COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH DENMARK. (Hansard, 2 May 1839)

§ Mr. Gibson

rose to move an address for "copies of any despatches or correspondence that may have passed between the British mission at Copenhagen, and her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, relative to the duties and fees lately imposed by Denmark upon the transit of goods between Hamburgh and Lubeck." Before he discussed the question how far he was justified by circumstances in calling for this information, he would briefly state the nature of the communication between Hamburgh and Lubeck, and the manner in which the tolls levied there acted upon British interests. That road constituted the shortest communication between the North or German Ocean and the Baltic, and a sort of highway for commerce between that sea and the west of Europe, by which a long voyage round the Sound was saved. Up to the present time this road had been free from all tolls and duties whatever, and, as there were parts of the year when the 738 navigation of the Sound was dangerous, the freedom of this road was of particular importance to the commerce of Europe, and especially of Great Britain. During the years 1836 and 1837, a considerable quantity of the staple articles of British industry passed along this road on their way towards the Baltic Sea, and into it, commerce was more and more diverging every day, because the danger of a voyage round the Sound was thereby saved, and both the duration of the voyage and the rates of insurance decreased. In 1838, a proposal was published at Copenhagen to place tolls on the transit of goods between Hamburgh and Lubeck. It was not stated that these tolls were intended as a compensation for anything that had been done by the Danish Government for the purpose of making the road passable, which had continued in a most execrable condition under the dominion of Denmark. An exemption from tolls to a certain extent was also proposed with regard to foreign produce, so that their imposition was inconsistent not only with the spirit, but with the letter of the treaties between this country and Denmark. The proposal at Copenhagen in 1838 was to levy a duty of ten schillings currency on every 1 cwt. of goods going from Hamburgh to Lubeck, and only five schillings on the same weight going from Lubeck to Hamburgh. Now it was manifest that the former rate would be imposed on British produce, and the latter on Russian and Prussian produce. In point of fact, this was an imposition of discriminating duties in favour of Russia, and a violation of the contracts of former treaties, by which all discriminating duties was abrogated. At the same time it was proposed to exempt the staple articles of Russian and Prussian produce from all duties, though not as Russian and Prussian produce; and it was settled that the new arrangement should come into force on the 1st January, 1839. A few days before that period, however, another proclamation was made by the Danish Government, notifying that the intention of levying double duties was given up, and. the tolls on goods, whether going to or from Lubeck, would be equalized; but the exception in favour of Russian and Prussian produce was persisted in, while, in spite of the existence of treaties of reciprocity, abrogating all discriminating duties, tolls were levied on British goods. This was a state of things which called for 739 some explanation from the Government. Perhaps he should be told by the noble Viscount that there might be some old treaties giving to Russia a right of way along this road, and that consequently she was exempted from duties. Then, that if that were the case, why was not the produce of Russia exempted expressly as such, instead of being arranged that hemp, tallow, corn, &c. which were also the produce of other northern countries, should be free from toll? He would now briefly state to the House the nature of the treaties concluded between this country and Denmark. The last treaty was concluded in 1824, and it opened by a declaration on the part of the contracting parties that all discriminating duties should be abrogated. By article thirteen of the Treaty of Commerce all the ancient treaties of peace and commerce between England and Denmark were renewed in the fullest extent, so far as they were not inconsistent with the stipulations of that treaty. Among those ancient treaties were the treaty of 1670, and the treaty of 1660. By the former it was provided that the merchants of Great Britain should not be subject to greater dues than those imposed on other foreigners in the territories of Denmark; and by the latter it was agreed that if the Dutch or any other nation, the Swedish alone excepted, should ever obtain from Denmark better terms in respect of the imposition of dues, the same should be extended in favour of the subjects of England. Having stated the nature of the stipulations between this country and Denmark, he did not mean to say, that jurists might not be able to put such a construction on them as would reconcile them with the facts he had mentioned; but still he maintained he had made out a primâ facie case for calling on Ministers for explanation. It was for the Government who had the care of the commercial interests of the nation, to state how they could reconcile the imposition of this duty on British goods with our treaties of reciprocity. Vettel laid it down that a country abused its territorial right if it levied a duty on the transit of goods which was not in compensation for advantage rendered to the transit, such, for instance, as the repair of the road. There were various reasons alleged why the duty he now complained of was imposed on British goods. One reason was, commerce was flowing into the line between