§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the House might recollect that at the close of last Session he asked the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Whether he could inform them whether it was the intention of Belgium to enter into a commercial treaty with this country similar to that which had recently been entered into between Belgium and France. The reply of the noble Earl was that he had been assured by the Belgian Government they intended to do so; but that it was too late to bring the matter before their Chambers until the next Session. The delay was not satisfactory to the mercantile interests of this country; but they had no reason to think that the Government of Belgium was unfavourably disposed towards England. However, since then the Belgian Chamber had met again, and in the speech of 278 the King at the opening of the Session it was stated that it was the intention of the Government to recommend that England should be put on the same footing as France. He was sorry to say that that very satisfactory announcement had not been followed by any action; and great doubt was now felt in the manufacturing districts, as to whether there was a negotiation going on, or whether, if there were, some hitch had not occurred. A statement had appeared both in continental and English newspapers, to the effect that there was a hitch, in consequence of the Belgian Government wishing to sell us a commercial treaty and make the price of it the capitalization or redemption of the Scheldt tolls. The Belgian Government had not levied the tolls to which they were entitled on that river, and they had not done so because they did not wish to injure Antwerp. He did not complain that they should wish to get as much money as they could in lieu of those tolls, but what he complained of was this—that they should ask England to capitalize or redeem the tolls on the Scheldt when they had made a commercial treaty with France without demanding any such price for it. He did not regret the part which this country and the noble Lord at the head of the present Government had taken in securing for Belgium the independence which she now enjoyed, but he did regret that that independence had not been attended with more satisfactory results for the commercial interests of England. He was glad that the noble Lord at the head of the Government was in office at a time when this treaty was being negotiated. He did not wish the House to misunderstand him. He was a free trader; but he did not complain of free trade not being extended to us by Belgium. He, however, did think that we had a right to expect that a country which was on such friendly terms with us should deal with us on less friendly terms than those which regulated its negotiations with other nations. At one time, indeed, we succeeded in getting a commercial treaty with Belgium; but we failed in securing the clause which had become a matter of custom and almost of courtesy between friendly nations—a favoured nation clause, though such a clause had since been given by Belgium to many other countries, and among them to Russia. Even since the making of the commercial treaty between Belgium and France the former had made a treaty with Turkey, 279 in which a favoured nation clause was inserted. It was not generous of Belgium to treat an old and faithful friend in the way she had done; and although he was not one of those who thought that our political relations with other countries ought to be guided solely by our material interests, it was hardly prudent of Belgium to create the feeling in many Englishmen that it would be to their material interest if Belgium were part of France. Now, with respect to Prussia. It had been matter of notoriety ever since the making of the commercial treaty between this, country and France that the latter had been negotiating with Prussia for a new treaty with the Zollverein. If so, he trusted that opportunity would be taken to obtain a revision of the Zollverein tariff. He, could not exaggerate the importance of our trade with Germany, nor of the obstruction and impediments to it occasioned by the vexatious, and absurd arrangement of the present Zollverein tariff. Not only did it contain duties much higher than they were Originally intended to be, but specific duties, levied by weight, instead of value, so that we paid increased duties for results effected by improvements in machinery. Happily a strong feeling was beginning to prevail in Germany in favour of free trade among the manufacturers, who rightly were coming to the conclusion that they had little or no reason to fear it; and it was to be regretted that the Foreign Office did not promptly take advantage of this improving sentiment in the interest of the British manufacturers. The passing of the French Treaty with this country was a golden opportunity that ought to have been seized for that purpose. All commercial men in this country were agreed on the advantages of the French Treaty, which indeed could scarcely be overstated. It was the one bright spot in the present gloomy state of the commercial horizon, and if there were a town in Yorkshire which at the present moment enjoyed a good trade, it was owing to the French Treaty. In negotiating that treaty with the aid of the Board of Trade the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) rendered the greatest official service ever bestowed on any country by an unofficial man. There was a strong opinion in the north that if the hon. Gentleman had gone on from Paris to Brussels and Berlin we might have made a treaty with Belgium and the Zollverein also. But he