devised for their voluntary extinction, and in the course of the year 1855 a Congress of delegates assembled at Copenhagen to attempt to arrange the terms of a redemption. For some time the delegates were unable to agree upon the bases of a settlement, but in the spring of 1856 it was proposed to the British Government that the object should be effected by the payment of a gross sum for their redemption. At that time the treaty of peace with Russia was under negotiation; it was uncertain how long we might continue to be engaged in an expensive conflict; and the Government of Her Majesty, while recognizing the importance to our Baltic trade of extinguishing these dues, yet from financial considerations showed no eagerness to enter into the arrangement, and the first answer contained in a letter of Lord Clarendon's to Mr. Buchanan, the British Minister at Copenhagen, dated March 23, 1856, was not a favourable one. I mention this to show the Committee that Her Majesty's Government did not enter into this arrangement precipitately, but gave to it a calm, a cool, and a protracted consideration. After that answer sent the negotiations between Denmark and other Powers proceeded; and not long after the treaty was signed which put an end to the great war with Russia, Russia itself and one or two other Powers signified their acceptance of the terms which had been offered to them as well as to England. This materially altered the position of England with regard to the question, because obviously disadvantages would have arisen to our trade if the ships of other nations had been exempted from was Sound Dues while our vessels had con tinued to pay them. Her Majesty's Government deemed that this was a proper subject for the consideration of this House, as no treaty could be executed without a grant of money by Parliament; and, therefore, nearly at the end of the last Session I moved the appointment of a Committee which examined Mr. Buchanan, our Minister at Copenhagen, and many witnesses connected with the Baltic trade, and presented a Report to this House. I will not trouble the Committee at any length with extracts from that Report, but I would beg leave to call their attention to the fact that these Sound Dues are oppressive to the trade of this country, not merely on account of the payments directly levied upon British ships, but on account of the incidental charges which those payments bring in their train, and also on account of the detention of vessels at Elsinore for the purpose of levying the dues. On this subject I beg leave to call the attention of the Committee to one passage in the Report of the Committee. That passage states "It is a matter of much complaint that these charges, which are only incidental to the payment exacted by the Danish Government, amounted to more than the dues themselves, in some cases being double the amount; and an agent's account was submitted to the Committee, showing that the dues properly so called amounted to onefourth only of the whole charges for which the owner of the cargo was made liable; these are composed of various items, such as commission, expedition, translation, stamped paper, &c.; and though some of these charges are sanctioned by treaty, the account when delivered is seldom examined, and if questioned, redress is difficult to obtain. Mr. Wilson, of Hull, says,- We have to take the account of our agents, and I do not see that we can check them; we should always be in a correspondence with them if we did; we are completely in their hands;' and witnesses been made by the Danish Government in the admitting the correctness of the return that has amount alleged to be paid by this countrynamely, £70,000 per annum-place the burden falling on British commerce at not less than between £200,000 and £300,000. Now, if a sum of money, calculated not upon the total sum which British ships are compelled to pay, but upon that proportion of it which is directly levied, would redeem those duties, it appears to me that it is only reasonable to expend that sum for such a purpose. If the total tax levied upon British ships annually amounts to anything like £200,000 or £300,000 a year, and if the sum which we are asked to redeem amounts to only £70,000 a year, it appears to me that, assuming the sum which we have to pay for such redemption to be calculated upon an equitable basis, it would, I contend, be most advantageous for the trade of the country to effect that redemption. Then, again, it is not merely the charge imposed upon shipping that does the greatest injury to trade; there is a detention at Elsinore necessary to levy the dues, and I will trouble the Committee with one passage from the Report on this point : "Mr. Fleming, of Dundee, has given in the following passage a summary of the mischiefs The delays ships meet with at Elsinore from which follow from the stoppage at Elsinore :having to remain for their necessary papers from the Custom House is often the cause of many disasters. In fine weather the master may be on shore two or three hours only, but if the weather sionally much longer. The roadstead in spring and autumn is very exposed and unsafe anchorage, is not fine he may be absent five hours, and occa and frequently serious accidents occur, such as collision, slipping chains, parting from anchors, driving on shore; and