Would he have fuffered any Minifter to have told him, without indignation, that the debate must be confined and limited to the approbation or difapprobation of the treaties before the Houfe? that it was not proper or regular to inquire whether the confent of the Houfe to those treaties. would not give umbrage and offence to the other great allies of the nation, the Emperor and the King of Pruffia, and bring on a general war, inftead of preventing it. The fignature and ratification of fuch treaties by the fovereign, gave them no effect. They were to be confidered merely as propofitions, recommended by the, Crown to Parliament. It was the act and deed of that House, in the alteration of the duties, or the grant of the money for the fubfidy, which gave fuch treaties effect, and the Houfe was therefore refponfible to their conftituents for the confequences which might fall on their country by their confent to the propofitions. They in a great degree exonerated the Minifter. He took this to be a folid diftinction, and applied it to the cafe before them. It appeared to him to be the duty of the House, to endeavour to make the beft ufe of the fhort interval allowed them, in obtaining every material information, touching any matter neceffarily to be connected with the French treaty, and every poffible light to direct their steps, when they were hurried with fuch rapidity, not only to deliberate, but to give their judgement on the great and arduous question on the French treaty. Without entering into the principle, or the detail of the French treaty, which he owned would be premature and irregular at that time, it must be confeffed, by all the members of the Houfe, and of the whole community, who were deeply interested in it, by those who oppofed it, by thofe who objected to it, and by thofe who doubted of its effects and confequences, that it was an experiment of the greatest magnitude and extent, and that it was an innovation which made a wide and comprehenfive alteration in a fyftem, which had very long prevailed in this country, and which had taken fo deep a root, that the fudden difturbance and change of it might shake and impair the foundation of the main pillars which fupported the strength and power of the kingdom. The right honourable gentleman had faid, in former debates, that the French treaty might be confidered and decided upon independently and feparately from the prefent ftate of the negociation with Portugal. He owned, that it appeared to him, that the fate of the Methuen treaty could never be totally feparated from the votes in the Committee on the French treaty, and that if not directly, it must be virtually affected by thofe votes. If the right honourable gentleman would condescend even to inform them, if he would give them papers, to fhew that the power referved

in the close of the feventh article would be executed, in order to prevent the extinction of the Methuen treaty, and that the grievances and complaints which our merchants had against the Court of Portugal for what they conftrued to be infractions of that treaty, would be referred to commiffaries to be fettled in the fame manner as the grievances of the merchants ftated during the course of the treaty of Seville in 1729, he, for one, fhould be fatisfied. The treaties with Spain were confirmed as being very advantageous to the political and commercial interests of Great Britain, and the complaints and grievances were referred to the commiffaries to be fettled, and reparation made to the merchants. It was not the intention of this motion to put the Minister under any difadvantage in the reprefentation, and if they were fonnded in juftice, in the demand of redress of those grievances. But let the great condition of the treaty be preferved inviolale, and then let no time be loft in the examination of the complaints. The attention of the whole world was directed towards the Methuen treaty. It was upon motion laid before the House in 1713, under the title of "A "Treaty with Portugal for taking off the prohibition of the "Woollen manufactures of this Kingdom." It was the shortest, it was the best treaty we ever made. The treaty had reference to the treaty made by Cromwell in 1654, by which the nation obtained great and extenfive advantages of trade in the supply of Portugal, as well as the Brafils with its manufactures. In the year 1678 there was paffed an act for prohibiting for three years, and to the end of the next feffion of Parliament, the importation of all French commodities what foever. This prohibition continued to the year 1685, as no Parliament had been holden from the diffolution in 1681, and at the end of the feffion, (at the acceffion of James II.) it expired and was not to be revived. In 1684 it appeared that woollen cloths were actually prohibited in Portugal, and Sir Grey admitted it was the year before the prohibition of the French trade expired; after this prohibition in Portugal for nineteen years, and during that interval down to the Methuen treaty, Portugal fupplied her home market and her colonies with cloth of her own manufacture. This evidence was laid before the Houfe of Commons in 17132 when the merchants and manufacturers were heard in the Committee on the bill in fupport of their petitions against the eighth and ninth articles of the treaty of Utrecht. The prohibition in 1684 was faid to be a project of their great and patriot minifter Conde d'Eveceira, to eftablish manufactures in his own country, and it was also faid, that he was affifted in carrying his plan into execution, by the opening of the French trade in 1685. The fact, however, was, that the prohibition

prohibition of the woollen of England continued for nineteen years, and he begged the Houfe to recollect, that what had happened might happen again.

The Houfe had, within these few days, been favoured with the accounts of the quantity and value of that great volume of commerce, which they might venture to pronounce to be the most beneficial and important of any which they now poffeffed. They were permitted to see the mag-nitude of the stake which they rifked, and the fum of the advantages which were in peril and jeopardy, in the present ftate of things. The balance was now stated to be 500,000l. and more in our favour; it certainly had been more favourable; it seemed rifing and advancing. Since the treaty, this nation had received between forty and fifty millions on the balance of trade with that nation. It was of the moft effential importance to the landed intereft, and the general induftry of the nation, that this treaty fhould be preserved by the performance of the condition on our part. No advantages to be received from France could compenfate the lofs of fuch a trade. On Monday next, if the Committee came to refolutions to reduce the duties on French wines to 451. per ton, and did not at the fame time reduce the duty on Portugal wines one third part lower, it would be a dangerous tendency to the extinction of this great treaty. Were an act of Parliament to be carried into force, without authorising the ufual reduction, he dreaded, left the prohibition of woollens in Portugal fhould follow as a natural, if not an inevitable confequence.

