§ Mr. Patrick M. Stewartbegged to ask the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, if he had arranged with the Dutch government the terms of the treaty of 1824, and if an indemnity had been insisted upon with respect to the excessive duties charged? He wished to know, first, whether he had been enabled to prevail upon the Dutch government to adjust the duties, present and prospective, in strict conformity with the terms of that treaty; and secondly, whether he had been enabled to convince the Dutch government that they were bound in honour and fair dealing (the latter they should understand) to refund the excessive duties charged, amounting to half a million sterling?
§ Viscount Palmerston,in answer to his hon. Friend, regretted to say, that the old 7 observation was in this case verified, that nothing was more difficult to convince a man of than the truth that would deprive him of a profitable injustice; and he regretted to say, that the Dutch government formed no exception to that rule. No doubt the construction the hon. Member had put upon the treaty, was the true and the just one. He had endeavoured, ever since the question had been first started, to convince the Dutch government that its construction of the terms of the treaty was erroneous, and not conformable either to the letter or the spirit of the treaty. He had received a private communication that a tariff had been issued in Java, placing the difference of duty upon the difference of national flags; but he had not been able to obtain any official communication from Holland to that effect. So far with regard to the first branch. The result had not been stated in any communication with the Dutch government on this subject, but he had reason to hope that they had come to the determination strictly and literally to execute the treaty. With regard to the second branch, that, of course, could not be brought to a conclusion till they had disposed of the other branch of the question. He had announced to the Dutch government that they would insist on their claims, not only for the future, but also upon a restitution for the past. Though the second branch, therefore, was postponed till after they had settled the first, he could assure the House that it would not be abandoned.
§ Sir Robert Peelpresumed, that the noble Lord would not have the least objection to lay the tariff upon the table. The grounds of the treaty that had been alluded to were, that where these goods were imported free from Holland 6 per cent was to be charged upon goods brought by British vessels; and where 6 per cent was charged upon goods brought by the Dutch, double that was to be charged on the British. Was the noble Lord prepared to lay the new tariff in an official form before the House?
§ Viscount PalmerstonThe treaty was, that goods imported into Java by British subjects, and by British vessels, should pay twice as much duty as goods imported by the subjects, and in the vessels of Holland; and where there was no duty levied upon articles imported by the subjects and in the vessels of Holland, there should only be a duty of 6 per cent levied on 8 English goods. The Dutch wanted to make the difference of duty depend, not upon the nationality of the vessels and importers, but on the nationality of the goods themselves; that was to say, they wanted the difference to apply to Dutch goods if imported in English vessels. He had not received this information, as yet officially, and therefore could not as yet lay a copy of the treaty on the table; but he had instructed the minister at the Hague to apply for the treaty.