did not 280 go, and the Foreign Office did nothing. The noble Lord at the head of the Government being always anxious to protect the interest of Englishmen, it could not be charged against him that he did not care for the welfare of the British manufacturers, and consequently the apathy of the Foreign Office must be ascribed rather to ignorance of the way in which it could be secured. It was his own impression that there was a want of proper administrative arrangements at the Foreign Office for the promotion of commercial interests. In the autumn of 1860, after our treaty with France, negotiations were set on foot by France for a commercial treaty between France and Belgium. Two months elapsed, during which representations were made to the English Foreign Office from several Chambers of Commerce at Bradford and elsewhere; but nothing was done, and the opportunity was lost. Of course the Foreign Office must conduct commercial as well as political negotiations, but they could only do so upon information obtained from abroad as to the desires of foreign countries, and here at home as to the wishes and interests of Englishmen. The information from abroad was obtained directly by the agents of the Foreign Office, but at home it was obtained indirectly through the Board of Trade; and it was believed that this system of one office obtaining information from another was clumsy and inefficient. Commercial men thought that their interests had been neglected at the Foreign Office, though he was glad to say that of late there had been manifest improvement; but, in fact, the real evil lay deeper: if commercial interests were neglected at the Foreign Office, it was because commercial men had not looked after their interests themselves. He would therefore strongly urge upon the Government to take advantage of the present state of commercial feeling not only in Prussia, but also in other countries, and especially in Italy, where he understood that the French were taking the initiative, and to endeavour to obtain from them, as well as from Belgium, the same advantages for our trade as France was seeking to secure for herself. In conclusion he would beg leave to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can inform the House of the present position of the negotiation with Belgium for a new commercial treaty with that country; and if, in consequence of the commercial negotiations between 281 Prussia and France, there is a probability of a revision of the duties levied in the Zollverein on British manufactures.
§ MR. BAINESSir, 1 can assure the hon. Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Bradford are strongly held by the Chambers of Commerce in the north of England. This is not only a question, however, as to Belgium and the Zollverein, but a question as to the practicability of some new machinery being introduced in the Foreign Office, having reference particularly to the interests of trade. The unfair treatment of England by Belgium is an old grievance, because as far back as 1855 a deputation from the Leeds Chamber of Commerce sent a deputation to the Belgian Government, and also made a representation to our Foreign Office of the extreme unfairness with which British goods were treated in Belgium; they showed that even then Belgium imposed differential duties of between 33 and 150 per cent in favour of the goods of France. Now the case is made much worse in consequence of the recent treaty between France and Belgium, for that has lowered the duties on French goods, whilst the duties on English goods remain the same as before. I have just looked at the state of commerce between Belgium and England for the last five years, and I find that the imports from Belgium have been greatly on the increase, while the exports of English and Irish produce to Belgium have actually been on the decline. The figures are as follows:—In 1856 we imported from Belgium to the amount of £2,936,000, and in 1860 £4,070,000, being an increase of 38 per cent. The exports in 1856 were £1,689,000 and in 1860 they had declined to £1,610,000, being a decrease of 5 per cent. It would seem, therefore, that the unfavourable tariff of Belgium has the effect of continually reducing the exports from this country. The real effect, however, is greater than that which is apparent, because a considerable part of our exports to Belgium are not for consumption in that country, but for transit to Germany; and we feel that we have a right to the best exertions of the Foreign Office to obtain justice and fair treatment for our manufactures on the part of the Government of Belgium, because, to use the words used by the then Foreign Secretary, Earl Russell, this was a question of good faith on the part of Belgium. I consider that we have now a right to put as 282 much pressure as can be used towards a friendly Government on the Belgian Government to make their tariff a fair one as between England and the most favoured nations which deal with Belgium.