§ MR. HUTTinquired of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary whether the blockade established in the South of Europe was now at an end, and our merchants might freight their ships thither without risk?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the blockade of the Douro had been from time to time imperfect, and therefore not binding, in consequence of the absence of the blockading vessels, which had passed the greater part of their time in the harbour of Vigo, instead of cruising off Oporto. Latterly, however, the blockade had been enforced in a legal and proper manner. The accounts from Portugal received yesterday, brought the intelligence that the Junta of Oporto had accepted the terms offered by the Government, and had sent the Marquess do Louie to Lisbon to announce that determination: under these circumstances, therefore, he hoped that the blockade had been taken off, and that the next despatches would communicate the information that Oporto might be approached by shipping as usual.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEwas anxious to put a question upon a matter connected with the terms which had been proposed to the Junta. The noble Lord was aware that, by the second article of the conditions which were offered for the acceptance of the Junta, the Queen of Portugal pledged 658 herself to revoke immediately all the decrees issued since the beginning of October last which infringed the constitution. It now, however, appeared by the advices which had just reached this country, that on the 6th of June a Royal decree was published in the Diario de Governo, by which the Queen of Portugal had suspended personal freedom, the liberty of the press, and some minor matters. He wished to know whether the British Government was officially aware of that decree, and whether they were prepared to enforce the rescinding of it by force of arms, if necessary?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, it was probable that the decree referred to by the hon. and gallant Member had been issued before intelligence of the intention of the Junta to accept the terms proposed by the Government had reached Lisbon. The despatches which brought to the British Government the information that the Junta had accepted the terms offered, came from Oporto, and were dated the 9th instant. There could be no doubt, that when that intelligence reached the Portuguese Government at Lisbon, perfect good faith would be kept with the Junta, and that all the promises made by the Queen would be rigidly fulfilled.
§ MR. B. OSBORNEasked whether the noble Lord would state what course the British Government would take supposing the Queen of Portugal should not fulfil her engagements?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, it was not the practice to state what the Government would do in supposititious cases. It was sufficient to state what they had done.
§ LORD GEORGE BENTINCKsaid, that in accordance with the notice he had given, he was about to call the attention of the House to the infraction of the 1st, 15th, 17th, and 18th Articles of the Treaty of July, 1842, concluded at Lisbon, between this country and Portugal; and as the matter concerned the interests of British merchants, and concerned more especially the interests of the cotton manufacturers of this country, he trusted it would not be considered that he was unnecessarily trespassing upon the time of the House in calling their attention to this subject. It would be in the recollection of all those who had read the Portuguese papers laid upon the Table of the House, that on the 16th of November last, Mr. Southern ad- dressed a letter to Viscount Palmerston, informing him that a deeree had been 659 made by the Queen of Portugal, which compromised the interests of British merchants. Mr. Southern wrote thus:—
I have the honour to enclose to your Lordship the copy of a decree respecting the forced circulation of notes of the Bank of Lisbon, which has produced extraordinary agitation and alarm amongst all classes of commercial men in this capital. Although the notes of the Bank were made a legal tender by previous decrees of the Government, still it remained open for parties dealing together to agree on the manner of payment, as to whether it should be in bank notes or in metal. The general terms fixed upon were then silver, which has a standard value, while the greatest inconvenience was experienced from the changeable price of the notes, the discount of which varied every day. By the present decree all such compacts are made criminal; and as the credit of the Bank is certainly not on the rise, the merchant is reduced to the alternative of taking payment in a paper which may shortly be valueless, or of giving up business altogether. Many loudly declare their intention of closing their establishments. The fifth clause, however, is the part of the decree which is most complained of, because of its retroactive effect. It particularly affects the British houses here dealing in cotton goods, which are sold on credit, and generally under compact to be paid in Spanish metal. Dealers will now take advantage of the decree—buying notes, which they will be able to procure at a very reduced rate—and paying metal prices in a depreciated currency.The 1st Article of the Decree alluded to ran in these words:—Any person who from any motive, or under any pretence whatever, should reject the notes of the Lisbon Bank while they have a forced currency, and may be applied to any payment or transaction, will incur, besides the penalty of transportation, to which are liable those who reject the King's money, according to the Ordinance of the