Cassell's History of England, Vol. 4 (of 8): From the Fall of Marlborough to the Peninsular War — John Shaqi
Cassell's History of England, Vol. 4 (of 8): From the Fall of Marlborough to the Peninsular WarAnonymous
History
Cassell's History of England, Vol. 4 (of 8): From the Fall of Marlborough to the Peninsular War
Anonymous
Great Britain -- History
The Treaty of Peace received the sanction of the Parliament; not so the
Treaty of Commerce. By this treaty it was provided that a free trade
should be established according to the tariff of 1664, except as it
related to certain commodities which were subjected to new regulations
in 1669. This went to abolish all the restrictions on the importation
of goods from France since that period, and within two months a law
was also to be passed that no higher duties should be levied on goods
brought from France than on the like goods from any other country in
Europe. Commissioners were appointed to meet in London to carry these
propositions into effect; but there immediately appeared a violent
opposition to these regulations, which were contained in the eighth and
ninth articles of the Treaty of Commerce. It was declared that these
articles violated the Treaty of Methuen, according to which the duties
on Portuguese wines were always to be lower by one-third than the
duties on the French wines.
On the 9th of June, when the House of Commons went into committee on
the Bill, a large number of merchants desired to be heard against
it. For several days their statements were heard, and the Portuguese
Ambassador also presented a memorial declaring that should the duties
on French wines be lowered to those of Portugal, his master would
renew the woollen and other duties on the products of Great Britain.
This seemed to enforce the mercantile opinions; the sense of the
whole country was against the treaty, and the speech of Sir Thomas
Hanmer, a Tory, made a deep impression. There was, however, a growing
rumour, during the latter days of the debate, that Oxford had given
the treaty up--a rumour probably not without foundation, for Oxford
and Bolingbroke were no longer in unity. The latter, ambitious and
unprincipled, was intriguing to oust his more slow and dilatory
colleague; and, as the Bill was ostensibly the work of Bolingbroke,
probably Oxford was by no means unwilling that it should be thrown
out to damage him. When the question, therefore, was put on the 18th
of June, that the Bill be engrossed, it was negatived by a majority
of one hundred and ninety-four to one hundred and eighty-five. Thus
the commercial treaty was lost, much to the joy of the nation, and
certainly to its immediate benefit.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account