RELATIONS WITH NAPLES.

HC Deb 23 March 1843 vol 67 cc1343-7

Mr. Hume

rose to move for the following returns:— 1. A copy of the commercial treaty made and signed by John M'Gregor, Esq., in the year 1840, with the Neapolitan Government, on behalf of Great Britain, but not ratified by the British Government, as required in January, 1841. 2. Account of the charge for Sir Woodbine Parish's commission to Naples; stating the names of the persons employed, the salaries and allowances to each, the total expense in each year, and distinguishing the charge for contingencies. 3. Copy of the orders issued to Admiral Stopford, in 1840, to proceed to Naples with a squadron of British ships of war, to make seizures of the ships and property of his Majesty the King of Naples; and an account of the number of ships seized by British ships of war, and the conditions upon which these vessels were delivered up to their owners; and copy of the orders for restoring them. The hon. Member wished, in making the motion, to call the attention of the House and the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) to the state of our commercial relations with Naples. He must express his regret that the treaty which Mr. M'Gregor had concluded had not been ratified, as he thought it would have been beneficial, and he should wish to learn from the Government why its benefits were not secured to the country. At present the duties on our commodities when imported into Naples were exorbitantly high, and the House would see by Mr. M'Gregor's report, page 26, that our commodities were subject to duties varying from 35 to 700 per cent. He begged the attention of the right hon. Baronet to that point, because it showed that the Government of Naples following our example, was of opinion that high duties promoted the prosperity of that country. The consequence of this was, that our woollens were superseded in the markets of Naples by the woollens of France and Belgium; and he submitted to the right hon. Baronet the propriety of lessening the cost of manufacturing woollens, by taking off the duty on the raw material, and of obtaining some reduction in the duties in Naples, in order to enable our manufactories to compete with those of France and Belgium. He believed that unless the duty on wool was taken off, and the charge of manufacturing the article reduced, we should lose that trade altogether. With respect to the duties on linen, they, too, were high, and the linen trade was declining. Our exports of iron stood their ground, but our hardware and cutlery found a powerful competition in the cutlery from Germany, and, during the last five years, our hardware trade had declined, and would probably be lost. The same was the case with glass. If the right hon. Baronet were able to reduce or abolish the duty on glass, there was, he believed, no manufacture which would make a more rapid progress; and if it were not abolished, our exports of glass to Naples would cease. With respect to the treaty, he regretted that it was not ratified, because by that it was settled that all the duties on English commodities were to be based on a tariff varying from from 10 to 20 per cent. That treaty was concluded by both parties, but it was not ratified according to the agreement, an January 1, 1841. No reason was assigned for that, and all the benefits of the treaty were lost. He was anxious to hear from the right hon. Baronet why the treaty had not been ratified, and if her Majesty's Government intended to adopt any measures on that subject. With respect to the commissioners who had been sent to Naples, no details had ever been given of their expenditure. The losses which our merchants had suffered by the sulphur monopoly were not yet compensated, and he wished to learn from the Government why the matter was not arranged. It had been a long time in hand, and he had heard many complaints of its not being settled. No account had been laid before the House of the expense of the commission, and no report had been made of its proceedings. With respect to the third motion, Admiral Stopford had been ordered, because the court of Naples did not agree to our propositions, to seize all the Neapolitan vessels he could gel hold of. He disapproved of that proceeding; he thought it was wholly unwarranted. No explanation of the matter had ever been laid before the House, and he hoped that there would be no objection to his motion. He was one of those who thought a conciliatory policy on all such occasions was the best, and the most likely to attain the ends in view. He begged the Government to believe that he moved for these returns in no hostile spirit, but merely to get at the facts. The hon. Member concluded by submitting his motion.

Sir R. Peel

thought the hon. Member had scarcely given sufficient notice, in announcing his intention to move for these returns, to warrant him in engaging in a discussion on our commercial policy, and on the duties on woollen, linen and hardware. The hon. Member hardly gave notice enough to induce the Government to expect a discussion on the important matters connected with the returns the hon. Member moved for. The hon. Member recommended that the duties on wool, cotton, and particularly the duty on glass, should be repealed. Nothing was more easy for hon. Members in the situation of the hon. Member than to show an excess of liberality, but it was very different for those who had to provide the ways and means, and on whom rested the responsibility of keeping up the public revenue. The hon. Member must, however, rejoice that the increase of taxation passed last year had enabled him to make reductions in our duties, which it would not have been possible to effect without some additional supply of revenue. The hon. Member, however, would not expect him to enter into a discussion on the reduction of taxation. On the contrary, it was his duty not to say one word on the subject, or to admit the supposition that reduction of duties would be made, or that he designed to make any. He would tell the hon. Gentleman, with respect to his motion, that he had no possible objection to that part of it which related to the commission, at the head of which was Sir Woodbine Parish. But he could not assent to it without bearing his testimony to the admirable manner in which that Gentleman had performed his duties, nor without saying that he had exhibited throughout great zeal and great good sense. As to the expense of the commission, he could tell the hon. Member that it did not exceed 3,600l. He must inform the hon. Gentleman, that with respect to his third motion, he was ready to grant him a return of the number of Neapolitan ships taken by our squadron; but he must object to the other part of that motion. With respect to the motion for the production of the commercial treaty, he must state that the Government of the day when it was concluded, which was under Lord Melbourne's administration, asserted that Mr. M'Gregor had not full powers to negotiate such a treaty, and they did not approve of it. The Neapolitan government, too, considered that it had not given full powers to its agent, and it disapproved of the treaty. Thus the treaty never was executed; it was not, in fact, a treaty at all; it did not exist in any official form, and he could not give it to the hon. Member. In consequence of the imperfect powers given to the agents the treaty could not be ratified, and it would not be proper to lay it before the House. He agreed with the hon. Member that it was better to gain our objects by a conciliatory policy, if we could, than to have recourse to force; but when conciliation failed—when all consideration of right was neglected, then it became necessary to employ force, in order to secure that justice should be done. At the same time, the hon. Gentleman would see, now that the disputes were adjusted, that it would not be wise to revive animosities; by producing copies of the orders given to our admiral, now that our demands on Naples were agreed to. The hon. Member must be sensible that it would do no good. He would tell the hon. Member what those orders were. The admiral had orders, so soon as he was informed by our minister at Naples that he was satisfied with the concessions of the Neapolitan government at once to set all the vessels at liberty. He was sure, therefore, that the hon. Member would not call for the orders under which a small number of vessels were seized, when all the matters in dispute were now arranged. He trusted that the unfriendly feelings which had prevailed would gradually abate, and the hon. Gentleman would feel that it would be neither wise nor good policy now to lay on the table the orders given to admiral Stopford. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with receiving an account of the number of ships and of the commission, and that the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his motion for the production of the orders to admiral Stop- ford, and for the treaty negotiated by Mr. M'Gregor.

Second motion only carried, first and third withdrawn.