Hamburgh and Lubeck, and that it was 740 apprehended that the Sound dues would not last a great while longer. It was known that Russia, Prussia, and other countries were at the present moment protesting against the amount of the Sound dues, the rate of which was asserted to be higher than was justified by the original treaty, if any such existed. Well, then, Denmark, feeling all these questions rising up, and placing her Sound duties in jeopardy, felt it advisable to place the same duties upon goods passing through her German territories, and to impose the same duties upon goods going into the Baltic, as were imposed upon goods going through the Sound. But he did not see how that circumstance afforded a justification to Denmark, since it appeared to him that it was no plea for raising the transit duties between Hamburgh and Lubeck, that the Sound duties were excessively high. He hoped that the House would hear, from the noble Viscount, that he was protesting in common with other countries against the Sound duties, and also against the Stade duties, imposed by the King of Hanover, to the manifest injury of British commerce, and in direct violation of the treaty of Vienna. He hoped, also, that they would not be told that Hamburgh and Lubeck, being free cities, had referred this question to the German Confederation, and that it was now under the consideration of that body. He had no doubt that the German Confederation would come to a correct decision upon the question thus submitted to them, but it might be five or ten years, or even half a century, before it was finally settled. He hoped that this question would be dealt with as one affecting British interests, and not as in any degree depending upon the view taken of it by the German Confederation. The question was, whether British goods were to pay those duties at all, and whether it was consistent with existing treaties that they should have been imposed. Although he had reason to believe that owing to the remonstrance made by her Majesty's Government to the Government of Denmark a concession had been made by the equalization of the duties on goods passing front Lubeck to Hamburgh, and from Hamburgh to Lubeck, yet that concession was a concession in appearance only, because the duties were even now so high that all trade had been stopped in that direction. Persons now went a considerable circuit round rather than make themselves sub- 741 ject to the heavy duty which they would otherwise have to pay. He wished also that the noble Viscount would explain how it happened that lower duties were levied on Russian than on British goods. Having said thus much, he would not detain the House any longer, and would therefore conclude by placing his motion in the Speaker's hands.

§ Viscount Palmerston

observed, that the question to which the hon. Gentleman had directed the attention of the House had for some months past engaged the attention of her Majesty's Government. In August last her Majesty's Government understood, that it was the intention of the Danish government to impose transit dues on goods passing between the Baltic and the North Sea—between Lubeck and Hamburgh, and that that duty, as the hon. Gentleman had stated, was not to be equal with reference to the direction in which goods were passing, but was to be doubled on goods passing to the Baltic as compared with goods passing from the Baltic. The question to be considered was, whether the Danish government had an abstract right to impose these transit duties. He was afraid that there was no ground upon which they could deny the right which belonged to every independent State to impose a transit duty upon goods passing through its territory, provided always, that that duty was moderate and equal only to the services performed by the country by which it was imposed, and provided also, that it was equal in its amount and operation as applied to all nations. Now, as related to the dues in question, the British Government first of all objected to the inequality of the duty, founded upon the direction in which goods were passing, and they made strong representations against that inequality, because it was obvious, that goods passing from the Baltic were deriving an advantage in the English market which was denied to goods passing from the British dominions to the markets of the Baltic. The result of these representations was, that in December last the Danish government informed the Government of this country of its intention to equalize the duty, by reducing the higher dues between Hamburgh and Lubeck to the lower rate of dues imposed between Lubeck and F1arnburgh; that was to say, that whereas 10 schillings were originally imposed the one way, and 5 schillings the other, hereafter the duty 742 was to be 5 schillings both ways. So far, undoubtedly, the concession of the Danish government was satisfactory; but it then appeared, that there was another principle of inequality (which had also been adverted to by the hon. Gentleman opposite), namely, that the duty was not to apply to all commodities—(not that there was any exception specifically of the goods coming from any particular country)—but that a certain description of commodities was to be exempted, those commodities happening to be those only which came from a particular country. That was to say, that the goods which were the staple commodities of Russia and other countries bordering upon the Baltic were exempted from any duty, whilst the goods which were the staple commodity of England were subjected to a very considerable duty. Upon the subject of that inequality the British Government again remonstrated, and that question was still under discussion between the two governments. The peculiar point at issue was one that ought not to