§ LORD G. BENTINCK, seeing the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his place, begged to direct his attention to an alleged infraction of the commercial Treaty of 1824 by the King of the Netherlands. In 1824, as the House was aware, a treaty was entered into with Holland, signed by Mr. Canning and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. W. W. Wynn), which stipulated that as regarded the trade of our East Indian possessions and the Eastern Archipelago, the trade of each country should, as regarded the other, be placed on the footing of the most favoured nations. Such being the treaty, it was alleged by a commercial firm in Manchester, for whose respectability he need only appeal to the hon. Baronet opposite, to the Member for South Lancashire, and the Vice-President of the Board of Trade—he meant the firm of Butterworth, Brooks, and Bevan—it was alleged by them, that a violation of the treaty had taken place, to the great injury of Manchester and the empire at large. It was stated that in August, 1846, a treaty was contracted between the King of the Belgians and the King of the Netherlands, affording advantages to Belgium which were not given to British subjects. By the Treaty of 1824 it was stipulated that no duties should be imposed on British goods or upon British shipping, or upon the goods either imported to or exported from the dominions of the King of the Netherlands, more than double the amount of the duties imposed upon the like goods imported or exported in Dutch vessels; but where no duty was imposed on the export or import of goods in Dutch vessels, then the highest duties to be imposed upon British merchandise, either imported or exported from the dominions of the King of the Netherlands, were not to exceed 6 per cent. Now, so far as regarded British subjects, the King of the Netherlands had exacted his bargain to the utmost letter; he had in all cases put a duty double the amount of the Dutch duty on British shipping and goods; but he had entered into a treaty with Belgium, in which he had lowered the duties to that country; and not only so, but he had, by a decree of the Governor General of Java, made the operation of the treaty retrospective, and allowed the subjects of Belgium to obtain a return of their duties back to the 25th of August last. The advan- 333 tage thus given to Belgium was not, however, unlimited, but was restricted to 8,000 tons of merchandise annually. This arrangement affected more especially the article sugar; and it was felt by the merchants of this country to be particularly hard upon them that this favour should be conferred upon Belgium simultaneously with the remission of the duties last year on Java sugar. By this contract, sugar, if conveyed in Belgian ships to Belgium, was allowed to be exported free; whereas sugar, when exported in British ships, was subjected to a duty of 6 per cent. On other articles, such as coffee, rum, tobacco, and many others, the favour shown to Belgium was equally observable. Now, all this appeared to him a distinct contravention of the First Article of the Treaty of 1824. England was entitled by that treaty to export in British vessels all the articles of merchandise he had referred to on the same terms on which the Belgians were permitted to export to Belgium; and he held, besides, that British merchants were entitled to the retrospective advantages of the decree of the Governor General of Java, and to have returned to them all the duties they had paid over and above what had been paid by Belgians. The questions he had to ask of the noble Lord were, whether his attention had been called to this infraction of the Treaty of 1824? whether he had made any remonstrance to the Dutch Government on the subject? and whether it was his intention to adopt any measure to obtain redress for British subjects who had been injured?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONhad to state that the matter referred to by the noble Lord had been for some time under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and was at the present moment the subject of communications with the Government of the Netherlands. He was, therefore, unable to state more than that the matter was at present the subject of such communications, and that Her Majesty's Government would continue to follow up the demand which they had thought it their duty to make. It had been rightly stated by the noble Lord, that by the Treaty of 1824 British subjects were entitled to be placed in the same position as the most favoured nations; and it was quite clear, that so long as the advantages granted to Belgium were not extended to British subjects, the stipulations of the treaty were not fulfilled; and that, therefore, there was a right on the part of the 334 Government of Great Britain to ask of the Government of the Netherlands that those stipulations be adhered to. He must say, however, that the demand which had been made did not stand on the simple and original ground, because there was at the time the discussions were going on between the two Governments a counter-demand made by the Netherlands Government to be admitted to the same privileges in regard to shipping and navigation which were granted by treaty to Hanover and Mecklenburg. Those two subjects were now under negotiation; and he trusted that the amicable feeling which animated Her Majesty's Government, and which he was sure inspired also the Government of the Netherlands, would insure the settlement of the whole question on a secure and satisfactory footing.