§ Sir R. Peel, seeing the hon. Member for Gateshead in his place, who had a notice on the paper with reference to certain duties which were the subject of negotiation between her Majesty's Government and that of Hanover, begged to state that it would be quite out of his power, consistently with a sense of public duty, to enter upon the discussion. The negotiations were in such a state that he could not remark upon them without producing detriment to the public service, inasmuch as he should divulge the claims of our Government. He had reason to believe (though he could not, of course, speak confidently on a matter which was not finally settled) that those negotiations would be brought to a close in a short time; and their progress must be prejudiced by any discussion regarding them. He must leave it, then, to the discretion of the hon.. Gentleman, 1whether he should, under the circumstances, deem it right to press his motion.
§ Mr. Huttshould be very unwilling to take any course which was detrimental to the public service; but at the same tithe he Mast say that he understood those negotiations were conducted on a basil which was likely to render them extremely prejudicial to the interest, rights, and honour of this country. He considered 397 it his duty, then, to enter upon a statement respecting them; and he must say he was extremely desirous that, before any treaty was concluded, some expression of the opinion of the House should be given on the subject.
§ Sir R. PeelAll I can say is, I shall not be tempted to break that reserve which I consider it essential to preserve. The hon. Gentleman can of course make any statement he chooses; but her Majesty's Government must maintain a perfect silence on the subject.
§ Mr. Lambtonhoped, as the Prime Minister had stated that to bring on this motion would be prejudicial to the interests of the country, that his hon. Friend would not press it.
§ Mr. Humewas as, anxious, as has lime, Friend that this matter should be discussed; bur it' he pressed it under the circumstances, the effect must be to place those who were anxious to support him in an awkward situation.
§ Viscount PalmerstonI readily admit there is great force in the reason stated by the right hon. Baronet for not entering on this discussion, namely, that lie can no consistently with his duty, discuss matters which are the subject of a negotiation now going on; but I think my hon. Friend has much to say in justification of his desire to make a statement on this subject. The subject has been frequently before the House, and the late Government never objected to the discussion on the ground that the question was pending between the Governments of Banover and of England. But the case has assumed an aspect which justifies my hon. Friend in especially urging his views now, and drawing the attention of the Government to the question, because lie has reason to believe, and entertains no doubt on the point, that the present Government is prepared to abandon claims which he thinks should be maintained, and thereby occasion great prejudice to the commercial interests of the country, unless the negotiations are prevented from being conducted on such a basis. It is quite clear, that to postpone the discussion until the bargain is made, and we are subjected to those duties, may be a convenient course for the Government, but would be of no sort of benefit to the interests of commerce.
§ Sir R. PeelI again repeat I feel positively precluded from stating the views of 398 the Government. What must be the effect of my doing so? Would not those who conducted the negotiations on the part of Hanover immediately refer to my opinion, which may perhaps unsettle everything which had been agreed upon? must submit to whatever misconstruction this course exposes me. The hon. Gentleman asks for the correspondence which has taken place—to produce it pending the negotiations is absolutely impossible.
§ Mr. HuttI understand that Lord Aberdeen stated to the Hanoverian Minister, immediately on his accession to office, that in regard to the Stade tolls he adhered to the policy of his predecessor. Now, if the right hon. Baronet is prepared to, say that her Majesty's, Baronet is prepared to continue the negotiations upon that basis, I will acquiesce in the proposal of my hon. Friends, and withdraw my notice of motion.
§ Sir R. PeelI can give no pledge or explanation on the subject.
§ Mr. HuttThen, whether l withdraw my motion or not, I must take the opportunity of saying a few words on the subject of the pending negotiations. I trust that the circumstance of my having been engaged for sonic years in bringing this matter to a satisfactory adjustment, and my belief, founded on information I have received, that her Majesty's Government are treating with the Crown of Hanover on a basis not only inconsistent with the policy of my noble Friend, but also inconsistent with then own declarations, and with the rights and the honour of England, will be a sufficient apology to the House for the course I am pursuing. Lord Aberdeen, on accepting the seals of the Foreign Office, signified to the Government of Hanover that the adopted the policy of my noble Friend in regard to the Stade question. Now, what was the policy of my noble Friend? The noble Lord, after a careful consideration of the question, came to a conclusion that the Government of Hanover was entitled to the benefit of the Swedish treaty of 1691, and that Hanover was, therefore, justified in collecting tolls on the Elbe, in accordance with die provisions of that. treaty, and of the tariff afterwards annexed to it. That is, Hanover was entitled to levy on British shipping passing up the Elbe a small toll on each vessel, and a maximum toll of one-sixteenth per cent. on the value 399 of the cargoes. You may think that these terms are not sufficiently liberal towards the King of Hanover; but be pleased to recollect, that this was no discovery of my noble Friend, this was no new doctrine—it was the doctrine adopted by Denmark at the convention of Dresden, and ever since adhered to by that Government. It was the doctrine of Hamburg on the same occasion, and which, to this hour, the Senate of that enlightened State has lost no opportunity of insisting upon. It is the deliberate judgment of Prussia. It is the opinion of Austria. You may regret the policy of Lord Palmerston. You may award higher duties on British manufactures to the government of Hanover than my noble Friend would ever agree to, but permit me to tell you that, in so doing, you will oppose, not the policy of my noble Friend only, but the policy of every statesman and government in Europe that has ever pronounced an opinion on the subject? Are you prepared to adopt such a course? I hope not. I cannot but infer, even from the statements of the right hon. Baronet, by which he has deprecated any discussion on the question, that he will not gratify Hanover by any su2h sacrifice of British interests. I do not wish to press him to any premature disclosures of his policy, but I feel that I should not be doing justice to myself, nor justice to those parties who have entrusted this question to my hands, if I did not protest against any concession to Hanover which will involve a departure from the terms and spirit of the Swedish treaty. I have now made my last struggle for justice to British commerce and navigation, in regard to the Stade tolls. Before Parliament is again assembled, it is probable that the treaty now in contemplation with Hanover will have been formally concluded. Remonstrance will then be too late. I can only say, that if negotiations with Hanover be concluded on the present footing, if this plain question be disposed of on a principle of compromise, that the right hon. Baronet will have taken a part fatal to the reputation of his Government, and most injurious to the interests and honour of his country. I shall say no more.