sometimes ships are lost, and the crews drowned.'" The Report goes on to state, Upon reference to other evidence it will be seen that strong and unvarying testimony is borne to the mischief arising out of the detention of vessels at Elsinore, and, indeed, some of the witnesses connected with the shipping interest state that the evil of the detention is greater than the evil of the payment. It would be difficult to suggest any relief to the trade for this evil short of rendering it unnecessary for vessels to stop for the purpose of paying these dues in future. "The Sound Dues, therefore, as they are levied at present, combine in them what is most objectionable in taxes that fall upon trade; they are unequal in their operation, and they occasion great loss of time, and much needless expenditure, in the collection of a comparatively small revenue, and, as far as the cargoes are concerned, without professing to be raised for any service rendered in return, tend to impede and burden an important branch of trade. Under these circumstances, your Committee have no hesitation in declaring that these dues are the cause of annoyance and injury to British commerce, and that they deem it therefore highly desirable that they should be abolished." Now, that is the deliberate opinion of the Committee. They afterwards advert to the negotiations then pending, and conclude their Report by saying, Your Committee therefore think that the proposals made by the Danish Government to the Governments of the different States interested in the navigation and trade of the Baltic, among which Great Britain holds the first place, should receive immediate consideration, and become the foundation of a final and satisfactory settlement of the question." In consequence of the Report of that Committee, which was presented to the House at the close of the Session of last year, but in plenty of time to give any hon. Gentleman who wished to do so the opportunity of calling the attention of the House to its contents, the Government thought that, looking to all the circumstances of the case, the most expedient course to adopt was to entertain the proposal of the Danish Government, and, accordingly, soon after the prorogation of Parliament last year, we communicated to the Government of Denmark our willingness to consent to the redemption of the Sound Dues for a fixed sum of money. We, at the same time, communicated to that Government that all our arrangements were of a provisional character, and dependent upon the ultimate sanction of Parliament. That was thoroughly understood by the Government of Denmark from the beginning of the negotiations, and, therefore, the power of Parliament to assent to or dissent from these arrangements remains unimpaired. I mention that circumstance because representations have been made that we have not taken proper precautions. Well, Sir, the negotiations continued, and an offer having been made by Denmark, the amount was diminished, and ultimately the Government of Great Britain acceded to an arrangement to which Russia had in the first instance acceded, and which has since obtained the concurrence of most of the other great Powers of Europe. The total sum proposed for the redemption of the duties was fixed at 30,476,325 rix dollars, which were to be assessed among fifteen Powers, of which Great Britain was to pay 10,126,855 rix dollars, Russia 9,739,993 rix dollars, Prussia 4,440,027 rix dollars, France 1,219,003 rix dollars; and the sums to be paid by the other contracting parties were also settled. The Government of Her Majesty were of opinion that they could not, consistently with the international law of Europe, adopt the policy which has been taken by the Government of the United States of America. The ground taken by the President of the United States was, that America was not a party to the international law of Europe, that that law was a system by which the different States of Europe had bound themselves by successive treaties, and which was binding on them, but which did not apply to the United States of America, a new country situate in a different quarter of the globe. It is not for me to say how far the pretensions of the President of the United States were or were not well founded, or whether the ground which he took was in accordance with the law of nations. Be that as it may, Her Majesty's Government considered themselves precluded from the adoption of a similar course. a member of the European family, and England is bound by the international law of Europe. Now, with regard to these Sound Dues, ancient treaties entered into between Great Britain and Denmark specifically recognise them. The treaty of July, 1670, in the reign of Charles II., made between them, and afterwards renewed in 1814 by the treaty of Kiel, declares that duties for the passage of vessels through the Sound shall be paid according to the printed tariff or book of rates, which book of rates was agreed to between France and Denmark in 1645, and was further regulated by a treaty signed at London by my noble Friend at We are the head of the Government, then Secre- and undertook the, maintenance of lighttary of State for Foreign Affairs, in June, houses, and other institutions of a similar 1841, when the scale of duties underwent character, for the facilities and requisites a complete