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he entirely joined with the hon. Member for Bradford in urging upon the Government, that if any question was pending between this and foreign nations in relation to commercial treaties, or if there was any prospect of such treaties being contracted, the provisions of those treaties should be most carefully supervised, and that they should not be hurried so rapidly, as they were told by Earl Cowley, in his despatch of last year, that the provisions of the French Treaty had been; for in that case the official representative of this country in France had stated that he was unable to follow the details before the whole negotiation was completed. Every detail of a commercial treaty ought, on the contrary, to be well weighed, not only in reference to one or two interests to be affected by it, but in reference to all the interests of the country. It was only natural that he should take a different view of the operation of the French Treaty from that taken by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He scarcely thought that this question would have arisen, or he would have laid before the House details of suffering and distress, extending over two years, which had afflicted Coventry and the district adjoining—sufferings which had enlisted the benevolent consideration of Her Majesty, of many hon. Members of that House, and of the public, whom he sincerely thanked for their benevolence. It was very painful to see a prosperous trade struck down, and thousands of industrious men living from year to year upon the charity of the public. During several months of last winter 22,000 persons were depending for subsistence upon the bounty of the public. It was hoped that the pressure would cease, but for several months past as many as 14,000 had been so dependent, and were so still. It might be thought that the suffering was confined to the operative class; but of the manufacturers fifty out of eighty had been in the Gazette, that fifty not including those who had made compositions with their creditors. The number of houses now vacant in Coventry was 2,000, and the sum withdrawn from the deposits in the savings-banks for the last two years was £17,000. It would be needless to go into further illustrations of 283 that which was notorious throughout the country; but why did he allude to those matters? It was that that House might not sanction the infliction of such another sudden blow as had been inflicted with its permission by the late commercial treaty upon the trade of Coventry and the adjacent district. It was perfectly true that the trade both in this country, in France, in Switzerland, and on the Rhine might have been depressed by a change of fashion and the consequent slackness of demand for ribbons. But what was the effect, under those circumstances, upon us? It was that, while the trade was depressed on the Rhine, in France, and in Switzerland, and when the demand of the United States of America was closed by the unhappy strife which prevailed in that once united republic, the whole of the supplies from France, from the Rhine, and from Switzerland, which could not find a market anywhere else, were pressed into the market of England, and the proof of that was the fact—he spoke from memory, but he knew that he was strictly accurate—that the quantity of ribands imported in the first eleven months of 1861—and that was the last account they had—exceeded by 60 to 70 per cent the quantity imported in the same months of the two preceding years. Taking the position of the watch and clock trade which prevailed s in Coventry, the same circumstances to a great degree existed; and he was sure that the House would feel that he was only doing his duty, when he saw the prospect of new commercial treaties being contracted between this and other countries, if he prayed the House to aid him in urging upon Her Majesty's Government that the important provisions of those treaties should be so well considered as to protect the trade of this country, whether in large or small departments, from such grievous evils as afflicted the district which he had the honour to represent
MR. TURNERsaid, that he wished, as being connected with another district the centre of an extensive trade, to state that the same feelings as those which the hon. Gentleman had just expressed existed in the cotton districts of South Lancashire. They were suffering great distress, and they were not without grievous fear that before many months that distress would be greatly heightened. They did not wish, however, that the Government should interfere in that lamentable contest which 284 was going on between the States of America; they wished those States to see the folly of their conduct, and to become amicably united once more, or, if not, to separate as friends; but he thought that everything should be done by the Government of this country to alleviate the distress which prevailed in the cotton districts. They were pressed not only by the want of cotton, but by the want of demand for their manufactures. Their immense trade to India was interfered with by a monstrous import duty imposed upon cotton goods. While trying with the one hand to get cotton from India, the Government with the other were trying to prevent the best of that cotton from reaching this country. They themselves had imposed that duty, and they had allowed, or at least not much protested against, the imposition of grievous duties in their colonies on goods manufactured in this country. At all events, they had a right to expect that, in any negotiations with European nations with whom we were said to be on terms of amity, the Executive Government should see that justice was done to this country. France had obtained great advantages in Belgium, and was supposed to have done so in the Zollverein. Why should those advantages be withheld from this country? No doubt, good diplomatists were sent out; but good diplomatists were not always good commercial men. All they claimed was that men competent to the subject should be united with diplomatic men, and that commercial as well as political interests should be extended between foreign countries and Great Britain without any undue advantage being given to other countries more active in those negotiations than ourselves.