Kingdom, vol. iv. chap. 22, the fine of 50,000 to 500,000 reis, for the public treasury, regulated by the judge's discretion, according to the amount of the transaction, and to the fortune of the transgressor.To make these penalties more secure, the 4th Article of the Decree provided that—No bail shall be received for the crimes mentioned in the present decree, nor will the intervention of the jury be required in their judgment.Now, he did not seek to mislead the House into the notion that these penalties, varying from 50,000 reis to 500,000 reis, were so very enormous as to those unacquainted with the value of the reis might at first appear. The reis did not bear any analogy in value to the sovereign of this country, for it took 1,000 reis to make the value of 4s. 2d.English money, so that these penalties of 50,000 and 500,000 reis amounted respectively to somewhere about 10 guineas and 100 guineas, according to the amount of the transaction and the fortune of the 660 transgressor. But the 1st Article of the Treaty concluded in July, 1842, at Lisbon, by Lord Howard de Walden, after providing that the subjects of the high contracting Powers should enjoy all the rights of various kinds conferred upon the subjects of the most favoured nations, went on to say that they should be entitled to dispose of all their personal, leasehold, and ail other property by sale, gift, will, or exchange, or in any other manner whatsoever without the smallest let or any hindrance whatsoever; and the 15th Article ran thus:—Her Majesty the Queen of Portugal engages that the commerce of British subjects within the Portuguese dominions shall not be restrained, interrupted, or otherwise affected by the operation of any monopoly.And yet by the decree of the 14th November, 1846, a monopoly of the Lisbon bank notes was ordained. The Treaty contracted that British subjects should not be so affected by any—"monopoly, contract, or exclusive privilege or sale or purchase whatsoever; but that the subjects of the United Kingdom should have free and unrestrained permission to buy from and sell to whomsoever they pleased, and in whatsoever form or manner should be agreed upon between purchaser and seller.Now, the decree to which he had alluded distinctly abrogated the 15th Article of the Treaty. It was true that, as far as regarded the retroactive operation of the decree of the 14th November, another decree was published on the 17th December, retracting so much of the decree of November as made the operation of the law retroactive; but the effect of the law was this: that as regarded all British merchants, or all British manufacturers who should have contracted to export their goods or produce to Portugal subsequent to the 16th November, and should have agreed to take acceptances at thirty days, or, as was the more common case, sixty days, or as regarded the produce of the East Indies, or of any of our other colonies, exported to Portugal—those merchants who had agreed to take acceptances upon Portuguese houses at three or six months, would find that, instead of getting a value equal and according to their contract, they would be paid, under this law, in Lisbon, notes depreciated 50 per cent—that was, 50 per cent throughout the winter; hut, according to a despatch from Sir H. Seymour, dated 9th April, it appeared that they would then have to accept of payment in currency depreciated 54 per cent. By the articles of 661 the commercial treaty concluded by Lord Howard de Walden, our merchants were entitled to buy and to sell; and to bargain and receive in exchange anything which might be agreed upon between purchaser and seller. He should have occasion hereafter, as regarded the 17th and 18th Articles, to revert to the infraction of the treaty with respect to trial by jury; but it would be remembered, that this decree was to be enforced, without giving British subjects the right of trial by jury, to which, under the 17th and 18th Articles, they were entitled. Every commercial man in the House would understand, that besides the penalty of transportation, to which every British subject had been made liable by the decree, there was a loss of 54 per cent to every British merchant, manufacturer, and traders of all kinds in Portugal at this time, who should have agreed to take acceptances upon Lisbon houses, subsequent to the 16th November last. Notwithstanding that seven months had elapsed since that communication was made by Mr. Southern to the British Government, so far as he was able to discover by reading the papers laid before Parliament, no notice whatever had been taken of it by the noble Lord opposite, or by Her Majesty's Government. The decree, however, was still in full force throughout the Portuguese dominions. He could not avoid here drawing a contrast between the gentle conduct of the Government in this matter towards the Queen of Portugal, and the energy displayed by them when the Junta had been guilty of an infraction of the rights of British subjects, or of the law of nations. He found, that on the 4th March, Colonel Johnston, the British Consul, wrote to Mr. Southern with the information that—In Vianna, the authorities had seized corn for the use of the troops. They had taken a considerable quantity from Mr. Russell, an Englishman residing there, whose storehouses in Vianna they broke open.That letter of Mr. Johnston was communicated to the noble Lord opposite, and instantly, on the 26th of March, Viscount Palmerston addressed a despatch to Mr. Johnston, which was not in the papers, but which was described in the despatch to Sir Hamilton Seymour, in which it was enclosed, as follows:—
§ "Foreign Office, March 20, 1847.