revision and considerable re- of commerce. They also undertook to re duction. There is no reason to suppose duce the transit duties levied upon goods that these dues have not always been re- passing over the lines of communication gularly paid, except during a time of war, which run across the Danish territory by and, as a question of international engage- four-fifths of their amount. The reduction ments in Europe, nothing can be more plain of those duties was not a question which than that we are bound in the most dis- entered into the original negotiations with tinct manner to a recognition of the legality Denmark upon the subject of the Sound of the Sound Dues. Her Majesty's Go- dues. The importance of effecting such vernment, therefore, came to the conclu- reduction was, however, subsequently sion that, if the Government of Denmark brought under the notice of this House in were not willing to abandon those duties, that Report of the Select Committee from but were only willing to extinguish them which I have already quoted, and my noble upon the payment of a certain sum, Bri- Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs tish vessels must either continue to pay the had, in consequence of the statements thereduties as hitherto, and undergo the annoy- in made, instructed our Minister at Copenance to which I have alluded, or else the hagen to demand a remission-at all events terms proposed by Denmark must be agreed to some extent of the transit dues. Greater to. Under these circumstances, then, I difficulty, however, was experienced in dealthink Her Majesty's Government were fully ing with that question than with any of the justified in signifying their acceptance of others involved in the negotiations. The the terms which were offered by Denmark. Danish Government was unwilling to adBefore, however, those terms had been mit that the transit dues were intendedfinally agreed upon, an attempt was made as was alleged by the witnesses who were upon our part in concert with Prussia, and examined before the Select Committeeupon the suggestion of that Power, to enter to operate as a protection to the Sound into an arrangement by which the collection Dues by preventing the evasion of the payof the dues should be continued, but in ac- ment of those dues by the transportation cordance with which the detention of ves- of goods across the country. Very strong sels at Elsinore, which was alleged to be objections were, therefore, urged upon the one of the main grievances of the system, part of Denmark to the proposal for the should be dispensed with, and the tolls reduction of the transit dues, and, as Mr. payable upon vessels passing through the Buchanan states, the subject led to a MiSound, should be levied at the port of ar- nisterial crisis in the Danish Cabinet. Mr. rival or departure in the Baltic. That was Buchanan says:a plan which was suggested by Prussia, and which England would have assented to if it had been found feasible. Such, however, was not the case, and the Governments of both countries concurred in deeming it desirable that it should be abandoned. Nothing, therefore, seemed to remain but that England should either agree to the terms which were proposed by Denmark, or refuse altogether to enter into any arrangement upon the subject of those dues; and Her Majesty's Government, having given the question the most mature consideration, came to the conclusion that it would, upon the whole, be most beneficial to the I wish to direct the attention of the Comtrade of the country to pay the sum of mittee to that passage for the purpose of money for which Denmark had stipulated showing the terms which the British Go-a sum amounting to £1,125,206 ster-vernment proposed upon the subject, and ling. Upon payment of that sum the the reception which those terms met with Danish Government intimated their deter- at the hands of the Danish Governmination to abolish to the fullest extent ment. Her Majesty's Government were the duties levied upon vessels at the Sound, of opinion that the transit dues ope "The only portion of the proposal of Her Majesty's Government to which the Danish Government strongly objects is that which relates to the reduction of the transit dues, a very influential portion of the Danish Cabinet being of opinion that to agree to such a proposition would be inconsistent with the dignity of the King of an independent country; but as Her Majesty's Government made the reduction of those dues a sine qua non, a convention embodying the proposal was eventually agreed to by the Danish Government. The subject has, however, occasioned serious differences of opinion in the Danish Cabinet, and M. Andre, the Minister of Finance, was not present at the Council, and has placed his resignation in the hands of the King." made for the redemption of the Sound Dues with some European Powers while we remained strangers to it--the importance of reducing these duties, and thus freeing our vessels, not only from the dues themselves, but from other charges which they brought in their train, and from the necessity of detaining the ships at the Sound-and looking also at the fact that four-fifths of the transit dues across Denmark have been reduced, I do trust that, having regard to all these circumstances, the House will come to the conclusion that, provided the