THE SCHELDT TOLL. (Hansard, 10 March 1864)

MR. PEEL
moved a Supplemental Estimate of £175,650 for the redemption of the Scheldt dues. He had to state in explanation of this Vote that a treaty had been entered into between the various Powers of Europe, and Holland and Belgium in particular, the object of which was to redeem the tolls leviable by the former country on vessels navigating the river Scheldt and proceeding to and from Belgian ports. With that view, it was provided that Belgium should pay to Holland the capital sum of £1,450,000; and that Belgium should receive a certain amount of money from other countries, which were called upon to contribute according to their relative interest in the navigation of the Scheldt, as represented by their respective amounts of shipping in that river. As regarded the obligation to pay the money in the case of this country, he need, of course, hardly say that the matter was entirely subject to the approbation of Parliament. By the Treaty of 1839, which provided for the final separation of Belgium from Holland, it was agreed that Holland, as being the 1790 Power which occupied both sides of the lower part of the river, in consideration of her former rights over that river, and of her having consented, also, that the navigation of the river should be free, subject only to the payment of a toll, should be empowered to levy two florins per ton on every vessel going up or down the Scheldt to or from any of the Belgian ports. The Government of Belgium, finding that the effect of the toll would be to act as a differential duty, to the prejudice of the interests of its own commerce, especially at Antwerp, and in favour of the rival port of Rotterdam, undertook—not being obliged to do so by the treaty—to relieve their own vessels and foreign vessels from paying the toll, reimbursing the Government of Holland in the same manner as if Holland had herself collected the dues. The arrangement thus entered into by Belgium had since continued in force; but some time ago Belgium began to complain of the increasing sums annually required to satisfy the demands of Holland under the treaty, and represented the probable necessity she would be under to discontinue making the payments in question on behalf of foreign vessels, and to call upon those vessels to pay the toll on their own account. Now, in the Treaty of Commerce, which was signed a year or two ago between this country and Belgium, it was expressly provided that the latter should pay the tolls on English vessels so long as she continued to pay them on her own; but in the course of the negotiations which preceded the conclusion of that treaty, the Government of Belgium called the attention of the various Powers of Europe to the existence of those tolls, and the increasing sums annually demanded because of them by Holland. The amount of the tolls paid by Belgium in 1851 on British and foreign vessels was, it appeared, only 823,000f.; but it had gone on increasing year by year, until in 1856 it reached l,499,000f., in 1860, l,886,000f., and in 1861—the last year for which there were any Returns— 2,176,000f., or about £87,000. Finding that the annually growing charge thus created very much embarrassed their finances, the Government of Belgium had called the attention of the other Powers of Europe to the subject, pointing out the resemblance which existed between the redemption of the Stade dues in 1861, of the Sound dues in 1856, and that which in the case of the Scheldt toll they proposed, 1791 Their scheme of redeeming the toll was not, however, at once acquiesced in by those Powers to whom the proposal was addressed. There could, at the same time, be no doubt that Belgium might at any moment call upon foreign vessels to pay the charge for themselves; and eventually it was deemed expedient that the toll should be redeemed. That decision having been arrived at, it was, he thought, desirable that it should be redeemed as soon as possible, inasmuch as the amount payable to Holland was rapidly increasing. The sum, for instance, paid upon English vessels in 1851 was only 200,000f.; while in 1857 it had risen to 536,000f., and in 1861 to 668,000f. The total amount guaranteed to be paid by the Government of Belgium to that of Holland, under the Treaty of 1839, on account of those dues, was, he might further observe, 17,141,640 florins—a sum which appeared to be arrived at by giving thirty years' purchase for the average amount of the toll for the last ten years. The proportion with which Belgium charged herself was £550,000. Great Britain was to contribute towards the redemption of this toll the sum of £350,000. This amount had been arrived at by the value of twenty years' purchase of the average amount hitherto paid by Belgium on behalf of British vessels during the last ten years. It might appear to some hon. Members that the consideration for the payment of this sum was rather of a contingent character. Up to the present moment the Belgian Government had paid these tolls for British vessels, but they had the power, and might use it, of requiring the different countries to pay the toll for themselves. The Belgian Government had in some measure compensated itself by levying heavy tonnage and pilotage dues on British vessels; but they now consented to repeal the tonnage dues altogether, and to make a great reduction in the pilotage and harbour dues in consideration of the payment in question. The relief afforded by these reductions and remissions would. amount, it was calculated, to several thousands a year. With this explanation he would leave the Vote in the hands of the Committee.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, that the Treasury never produced the Civil Service Estimates as soon as they ought 1792 to do. [Mr. PEEL: This is a Supplemental Estimate of last year, 1863.4.] He did not see how such a Vote could be put into the accounts of last year, and the right hon. Gentleman's explanation only showed that the House ought to have had this Estimate before it on the first day of the Session, if not indeed at the end of last Session. The proposition now before the House was of the most extraordinary character. It went further than the redemption of the Stade and Sound dues, because those were payments to redeem charges for which this country was actually liable; while this was a proposal to redeem a toll for which we were not liable, and which we were not now actually paying. The opportunity ought to have been taken by this treaty to make some arrangement in regard to our reciprocity dues with Belgium. He wished also to know why it had not been made a condition that Belgium should take off the duty on rags. Belgium not only levied an export duty on rags, but also levied a duty on the import of paper from this country. When the Foreign Office were dealing with a Power like Belgium, they ought to have taken steps to put our manufacturers on a fair footing with those of Belgium and other countries. The Committee had been told that one of the advantages to be gained by this payment was a great diminution of pilotage dues, and a reduction of the local taxes imposed by the city of Antwerp. A tariff of the reduction of the pilotage dues was given, but there ought to have been likewise a tariff of the local taxes of Antwerp and the amount reduced. With regard to the present sum he thought the country was called upon to pay more than its fair proportion. The share of Great Britain appeared to be about one-half of the sum paid by foreign nations, and would amount to about two-sixths of the whole sum to be paid; while he could not perceive that the United States were called upon to pay anything at all. He trusted that some further explanation would be given of this Vote.