escape the attention of the House, because the duty was not a discriminating duty in terms, inasmuch as it was not in favour of goods coming from any specified quarter; but practically, and in point of fact, it was a discriminating duty, because it favoured (without specifying the country) the importation of the productions of Russia to the prejudice of the importation of the productions of Great Britain. He should have no objection to produce that part of the correspondence which related to that branch of the question which had been brought to a final issue, namely, the communications between the Danish and British Governments which had led to the removal of the inequality previously existing between the transit of goods in one direction and the transit of goods in the other direction through the provinces of Denmark; but he thought the House would see that, according to the invariable principle which operated with those engaged in the public service, it was not advisable or expedient to produce that part of the correspondence which related to unsettled questions—to matters still in abeyance. Whenever those questions were arranged he should be perfectly ready to produce all the correspondence which related to them. It had been stated by the hon. Gentleman, that the duty lately imposed by the government of Denmark was the more unjusti- 743 fiable, because no service had, in point of fact, been rendered for it, the road between Hamburgh and Lubeck being, from neglect, wholly unfit for the purposes of commerce. He certainly thought, that if the duty were persisted in, other countries, whose merchandise was to travel that way, had a right to expect, that a reasonably good road should be maintained over the short distance that their goods had to pass. It would, indeed, be the interest of Denmark to do so, because, as the hon. Gentleman had very truly stated, the merchants who previously transmitted their goods by the road between Hamburgh and Lubeck, in consequence of the high rate of duties lately imposed were about to adopt a route which, though somewhat longer, would be infinitely less expensive. So that if Denmark, with a notoriously bad road, chose to keep up a high rate of duty, it was plain, that in a short time she would not have it in her power to collect any duty at all. There was, however, a preliminary question pending, to which the hon. Member had also alluded, namely, the right of Denmark to levy this duty at all—not the right of levying it as regarded this country, or as arising out of any interpretation of treaties between England and Denmark, but the right of Denmark to levy such a duty founded upon ancient treaties between her and the Hanse Towns. That was a question upon which it was not then necessary for him to pronounce a decided opinion; but it was not upon that ground that he objected to the production of the whole of the correspondence moved for by the hon. Gentleman. He rested his objection to that motion upon the ground that negotiations were still pending upon the subject. The hon. Gentleman wished to know whether, in the opinion of Government, the duty could be leviable consistently with the treaties of reciprocity between Denmark and England. Now he (Lord Palmerston) should apprehend, that those treaties of reciprocity could not be considered as a bar to the levying of this duty, provided it were an equal duty, and levied only as a fair remuneration for services actually performed. The stipulation contained in treaties of that kind was generally this:—"That goods brought into the ports of one country direct from another should not pay a higher duty in consequence of their being brought in ships of a foreign country." The House 744 would perceive that that was a question distinct form that to which the hon. Gentleman's motions related. Undoubtedly as related to the Sound dues, there had of late been mooted a question of considerable importance. It was this—whether the dues levied by Denmark were not greater than by existing treaties and ancient usage she was entitled to. He begged to decline expressing at present any decided opinion upon that point; but he begged to assure the House, that the attention of the Government was directed to it, and that they should feel it their duty to ascertain what appeared to be the just right of Denmark in that particular; and if it should appear that she was exacting an amount of dues beyond that to which she was fully entitled, steps would be taken to induce her to reduce them to the fair and proper level. With respect to the state duties, it would certainly appear, that they had of late been levied in a higher degree and in a more vexatious manner upon the productions of this country. Upon that subject, however, her Majesty's Government was in communication with the government of Hanover, and whenever those communications were brought to a close either one way or the other, he should be ready to give every information with respect to them that might be desired. That, therefore, which upon the present occasion he would suggest to the hon. Gentleman, not in the least wishing to withhold form the House any information which could be given upon the subject at the present moment, without really injuring the object which all must have in view—that which he would suggest to the hon. Member would be this—to limit his motion at present to an address for copies or extracts of any correspondence between the Secretary for Foreign Affairs and her Majesty's minister at Copenhagen, upon the subject of equalizing the transit duties on good passing between Lubeck and Hamburgh. He would then produce the papers which related to that part of the subject. He would either move this as an amendment, or leave it to the hon. Member to adopt it as his motion.