Mr. Beaufoy, in reply to Mr. Fox, spoke to the following Mr. Beau

purport:

If I did not mifunderstand the right honourable gentleman who opened this debate, his motion proceeded upon an idea that it is impoffible for the Legislature to determine how far the commercial treaty with Paris is or is not confiftent with the effential interefts of the kingdom, till they have the means of afcertaining what will be the probable effects of that treaty upon the conduct of the Court of Portugal. He thinks it impoffible even to conjecture how far the treaty will prove beneficial or otherwife, unlefs we are informed, in the first place, what price is to be paid by England to France, as the condition of the advantages fhe expects to receive; and that information, he imagines, cannot be obtained until we know whether the facrifice of the commercial intercourfe that fubfifts between this country and Portugal is or is not to be the confequence of the bargain.

Now, if I fhall be able to prove, as I confidently truft I fhall, that the merits of the treaty with France are entirely independent of our commercial connection with Portugal; if

I

I fhall

foy.

I fhall be able to prove, that whether Portugal fhall renew or renounce the ftipulations of the Methuen treaty, an establifhed commerce with France will in either cafe be advantageous to Britain, then it will follow, upon his own ground, that his motion is founded upon no neceflity, that it has no political advantage in view, and that being made pending a negotiation with Portugal, it ought, by the established cuftoms of the House, to be inftantly rejected. Before I proceed to ftate any reafons for thinking that the propriety. of the commercial treaty with France is independent of the measures that Portugal may think proper to purfue, it will be neceffary to advert to the nature of the French treaty. That treaty the right honourable gentleman has confidered as being equally new to the commercial principles, and to the experience of the kingdom, and imagines that the first queftion that will arife is, fhall the established maxims by which this country has rifen to commercial greatnefs be made the fa crifice of a rafh and inconfiderate experiment? Now the fact undoubtedly is, that a commerce with France, which he confiders as fo completely new, has exifted for many years, and does exift at this very hour; I fay not by compact or in law, but in practice and in fact. The first question therefore that arifes is not, fhall we establish a new and untried commerce with France, but fhall the commerce which already exists between the two kingdoms give employment to the veffels of the fmuggler, or to thofe of the fair and refpectable merchant Shall the trade be carried on inconveniently and circuitously, by the way of Auftrian Flanders and of Dunkirk, or fhall it be carried on, with every commercial advantage, direaly to the ports of France? Shall the manufactures of this country be objects of confifcation or of protection to the French laws? Shall the burdens to which the trade is at this time fubje&ted continue to exift as the price of infurance and as premiums to the fmuggler, or fhall they be paid as duties to government, and form an important part of the revenues of the ftate? Shall the productions of British industry find a market in Paris alone, from which, in confequence of the extent of the city, and of its not being a walled town, they cannot be excluded; or fhall they find an authorised admiffion into every port of the French kingdom? Shall the market for British manufactures be the capital alone, or fhall it be the whole country of France? Such being the questions that arise upon the late commercial treaty, let us next confider in what refpects these questions can be affected by the conduct of the Court of Portugal. Portugal, it is evident, will either renew the ftipulations of the Methuen treaty, or will decline the commerce with England which that treaty eftablishes fhould fhe renew the conditions of the treaty,

then

then it will follow, that as Britain has referved the right, and unquestionably poffeffes the means, of fulfilling the conditions of the compact, no poffible injury can have arifen from the agreement lately established with France. That Britain does poffefs the means of difcharging fuch engagements as the renewal of the Methuen treaty would impofe, will be evident to every man who confiders that France is not the natural rival of Portugal in her trading connection with this country. Perfectly well I know, that, by regulations and restraints, Britain might give to the wines of France a decided advantage in her markets; but equally fure I am, that, if things are left to their natural course, the wines of France and the wines of Portugal will equally find a fufficient market in the confumption of this country. Thus it appears, that if Portugal fhall be willing to renew her ancient engagements with England, no poffible injury can arife to her intereft from our legalizing the trade with France: but were it even admitted that the trade with France effentially interferes with the commerce of Portugal; yet, even in that case, it is evident that the injury fhe fuftains is not the confe quence of the legality, but of the existence of the trade; for, if the trade between France and England actually exifts, its receiving the fanction of the law, and being established by compact, can add but little to the grievance. Hence it neceffarily follows, that if Portugal fhall refufe to renew her commercial engagements with Britain, the late treaty with France, however it may be made the pretext, can never be. confidered as the reason of her conduct: for as Portugal can have received no injury, can have fuftained no wrong, it ne ceffarily follows that he can have no just reafon to complain, Shall then the mere pretext of a foreign Court be confidered by the Legiflature of Britain as a reafon for their departure from that line of conduct which their intereft obviously prescribes? Shall Britain abandon her views, in confequence not of the rights, not of the equitable claims, not of the fair and reasonable requests of an ally, but in confequence of extravagant proposals, in confequence of unreafonable demands, in confequence of perverfe and unfriendly requifitions? To fuch attempts to impofe upon her reason, what ought to be her reply? Undoubtedly fhe will answer, that the beft maxim for the conduct of a nation, the maxim which beft fuits her own dignity, and the friendfhip the owes to her allies, is that of juftice to herself, and of justice to the reft of the world. But, like the right honourable gentleman, I have too much confidence in the common fenfe of mankind, too firm a reliance on their regard for their obvious interefts, to fuppofe that Portugal can adopt fuch inverted maxims of policy as thofe upon which the must evi VOL. XXI,

dently