Mr. Dundas Sir Cilbert Elliot. Mr. Burke. Mr. Fox. Mr. Dundas prefaced a motion to adjourn the confideration of the complaint till the 30th of March, with a fhort fpeech, fhewing it to be unneceffary and vexatious to proceed upon the business before the merits of the petition were decided upon. The motion, ordering the appearance of the returning officer at the bar was withdrawn, and Mr. Dundas's motion agreed to. Sir Gilbert Elliot gave notice, that on the firft vacant day he fhould move for the attendance of Sir Elijah Impey. Me Burke gave notice, that when the next charge againft Warren Haftings, Efq. was brought forward, he should move for the attendance of Sir Elijah Impey and Mr. Middleton. Mr. Fox obferved, that it gave him pleasure to affure the House, that he should trefpafs but a fhort time upon their patience, as the documents for which he meant to move for, went merely to the fituation of our present, and the probable ftate of our future trade with Portugal, which though an object effentially neceffary to be known in that House, previcus to their coming to any decifion upon the commercial treaty with France, yet, as far as it opened a field for argument, could only be confidered in one of thefe two points. of view, viz. Whether before we had entered into a commercial treaty with a new customer, we had taken care to fecure our connection with an old and valuable customer; or in cafe of not having done fo, whether having made a treaty with France we were likely to keep our connection with Portugal, our old cuftomer, if the treaty was to be commercially confidered; or our old ally, if the treaty' was to be confidered politically; or folely trufted to putting ourselves exclufively into the hands of France, both as a customer, and-not an ally, for that the certainly could not be called, but as a new political friend. These were the heads under which every argument upon the subject muft range; and the better to make himself understood by the Houfe, he would point out the three periods of time, at which the treaty with Portugal could alone have been made, but at each of which periods undoubtedly, there was a material difference in point of eafe and advantage. The firft of thefe periods was, that of all others, moft defirable, because it must have been free from every imputation, either on the fcore of impolicy or fufpicion of any kind what foever; the laft of the three periods was certainly open to a proportion of fufpicion, but he really thought, that though fome fufpicion might at first attach to it, in a very fhort time, that might be done away; but there was between these two periods, an intermediate period of a very doubtful and fufpicious nature indeed, and that of all others others was the most objectionable. The period most advantageous of the three, obviously was, that prior to the conclufion of a treaty with France. Had a treaty with Portugal been fecured and fettled at that moment, it would have manifefted a fairness and a decency on our part to an old ally; and it would have exhibited a good example of the dignity of this country, by fhewing, that before we entered into new treaties or fought for new friends, we took care to fecure the continuance of our old connections. At that time, therefore, in his mind, the treaty with the Court of Lisbon ought to have been adjufted, because he never could be brought to admit, that our commercial connection with Portugal ought to be blended with, or make any part of the measure of a commercial treaty with France, though the converse of the propofition might be true, and indeed was fo. The next best period for making a treaty with the Court of Lisbon, was fübfequent to the parliamentary fanction, and final carrying into effect the commercial treaty with France, and after the reduction of Portugal wines, according to the reserve made in the 7th article of the French treaty. That period (as he had before faid) was certainly not fo free from objection as the former one, but moft objectionable was the intermediate period, that between the figning the French treaty, and the Parliament of Great Britain giving it their fanction, and engaging to carry it into execution. In order to illuftrate this affertion, and explain more fully what he meant, Mr. Fox went into argument to prove, that if Portugal fhould, through any perverfenefs, or ill-judging obftinacy, (which Heaven forbid! fhould be the cafe,) refuse to continue the fame connection with us that had fubfifted between the two countries under the Methuen treaty, ever fince the year 1703, France would in that cafe derive a great additional advantage from us, for which we neither should have an equivalent, nor could claim one. He knew that some doubts had arifen as to the right conftruction of the Methuen treaty. As a Minifter, when in office, he had felt it to be his duty to negociate it one way, but he was aware that the Court of Lifbon had contended that Irifh woollens were not comprehended under, the Methuen treaty-(The Chancellor of the Exchequer faid across the table, if the right honourable gentleman acted one way as a negociator when in office, he hoped he would not lend the weight of his authority the other way, now he was not in office) Mr. Fox faid, if the right honourable gentleman had heard him to the end of his fentence, he was fure he would not have thought, what he meant to have expreffed, to have been wrong, injudicious, or ill-timed. What he was proceeding to fay, was this, that the Court of Lifbon had contended that Irish woolVOL. XXI. lens U lens were not comprehended within the meaning of the Methuen treaty; but that was an idle and a mistaken notion; the fpirit of the Methuen treaty undoubtedly went to Irish as well as British woollens, and to lay down any distinction between the two was narrow and unpolitic, and by no means confonant with that generous and liberal line of conduct that the Court of Lisbon and the Court of London fhould mutually take care to follow respecting the concerns of each other. His opinion was, and that an opinion founded on conviction, that Portugal was bound to liften to the complaints of our merchants, and that it was the duty of Mihifters to take care to enforce their juft demands, fo as to have the Methuen treaty obferved as to its spirit, rather than as to its mere letter. On our part we ought to act with equal Jiberality, and rather grant to Portugal more than fhe could claim by treaty than lefs. Upon that principle the two countries might continue connected and be useful friends to each other. If Portugal fhould, either by the influence of other Powers, or the perverfeness of her own Minifters, break with us entirely, and an end fhould be put to the Methuen treaty, we fhould lofe an ufeful friend, and fhould undoubtedly feel the lofs; but Portugal would foon find, that the had acted rafhly and injudicioufly, that fhe had injured herfelf most effentially by breaking her old connection, and