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONSir, in regard to the question put by my noble Friend (Lord A. Churchill) with respect to Dahomey and the slave trade on the coast of Africa, the House knows very well that measures for the suppression of that traffic have occupied the most anxious and active attention of Her Majesty's Government for a great number of years. My noble Friend probably knows that two missions have been sent out at different times to the late King of Dahomey for the purpose of endeavouring to persuade him to abandon that barbarous practice of human sacrifice, and to assist us in suppressing the slave trade. I am sorry to say that they were not attended with success. Per- 285 sons, however anxious they may be for the attainment of their objects, must recollect what obstacles the passions and habits of mankind sometimes oppose even to the most beneficial reforms. This practice of human sacrifices has prevailed extensively over the whole of that part of Africa, and when you go to a barbarian (like the King of Dahomey for the time being) and ask him to forego these practices, to which he has attached a value as symbols of authority and power, and as being tokens of respect for those who have gone before him, it is just as if you had asked the ancient Romans to forego the murders which were committed in the amphitheatres, or were to ask the Spaniards of the present day to give up those bullfights which would disgust an Englishman, but which afford great delight to spectators in Spain. Mr. Duncan was sent some time ago to the King of Dahomey, and spent some days at his capital, and the account he gave was utterly disgusting. The palace was surrounded by a large and extensive wall, which was decorated with human skulls on spikes. He (Mr. Duncan) was compelled to be a witness to one of those human sacrifices, where the unhappy captives were put into things like canoes and thrown over a parapet from forty to fifty feet high; and if not killed by the fall, they were despatched by people standing below. Nothing was accomplished by the mission, and I very much doubt whether any persuasion would induce the present King of Dahomey, who seems, if possible, less imbued with feelings of humanity than his father, to abandon this practice. At the same time I can assure my noble Friend and the House that no opportunity will be lost which appears to Her Majesty's Government calculated to open an opportunity with the King of Dahomey for effecting our object.
With regard to the slave trade, I fear persuasion will not induce him, any more than other African chiefs, to abandon it. They will only be induced to abandon it when convinced that it would be more to their advantage and more easy for them to carry on legitimate trade. The fact is, that the chief derives greater profit from the slave trade, while the people under him derive more profit from legitimate trade. The occupation of Lagos has proved a great instrument in impeding the slave trade in that quarter. Arrangements have been made at Porto Nuovo and Badagry which have had the same effect; and if we could 286 shut up Whydah, which is the only other port through which the King of Dahomey can carry on the trade, we should have done much to drive the slave trade from that part of the coast. But, as stated by my noble Friend, the slave trade is carried on by Spaniards, Portuguese, and Brazilians; and, though their Governments have, as Governments, abandoned the practice of the slave trade, yet habits which are once engrained in a people are very difficult to be eradicated, and there will be found renegades who will take advantage of the facility which the habits of Africa give them to carry on the abominable traffic. At the same time much progress has been made, and my noble Friend is right in saying that, if this slave trade from the West Coast of Africa could be stopped, there are sources there of legitimate trade of infinite value, not only to that country itself, but to England and a great part of Europe. Cotton plants have been seen growing naturally, within a great zone, in great abundance, and shedding the cotton on the ground; and it is evident that this is a matter of great importance to the manufacturers of this country. I can assure my noble Friend that no exertions will be omitted on the part of the Government, first of all to endeavour to eradicate the abominable system of human sacrifice, and in the next place to put a stop, as far as possible, to the slave trade.
It is quite true that, owing to the civil war in America, the Federal Government has withdrawn the greater part of their cruisers from the coast of Africa, and I cannot say, offhand, whether there still remains that number of guns which the United States are bound by treaty to maintain on that coast for the suppression of the slave trade, but it is quite true that the Federal Government have shown a sincere desire to put in force their laws against the slave trade. The condemnations which have taken place at New York are a convincing proof of their sincerity, and it may be expected that when the present unfortunate dispute in America terminates, whether in the establishment of one or of two Governments, the American authorities will concur with Great Britain in some arrangement by which more effectual assistance may be given by American cruisers to check a crime which is a capital offence by the laws of the United States. With respect, therefore, to the African coast, I hope my noble 287 Friend will believe that we are anxious to carry out those views which he has so properly expressed.
