any where elfe that we were negociating? The right honourable gentleman was not, it appeared, fo ready to court foreign alliances, as alliances at home; he was for relying on internal and domeftic, rather than feeking for external fupport and affiftance. External means fhould always be looked after, becaufe, if we had not a friend, we might have an enemy, in any other power, and though a fmall power could not do a great deal against us fingly, there were circumftances, under which, the having a friend, was of material confequence, be the power of that friend narrow and circumfcribed, or great and extenfive. The rifing of Mr. Francis and Mr. Flood together, occafioned a clamour in the Committee, fome calling to the one, and fome to the other. At laft, it was carried in favour of Mr.. Francis by the authority and decifion of Mr. Peaufoy, the Chairman. Mr. Francis now addreffing himself to Mr. Beaufoy, said, Sir, I am very forry that there fhould have been auy fubject of difpute, or competition between Mr. Flood ard myfelf; yet I do not entertain the least doubt, but that if the present queftion should not be adjourned, the Committee will fit long enough to hear that gentleman's fentiments at large. I fhall not begin, like the right honourable gentleman, (Mr. Grenville) with making an apology for endeavouring to obtain an audience at fo late an hour; because I cannot admit that any endeavour to perform what I think a serious and important duty, does, in any circumftances, or at any hour, require an apology; but for my manner of performing fuch duty, I do moft earneftly and unaffectedly folicit the indulgence of the Committee. I came to the confideration of the prefent great and important queftion with a mind already occupied and agitated by another bufinefs, in which I was actually engaged, and to which I had been forced to dedicate a confiderable period of my life. Independently of that avocation, I am fenfible of my own inability to deliver my thoughts with the force and perfpicuity which many others, long trained and exercifed in this Houfe, derive not only from their fuperior ability, but from the facility, which cuftom gives them, of turning their ability to use and practice. Without attempting therefore to make a formal, methodical fpeech, I fhall lay my thoughts before the Committee in their crude ftate, as the materials of reflection to others to be worked up by their fuperior skill; to be corrected, improved and applied by their fuperior judgement. Some general method, however, I fhall obferve, I fhall confider the fubject at large, under thofe four general heads, into which Mr. Pitt has divided it: namely, the commercial, the re venue, the naval and the political view of it. One of which the naval, though he has mentioned it in his explanation Although it be a commercial treaty, the commercial view of it, while it fuggefts infurmountable difficulties and objec tions, is, in my opinion, the least important part of it. What I fee upon the face of the treaty is dangerous and de ftructive to its own profeft object; but the real plan and purpose, which, as I think, lurks behind the commercial fyftem, which, though not directly brought into view, is to be introduced and promoted by it, becomes the thing which ftrikes me with fufpicion, with jealoufy, and with terror. Upon this I fhall explain myfelf more at large in its proper place, difiiffing firft that part of the fubject, which is of leaft comparative importance. The general argument in favour of an open trade with France, which, I find, the most relied on, is founded on a general prefumption, taken for granted, that our manufacturers poffefs a skill in the execu tion and finifhing whatever they undertake, which the French never have reached or can attain to, and which gives us not only an unquestionable, but an unalienable fuperiority over them; as if there were fomething in the nature of the French, fome difficulty inherent in their climate or conftitution, which makes them incapable of arriving at the perfection of our manufactures in general. In fome articles I allowed it to be true, that they are greatly our inferiors at present; but no reafon occurs to me, nor have I heard any fatisfactory reafon affigned, why fuch inferiority muft of neceffity continue, if even the prefent treaty did not, as it does, tend to furnish them with means and opportunities of improvement, which they did not poffefs before. The examples chiefly infifted on by two right honourable gentlemen (Mr. Pitt and Mr. Grenville) were the English woollen and cotton manufactures, in which, as they affirmed; we actually were and muft continue unrivalled. One of these gentlemen (Mr. Grenville) had ventured to affert, in exprefs terms, that the great market of France, being thrown open to us by this treaty, would take off more of our woollens than we now fend to Portugal. Thefe inftances appear to me most unfortunately chofen; for France is in poffeffion of the Spanish wool, and can import it on terms infinitely easier than we can. She might even by her influence, exclude us from any fhare in it, whenever fhe thought fit. In fact, the French have improved their manufacture of cloth to fuch perfection, that they have beaten our Turkey Company out of the market, which we formerly had in the Levant for that article, and have engroffed it to themfelves. The propofition therefore, which affirmed that we fhould find a market in France itself, greater than that of Portugal and all her her colonies, for an article which France was able to export to a foreign market, and in which the conquered us in that market, feems to one not only unfupported by proof, but abfolutely abfurd. In no article whatever does expiration begin, until the Houfe confumption is provided for. With refpect to our fuppofed unalienable fuperiority in various manufactures of cotton, I must request the Committee to confider on what rational principle that idea proceeded, or what clear convincing argument there was for prefuming that the French weavers, whofe wonderful fkill and fuccefs in the manufacture of filks and velvets are undifputed, fhould be deemed incapable of the fame perfection in cottons. Let me recall to the remembrance of the Committee, how ftrongly a fimilar idea has been refifted and combated by fome gentlemen deputed from Manchester, at the bar of this Houfe, and particularly that they have produced at the bar a piece of French cotton of extraordinary beauty, equal, as they faid, if not fuperior to any thing of the fame fort that had been produced in England. In confidering the commercial effect of this treaty upon our connection with Portugal, I have an unquestionable right to argue upon a prefumption admitted; namely, that the Methuen treaty might poffibly be diffolved, and our commercial intercoufe with Portugal annihilated by it, fince a right honourable gentleman (Mr. Pitt) has indirectly allowed, or certainly not expreffly denied, that fuch might be the poffible event. On the fuppofition of fuch event, had the Minifter of this country carefully and deliberately confidered? If the Methuen treaty (no matter by whole fault) fhould in fact be diffolved, might it not happen that Portugal might inftantly prohibit the importation of all Englifh manufactures whatever in their country? And if she did fo, was the right honourable gentleman ready and prepared with another market, not only to take off the goods actually provided for that of Portugal to the amount of a million fterling per annum, but to continue to receive a fupply from us to the fame amount in future?