that no new commercial treaty fhe could enter into or conclude, could poffibly prove in every point of view fo ferviceable and fo advantageous to her as her connection with this country had proved. In that light, he had uniformly confidered the Methuen treaty and the connection between Great Britain and Portugal, and fo, he believed, every man who knew any thing of the commercial interests of the two countries must have confidered them. Mr. Fox now proceeded to fhew the disadvantages of putting the finishing hand to the French treaty, by Parliament's coming to a vote upon it, before they knew what would be the state of our trade with Portugal. The principles of the French treaty were reciprocity of advantage in refpect to commerce, not that each county was to do the fame thing exactly in refpect to each commercial commodity, because that would be impoffible, but where the duty was lowered upon any commodity in one country, an equivalent was to be granted by the other. But if the treaty with France was fanctioned without knowing what was to be done with Portugal, we muft remain in the dark, and might eventually give France an advantage for which we neither had the prospect of an equivalent, nor could fet up any claim to an equivalent. Mr. Fox explained this, by putting the cafe, that Portugal fhould, either through her own perverfeness, or the influence France France was known to have over the Court of Lisbon, be fo unwife as to refufe to come into any treaty with Great Britain; in that cafe, we certainly fhould not lower the duty on Portugal wines, and then France would pofitively have a material advantage, in addition to the advantage already given by ftipulation in the treaty, for which additional advantage, we fhould not have a right to claim an equivalent. Thus France would be in the condition of a perfon purchasing an eftate, with a mine upon it, without having paid for the mine. Would not every man, in that cafe, blame the feller of the estate, for not having afcertained, whether there was a mine upon it or not, before he fold his eftate? The cafe ftood exactly in that manner between Great Britain and France; if Portugal broke with us, France would have all the benefit without having ftipulated to give any equivalent to this country. Mr. Fox then mentioned, as another probable inconvenience, that if we should lower the duty on Spanish wines, France would have a right to call upon us to make the fame reduction in the duties on the French wines, because we had ftipulated that her wines fhould come in upon as low duties, as were paid on the wines of any country, except the wines of Portugal, The validity of this argument would be seen by the reading the fixth, the feventh and eleventh articles of the French treaty. Mr. Fox recapitulated the heads of his argument before he fat down, and then faid, that if the object he aimed at, which, he hoped, he had made fufficiently clear to the right honourable gentleman, could be obtained by any other motion, or by any other way of wording his motion, he was ready to give it up, or alter it, though he could not give up his argument, as he conceived nothing could be more evident than the grounds he had refted it upon. Mr. Fox explained why he had felected the year 1782 as the date, from which the papers were to be made out. He faid, he would not go so far back as the year 1758, when the merchants began to complain of the conduct of the Court of Portugal as to the non-obfervance of the Methuen treaty, but fixed upon the year 1782, as more modern, at the fame time that it was not fo modern, as to be a period that interfered with negociations of a nature too recent to be touched upon. He concluded with moving, "Than an humble addrefs be prefented to His Majefty, "humbly to defire, that he will be graciously pleafed to give "directions, that there be laid before this Hqufe, copies or "extracts of the inftructions that have been given to his Ma"jesty's Minifters in Portugal fince the firft of May 1782, "respecting the complaints of the British merchants. As "alfo the answer or anfwers of the Court of Portugal to the "representations which have been made in confequence of U 2 "fuch Sir Grey "fuch inftructions, with the feveral dates of the faid inftruc"tions and answers." Sir Grey Cooper obferved, that no confideration whatsoever fhould have induced him to fecond the motion of the right honourable gentleman, if it did not appear to him to ftand on fair parliamentary ground, and if the right honourable gentleman had not, in his opinion, made a good cafe for this interpofition, before the great and momentous queftion of the coinmercial treaty with France was brought into deliberation. In the preliminary and incidental converfation on the subject, which was now, for the first time, brought directly and regularly before the confideration of the Houle, the right honourable Chancellor of the Exchequer had informed them, that the negotiation was now pending between Portugal and this kingdom, and that he therefore could not confiftently with his duty, as a Minifter, confent to the communication of any papers refpecting the prefent actual ftate of that negotiation. This did not appear to him to be a fatisfactory reafon for the refufal of fuch a communication under all the circumftances of this cafe. With great deference to the Houfe, he thought the Houfe was competent to inquire and to afk for information, in the courfe and during the pendency of any treaty or negotiation, if it fhould have fair ground to believe, either from commonfame, or by the difelofure of collateral circumftances, that any engagement was about to be made derogatory to the honour, or injurious to the interefts of the nation. He was aware that Minifters had generally refifted fuch inquiries before the conclufion of the treaty or negotiation, under pretence, that the production of the papers called for, and the agitation of the debates upon them, might give advantage to the parties with whom his Majefty was at the moment making the contract, and might perplex and embarrass the King's Minifters, when, perhaps, they were on the point of concluding an advantageous treaty for the kingdom. This mode of reafoning might, perhaps, bear with fome force against motions for papers refpecting political treaties, or treaties of commerce, which required no alteration of duties to give them validity and effect; but not for refufing the communication of papers, materially relating to treaties of commerce, which were not valid and effectual until duties fhould have been altered, and laws fhould have been paffed, or in the cafe of treaties of fubfidy, where the contract was to have no energy or effectual exiftence, until that Houfe could have voted and granted money for the fubfidy to the foreign fovereign, or the pay of the right honourable gentleman's father oppofed, with all the power of reafon and eloquence, the fubfidy treaties in 1755 troops. The Would |