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the question immediately before the Committee was not very intimately connected with the commercial law of Belgium, to which his hon. Friend had referred. The commercial policy of Belgium was far from having attained that progress which they would desire to see; but then it was not to be judged either by the abstract truths of political economy or even by the best 1793 existing standards. What ought to he taken into consideration was what advance the Belgians had made. Belgium was one of the most prosperous and enlightened nations of Europe, and if in one respect it was somewhat backward, still it had made a very great step in advance, with which they were bound to be satisfied. But with regard to the original question, the proposal was one which did not stand so much upon any one broad abstract principle as upon a consideration of the combined effect of all the circumstances which bore upon the case. In the first place, the precedents which were set in the case of the Sound and Stade dues was a vital element in the question. It appeared, after the example of the Sound dues, it was impossible not to take the same course with the Stade dues; and though it was open to argument whether we were not much more liberal than we ought to have been in the case of the Sound dues, that was all past and gone. It would be hardly worthy of a country like this, for the sake of the sum involved in the settlement of this the last case that could arise, to create insurmountable difficulties where the precedents drawn from its own conduct ought to have led it to go forward. The Stade dues were paid by ships going to Hamburgh, but which also went to the supply of the whole of Germany; and the same was to a great extent with the Sound dues. In the case of Antwerp a considerable part went to the supply of Belgium, but not exclusively for Belgium, for there was a large transit trade which brought it within the analogy of the Sound and Stade dues. It had been said that the Sound and the Stade dues were actually paid by our ships, whereas the Scheldt dues were not. But that objection was more important in theory than in practice; because though up to the moment of extinction Belgium was not induced to cast that burden upon our shipping, she had it in her power to do so, and she could and would have done it. Therefore, it was much better to have made an arrangement which would remove for ever a subject of disturbance than to have allowed the toll to be imposed and afterwards to seek for its remission. But there was another important matter which ought to induce the House to give a favourable consideration to the proposal. It must be remembered that these dues grew out of political arrangements necessary for the peace of Europe. Nothing was more vital to the peace of Europe at the period he al- 1794 luded to than that the relations between Holland and Belgium should be placed upon an amicable footing, and nothing was more creditable to the Government of Lord Grey than the wise and effectual manner in which they brought the influence of this country to bear by peaceful means upon the allaying of disputes which at one time threatened, and very nearly became, the cause of a general and aggravated European war. The title of Holland, in point of law, anterior to the separation was unquestionable. It was true the toll upon the Scheldt had long been in abeyance, because when France obtained possession of the Flemish provinces and separated them from Holland, she did not allow the toll to be levied. And, again, when by the Peace of 1815 Holland and Belgium were united, the toll was not exacted. But immediately that the two countries separated the title of Holland revived, and she was not to be expected to give up her right. On the other hand, the living generation of Belgians were not disposed to submit, and a great variety of complicated negotiation was the consequence. His noble Friend at the head of the Government, in connection with the other Powers, had taken a great deal of trouble to arrange the matter, and they were content with an imperfect arrangement rather than run the risk of still further disagreement. We incurred a great responsibility in placing this toll upon Belgium, and, looking at the matter practically, it was very difficult to take an active part in arrangements connected with the foundation of new States, or great alterations in their condition without incurring heavy pecuniary liabilities. England did not get out of her intervention in the affairs of Greece without having incurred this liability; and France, which was now engaged in the foundation of a new order of things in Mexico, was not likely to get out of the business without incurring a large pecuniary loss. In the case of Belgium we took part in a most beneficial arrangement, to the great advantage of commerce, and now we were called upon to pay a sum which, perhaps, in point of abstract right, we were not under an obligation to pay; secondly, the arrangement would lead to the remission of taxation, which the Belgians were entitled to levy on our trade; and lastly, we were influenced by political considerations. As to the United States, it was a rule with them not to enter into joint mixed treaties with European powers; but they had a 1795 separate treaty of their own, in which they took precisely the same share as if they had entered into the treaty with the other Powers. Holland was not one of the Powers named; hut then Holland thought fit to exempt her own ships, and the effect of that was to give a bounty to Dutch ships engaged in the trade of the Scheldt. That was another reason for justifying the course which Her Majesty's Government had pursued. With regard to the amount, he admitted that it was a large sum, but that proposed was a great deal larger, amounting to nearer £500,000 than £400,000. By great exertions the sum had been reduced to £350,000; and he believed that, upon the whole, the House of Commons, taking that equitable view which it was accustomed to do on those questions, which were of a mixed character, would consider the arrangement a wise and a sound one. With regard to local taxes, his hon. Friend (Mr. A. Smith) would, on reflection, see that these were not matters that could not enter into an international treaty. They were levied for purely municipal purposes, and on that account could not be included in an arrangement such as that which he had explained.