§ "Sir—I transmit herewith for your information a copy of a despatch which I have this day addressed to Mr. Consul Johnston, instructing him to warn the Junta at Oporto that Her Majesty's Government will not suffer that body to violate 662 with impunity the treaty stipulations which confer rights and securities upon British subjects in Portugal."
§
Now, he asked how it happened that the stipulations of the Treaty signed by this very Queen of Portugal in 1842 had been permitted to be thus flagrantly violated for seven months together without any redress being asked for by the Government; while, when the Junta, in carrying on the operations of war seized upon the property of one individual, they instantly received notification that such infraction of the stipulations of treaties, and of the rights and liberties of British subject in Portugal, would not be permitted or passed over with impunity? So much for the infraction of the treaty as regarded the right of British merchants to deal in any way they pleased with Portuguese subjects. He should next proceed to another infraction of the treaty, to which the attention of the noble Lord had also been called by Mr. Southern, in that gentleman's letter of the 30th of December, 1846, in these terms:—
I have the honour to enclose a copy of a decree which has been promulgated in the official journal of this morning, by which trial by jury is abolished in Portugal.
The decree is supported in the unofficial part of the Diario by a declamatory article in favour of the system of legislation which formerly prevailed here, and in vituperation of the legislation and jurisprudence introduced into this country under the charter, as more in harmony with liberal institutions.
The abolition of trial by jury undoubtedly places British subjects in Portugal on a different footing from that contemplated by Articles 17 and 18 of the Treaty of 1842, and in consideration of which the British Government was induced conditionally to give up the exercise of the rights connected with the conservatorial court.
By this measure, and the assumption of dictatorial authority by the Queen, under the decree of 27th October last, the subjects of Her Most Faithful Majesty are put entirely at the mercy of the Executive Government.
It might not be generally known that there had existed in Portugal a court of justice for the special trial of cases in which British subjects were concerned, and called the Conservatorial Court. But by the Treaty of 1842 this court—which had existed by more ancient treaties—and the privileges it conferred on British subjects, were surrendered on condition that thenceforward all British subjects in Portugal should be entitled to trial by jury, and to all the privileges enjoyed by Portuguese
663
subjects in the British dominions. The 17th Article of that Treaty ran thus:—
Her Britannic Majesty, on the representation of Her Most Faithful Majesty, and in contemplation of the improving system of law and justice in Portugal, hereby consents to give up the exercise of the rights connected with the Conservatorial Court, so soon, and so long, as British subjects are admitted in Portugal to the benefit of securities similar or equivalent to those enjoyed by the subjects of Her Most Faithful Majesty in Great Britain, as regards trial by jury, protection from arrest without a warrant from a magistrate, and examination within twenty-four hours after apprehension in flagrante delicto, and admission to bail. It being always understood, that in other respects the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty in Portugal should be placed on the same footing as Portuguese subjects, in all causes, whether civil or criminal, and that they shall not, except in cases flagrantis delicti, be liable to imprisonment without formal commitment (culpa formada) under a warrant signed by a legal authority.
So far as he (Lord George Bentinck) had been able to gather from the papers now on the Table, no remonstrance had been made to this second gross infraction of the Treaty of 1842, nor had any effort been made, so far as he had learned, to secure for British subjects in Portugal the benefit of the reconstruction of the Conservatorial Court. The questions, therefore, which he had to ask were, whether any steps, and, if any, what steps had been taken to secure redress for the wrongs thus inflicted on British subjects in Portugal; and what securities had been taken that in future like wrongs should not be repeated?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONThe noble Lord the Member for Lynn has asked mo two questions professing to relate to Portugal. The first refers to decrees issued by the Portuguese Government giving to the paper currency of the Bank of Lisbon a forced value equal to the regular nominal value; the second has reference to the suspension of those securities and guarantees which were established on the suspension of the Conservatorial Court. Now, with regard to the first point, without at all pretending to justify the Portuguese Government for the financial measure they have thought proper to resort to in their pecuniary embarrassments, I will take leave to say, that I am sure the noble Lord will himself admit, that the present is not the first instance on record in the history of Europe of a Government giving by law an arbitrary and forced value to paper which was suffering under great depreciation; for those who have taken the trouble of looking back to the history of our own notes, must be aware that there have been 664 periods at which, under circumstances of commercial depression, those notes were by law made receivable at a value very different from that which, according to his peculiar free-trade doctrines, they were likely to command in the money market.