-In my opinion, Portugal might take that refolution fafely, as a commercial measure, at leaft without fear of retaliation. If, as the right honourable gentleman truly obferved, our luxury had converted wine into a neceffary, that obfervation was particularly true of Portugal wines, which this country neither would nor could relinquifh. The wines of Portugal therefore, would continue to be imported, and if we did not pay for them with manufactures, we fhould pay for them with money. As to cotton, it was a raw material neceffary to the support of our own induftry, and therefore I prefume, that let the provocation on the part of Portugal be ever fo great, no man would would think it prudent to retaliate by prohibiting the importation of that commodity. 1 With refpect to fmuggling while the treaty profeffes to aim at the putting an end to all manner of illicit trade between France and England, it in reality affects the reverse of what it profeffes. Many provifions in it feem expressly calculated to give permiffion, facility and fanction to an univerfal fyftem of fimuggling. It annihilates the hovering act, hitherto understood to be the principal defence of the revenue and fecurity to fair trade. French veffels of any fize or conftruction, and which, as the law yet ftands, were to be deemed and taken ipfo fatto for fmugglers if feized within a certain distance of the coaft, may now approach and fail along our coaft at any diftance they think proper, whether forced by ftorm into the havens or ports, or making land there in any manner whatever. They are not only not liable to be feized, but shall not be obliged to unlade their goods, or any part thereof, or to pay any duty. Again, as the law ftands at prefent, on a difcovery of any contraband goods, the fhip and cargo are forfeited; whereas, by this treaty, nothing but the specific article prohibited is to be liable to confifcation. The fhip itfelf, and the other goods therein, are to be accounted free. Our laws, as they ftand, suppose a crime, and denounce a punishment; whereas the mere forfeiture of the thing prohibited, (fetting afide the difficulty of making any difcovery at all) is no punishment, and therefore cannot deter. It only reduces the fmuggler to a fmall poffible risk against a great probable profit. On the whole of the commercial queftion, I fhall beg leave to conclude with one general obfervation, fupported by a strong fact, which I hope the Committee will carry along with them. As to the inere exportation and fale of our manufactures, confidered by itself, and abstractedly from the protection certainly due to the fair trader, and the neceffary care of the revenue, it is nearly the fame thing to any country whether the exportation be performed by lawful or unlawful means. Suppofing that the prefent treaty fhould really give a great increafe to the open exportation of our manufactures, and fhould really demolith fimuggling, the amount of the goods, now fmuggled, ought to be fet against that whole exportation, and our real gain would confift in the difference between them, and ought not to be rated at a higher value than what that difference amounted to. It was alfo unqueftionably fair in eftimating the value of the expected increafe of our open exportation to France, to fet against it all diminution of exportation to other countries, of which this treaty had been or might probably be the occafion; and I much feared that, when all thefe deductions hall have been been made, the final balance or real increase of exportation would prove very inconfiderable indeed, and no way capable of juftifying fo bold, so hazardous, or, at least, fo complete a change of fyftem as the prefent. The direct contraband trade to France is an object of fome magnitude; the indirect contraband trade to France, through the channel of Flanders, is an object of still greater importance; the former was to be fuppreffed by the treaty; the latter was already fuppreffed by a variety of edicts of the Emperor paffed within these three months (copies of which I have in my hands) which laid duties, amounting to a prohibition, upon almost every material article of English commerce, which, until within the laft three months, had been freely admitted into Flanders on very light duties. We have therefore loft Flanders, not only as a great market in itself, but as a moft favourable channel of communication and fupply to the internal provinces of France, as well as to fome parts of Germany. It was well known that the Emperor had taken thefe fteps, fo hostile and so injurious to Great Britain, in confequence of the avowed predilection of our Court to the interefts of France, in preference to his, even in commercial matters, and as a juft expreffion of his fenfe and appre-henfion of that fecret union which he faw was forming between the Courts of St. James's and Verfailles, beginning with exclufion and apparently tending to hoftility against him. The fubject of contraband trade naturally leads me to say a word on the fyftem of drawbacks, as it ftands at prefent in this country. The spirit of smuggling is greatly encouraged and inflamed by the drawbacks allowed, particularly on articles of re-exportation, and the whole fyftem ought to be carefully revifed and corrected. It is a fact v-hich frequently happens, that a pretended merchant, who is a real finuggler, will buy a bale of goods at the India house, for example, value 100l. will inftantly agree to fell it to a retail dealer or thopkeeper at 951. and actually deliver it at that price, with a profit of 5, 6, or 71. How? He enters the goods for re-exportation, receives the drawback, amounting to perhaps 8, 10, or 12 per cent. relands the goods either in the river or in fome convenient place upon the coaft, conveys them to the fhop in London, and pockets the difference. If this fraud were frequently practifed now, as I know it to be, how much more eafily, and how much more generally, would it be practifed, when the present treaty fhall have laid open the approaches of our coaft, and taken away all the existing restraints upon the French smugglers and other coafting craft established by the hovering act? With refpect to the improvement of the revenue by the VOL. XXI. fuppreffion Ce |