With regard to the subject referred to by the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), it will be satisfactory to him to be informed that negotiations are now going on between Her Majesty's Government and the Belgian Government, which are conducted in a most amicable and friendly spirit, and which I trust will terminate in a treaty giving to Great Britain the footing of the most friendly nation with respect to commerce with Belgium, and unaccompanied by any condition with respect to the other question of the commutation or capitalization of the dues on the Scheldt. It is quite true, as has been stated, that England bore a very prominent part in those negotiations which resulted in establishing the independence of Belgium, and therefore if the Belgian nation were to form an exception to all national character, and to be inspired in its acts by a sense of gratitude, which, I am afraid, is not to be expected from collective bodies, they ought to have been anxious to give England every advantage possible, either equal or superior to those given to any other country. But one of our objects—and in that we succeeded—was to give to Belgium a national representation and a free constitution. Now, if you give to a people a free constitution, by which the passions and prejudices of the population are actively represented, you must make up your mind to endure inconveniences which national and local passions and prejudices are sure to entail; and this has been the case not only in Belgium, but in Portugal and Spain, where also greatly by the influence of the British Government constitutional institutions were established. We in this country were a long time before we were taught to believe that freedom of trade is an advantage to all parties concerned, and we clung for a lengthened period to the notion that protection to native industry, or particular branches of native industry, was a benefit to the country at large. Luckily, we have been undeceived; but the Belgians have not yet advanced so far in political education, and the Belgian Government have had to overcome great local prejudices and the resistance of particular interests in Belgium, and they pay us the compliment—for a compliment it is—of being much more afraid of competition with English industry than with French industry. Therefore they are more 288 easily led to extend to France indulgences which they would not be disposed equally to extend to England. But I trust that all difficulty on this score is over, and that by the treaty to be concluded we shall be put in all respects on the footing of the most favoured nation. With respect to the question of the Scheldt dues, I may observe that when the treaty was negotiated by which the independence of Belgium was acknowledged by the five great Powers, Austria, Russia, and Prussia most reluctantly agreed to the conclusion, and clung step by step, and point by point, throughout the long and tedious negotiation to everything that might be advantageous to Holland rather than to Belgium, and made a point that a toll should be levied on vessels passing through Dutch waters up to Antwerp. The object of this was to assert the territorial rights of Holland, and, no doubt, to put some check on the commercial prosperity of Belgium. This toll was to be levied at Terneuse, in the Dutch territory; but afterwards, by agreement between the Belgian and Dutch Governments, it was levied at Antwerp, in order that the vessels might not be stopped in their passage up the river. Subsequently, the Belgian Government, feeling sensible that this toll would operate as a discouragement to vessels going to Antwerp, threw by a law the payment of the whole of the toll on Belgium itself, and from that time vessels coming up to Antwerp were free from toll. That was a voluntary engagement on the part of Belgium, depending on a law passed by the Belgian Chambers, and liable to be revoked; and if revoked, and if, in consequence, Belgium ceased to take the payment on itself, the toll would be levied by Holland, and the nations to whom the vessels belonged would be subject to the inconvenience, whatever it may be, of the payment of the toll. However, it will be matter of negotiation, after the treaty of commerce is concluded, to deal with the question as between Belgium and Great Britain. But I can assure my hon. Friend that the Belgian Government have acted throughout with the greatest desire to do all that fairness and justice would require. As they have, however, to deal with a popular assembly, which represents, as all popular assemblies do, the passions and prejudices of the nation represented, they have had difficulties to encounter which would not have been felt in countries of a more despotic constitution.