§ LORD GEORGE BENTINCKcomplained that the noble Lord had entirely misunderstood him. The hardship under which British merchants in Portugal suffered, was that, by the decree to which he had alluded, they were precluded from making private contracts in the way of their business. Though they might have contracted to be paid in ingots of gold or bars of silver, they were forbidden, under pain of transportation, and under a penalty varying from 50,000 to 500,000 reis, from receiving payment in any other shape but in that of the notes of the Lisbon bank. For such a rule of commerce as this, he contended there was no precedent whatever.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONI admit that the Portuguese law is remarkably stringent for its purpose; but the noble Lord should remember that these same notes are receivable by the Portuguese Government at the same rate of value as that at which private individuals are obliged to accept them. With regard to what Her Majesty's Government intended to do in reference to this matter, I may he permitted to observe, that we do not detect in the present case any special circumstances requiring us to adopt a different course from that which on similar occasions is ordinarily pursued. It is not unusual for the Government to anticipate the complaints of British merchants in foreign countries. Whenever such a complaint is made, founded on the construction of treaties, and on the allegation that such treaties have been violated to the prejudice of the party complaining, the usual course has been to refer the complaint to the consideration of the proper law adviser of the Crown; and according to his advice and opinion the Government usually act. I am not aware that any specific complaints have been made by the British merchants in Portugal in respect of the operation of the decree to which the noble Lord has referred; but in the event of any such complaint being made, the course to be pursued by the Government will be to refer the matter of complaint to the Queen's Advocate, and to ascertain from him whether it does or does not constitute such infraction of treaty as will justify Her Majesty's Government in claiming redress or compensation from 665 Portugal. With regard to the second point alluded to by the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, it is quite true, as the noble Lord has stated, that the 17th and 18th Articles of the Lisbon Treaty of 1842 surrendered the Conservatorial Court on condition of the establishment of equivalent securities and guarantees. Those securities and guarantees, it is perfectly true, were superseded by the decrees to which he has alluded. A case occurred in which a British subject suffered very great injustice by the suspension of those decrees; and the fact having been communicated to Her Majesty's Government, an application was thereupon made to the Portuguese Government, claiming the restoration of the Conservatorial Court. The result was, that that court was restored, and is at the present moment in existence. I did not think it necessary to encumber the House by including amongst the papers we were recently called upon to produce, relating to Portugal, the correspondence which passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Portugal in reference to various matters connected with our commercial relations in that country. The House was very pressing for the production of the papers; and although a very voluminous correspondence had taken place between the two Governments on commercial matters, I thought it the better course to strike out from the papers which we were required to lay upon the Table everything which did not seem to me to have a direct bearing on the political question we were going to consider. That is the reason why the noble Lord does not find in the blue book any tiling with regard to the Conservatorial Court, or the Cortes, or any thing with regard to many other minor or personal questions, on which much correspondence has taken place. But with respect to the Conservatorial Court, I have again to state that that court has been restored in consequence of a formal application from Her Majesty's Government, an application founded on the construction of the Lisbon Treaty of 1842. The court is now in existence, and will be so until all the guarantees for the constitution shall again be formally established.
§ MR. EWARTobserved, that a statement having appeared in the public prints to the effect that it was in the contemplation of the Portuguese Government to confer decorations on the British naval officers who were concerned in the recent seizure of the forces of the Junta, he was anxious 666 to know from the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department whether the Government were prepared to give their sanction to such a proceeding, and to permit the naval officers of Great Britain to receive such distinctions?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONNotwithstanding that the hon. Gentleman did not give notice of his intention to ask this question, I can have no hesitation in answering it. It is well known that there is now in force, and has been for some time, a regulation which prevents any British subject from accepting or wearing any foreign order, unless it is granted to him for distinguished services at sea or in the face of the enemy, or unless he has been actually in the service of the foreign Power who proposes to decorate him. I have no difficulty whatever in saying that none of the duties performed by any British officers, civil, military, or naval, in the recent transactions in Portugal, could possibly bring them in any manner within the scope of the regulations permitting them to receive, or at all justifying them in receiving, any orders from the Portuguese Government.