding, that Portugal would prohibit our woollen goods.—[Some Members exclaimed "might," not "would."] Well, Portugal might, and, as a consequence, would, prohibit them. As to the information which he had sought, the answer of the noble Lord was perfectly explicit.