289 It is said that the Foreign Office is not a department sufficiently well constituted to represent and give effect to the commercial interests of the country. Having had the honour of being in that Department for a long time, I can assure my hon. Friend that he is mistaken in that opinion. It is quite true that for information bearing on the commercial interests of the country the Foreign Office has to refer to the best authority—the Board of Trade; and the only result of creating in the Foreign Office a department of trade would be that the Foreign Office would then have to rely on an authority inferior to that which it now depends on. The Board of Trade is in constant communication with all the trading interests of the country, and is the depository of a vast mass of information in reference to them, and a department of trade in the Foreign Office would not have the same information, and the same means of giving advice, unless it established the same organization; and in that case there would be two similar departments—one perpetually employed in its general duties, and the other only occasionally consulted when a commercial treaty might be discussed. But the opinion of foreign nations is not at all that which has been stated this evening. Hon. Members think that the Foreign Office neglects the commercial interests of the country, and looks only to political objects. What, however, is the reproach made against England by foreign nations? It is that our political relations are conducted mainly with a view to our commercial interests. Foreign nations regard England as a selfish Power—a Power which looks only to its own trading advantages, and that is made a reproach against us.
I now come to the Zollverein. It is true that the duties imposed by the tariff of the Zollverein are very heavy, but what has been the feeling of Germany for some time past? It has been that England was advocating the principles of free trade for the purpose of ruining Germany, that our object was to inundate Germany with British commodities, and so to extinguish and destroy German industry in all its branches. Foreign nations have a notion that we give our commodities without taking anything in exchange; that we overwhelm them with presents, forgetting that they take nothing from us which they do not pay for by articles of their own production. They cannot see that trade is a system of barter, and that by admitting an unlimited supply 290 of British commodities they impose upon themselves the necessity of producing an equal value of commodities of some kind or other to pay for what they receive from us. Their apprehensions are perfectly chimerical, and are founded upon a narrow and short-sighted view of their real interests. Nevertheless, that fear has existed, though I trust it is now about to be dispelled. It is disappearing gradually, and the treaty we concluded with France will have a material effect in disabusing Europe upon that point. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) has paid a deserved compliment to the hon. Member for Rochdale—Mr. Cobden—I may name him as a Commissioner on that occasion and not as a Member of this House—for his invaluable services in the negotiation of the French treaty. I am glad to take this opportunity of saying, in justification of Her Majesty's Government, that it is not our fault, but arose from what I think is an overstrained and too refined delicacy of mind, that Mr. Cobden has not received for his services on that occasion some signal mark of the favour of the Crown. An honour was offered to him. He declined it, from motives which do him great credit; but, nevertheless, his refusal caused much regret to myself as the organ of communicating the pleasure of the Crown to him. I can assure my hon. Friends that the Government is not likely to fall into the error of neglecting the commercial interests of the country, and that the arrangement which now exists—by which, on the one hand, we have the Board of Trade full of all the requisite information for commercial negotiations, and, on the other, we have the Foreign Office in friendly and daily communication with that department—is, in my opinion, the best and indeed the only arrangement which, by division of labour, could produce any good results.
The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) lamented the fate of the Coventry riband weavers, and ascribed the distress which they have suffered to the French treaty. I believe my hon. Friend is entirely mistaken as to the cause of that distress, which arises chiefly, not from the French treaty, not from any inundation of French ribands, but from a change of fancy and fashion in this country. Our manufacturers are in one respect in the condition so well described in the well-known prologue—
Hard is their lot who here by fortune placedMust watch the wild vicissitudes of taste.291 It is the vicissitudes of taste which from time to time lead either to an increase or a cessation of demand for particular manufactures. The ladies, who exercise so great a sway in all human affairs, by changing their style of dress, inflict distress upon one set of manufacturers, or give abundant occupation to another. The Coventry riband makers are suffering from the absence of ribands upon the dresses of their fair countrywomen; but, on the other hand, the steel manufacturers of Sheffield are driving a flourishing trade in those implements of destruction which have become so fashionable of late. They have left off, by cessation of American demand, making some articles dangerous to human life, but they have taken to the manufacture of engines which, unfortunately, though not in an equal degree, are fatal in another way. It is not, then, the French Treaty which has caused the distress in Coventry. That distress arises from the conditions of human society, by which those persons who occupy themselves in the manufacture of luxuries are liable to have great employment in one year and less employment in another. I hope, Sir, I have been able to give satisfactory answers to the questions put to me, and, in conclusion, I can assure my hon. Friends that the commercial interests of the country will never be neglected by Her Majesty's Government.