pecuniary payment is considered reasonable, they will virtually ratify the treaty entered into. With regard to the amount of the redemption money, not only our own Minister who negotiated the treaty, but the very intelligent plenipotentiaries of the other Powers in the immediate vicinity of Denmark, who were more likely to be well informed rate as a protective duty in the case of the Sound Dues, and that the question of their remission might very fairly be introduced into the negotiations upon the subject of those dues. It was, however, no easy matter to prove that the transit dues did in reality operate as a protective duty; nor was it ever admitted upon the part of the Danish Government that such was the fact. They, upon their part; maintained that they had, independently of the remission of the transit dues, conceded as much as we were entitled to demand, and that as the transit dues were levied they could be regarded only in the light of a source of national revenue, in reference to which no foreign Power possessed the right to interfere. Now, it must be admitted, that it is not exactly the proper function of the British House of Commons to criticise the Ways and Means of the Danish Government, and that they have a right to impose such as to the amount levied by the Sound taxes as they deem best suited to the exigencies of their country. What should we think, for instance, of a foreign Power that should say to us, "You must allow our subjects to pass through your turnpikes without the payment of a toll?" We should consider such a proposal an undue interference with our internal traffic, and a precisely similar view of the proposition for the reduction of the transit dues was not unnaturally taken by the Danish Government. It might certainly be contended that such dues were a bad source of revenue, but the House of Commons have surely no business to go into that question. To the extent to which the transit dues were levied for the purposes of internal revenue, they lay beyond our purview. The hon. Gentleman who opposed Mr. Speaker leaving the chair said it was not the amount of the transit dues that he objected to. Surely that statement conceded the matter in issue. If it is once admitted that an internal duty is not objectionable in amount, this House cannot go further into the discussion. I trust, therefore, that under all the circumstances of the case, the Committee will come to the conclusion that Her Majesty's Ministers have obtained from the Danish Government as favourable terms with respect to the transit dues as they were entitled to expect, and that, looking to the whole arrangements which have been entered into, the importance of preventing a hostile collision between the United States and Denmark-the importance of preventing an arrangement being Dues, came to the conclusion that the terms proposed were reasonable, and such as might reasonably become the foundation of an European compact. Russia, Austria, France, Belgium, Mecklenburg, Oldenburg, Prussia, Sweden, and other Powers are parties to the treaty on precisely the same terms as Great Britain, and the signatures of their plenipotentiaries are affixed to the same instrument. I therefore trust that the Committee, looking to all the circumstances, will be disposed to approve the discretion exercised by the Government in coming to this arrangement. There is one point on which I have to ask the attention of the Committee, and it is as to the nature of the conditional agreement made by Her Majesty's Government with the Government of Denmark with respect to the payment of this large sum, because, undoubtedly, the sum I am asking the House to charge upon the Consolidated Fund is a sum of very considerable amount. The Committee will observe that no other course could have been adopted by Her Majesty's Government which would have left the discretion of Parliament more completely unfettered, or by which they could have called the House to their council at an earlier period. The subject was referred last year to a Select Committee before a final answer was given. The Select Committee examined our Minister at Copenhagen, who had conducted the negotiations, and had the power of putting any questions to him they thought proper. They also had communicated to them of all the diplomatic correspondence that had has been entered into, by which the British taken place up to that period on the sub- Government undertake to pay the sum, ject. The Committee must be aware that not as they might have done, by an aneven if the treaty-making power were vest-nuity extending over twenty years, but at ed in the Houses of Parliament, as it is once and within three months after the vested in the Senate of the United States, Act is passed. I will now state why the it would still be necessary to confide to one Government preferred that arrangement person, who would probably be our Minis- to the mode of paying the amount agreed ter at a foreign court, a discretionary power to by other Powers. We were of opinion to negotiate the details of the treaty. It that there would be no advantage in tying would be impossible for a legislative as- up our hands by a terminable annuity. sembly to make a treaty with foreign The time fixed by the treaty was twenty Power, without giving such a discretionary years; but in the event of a necessity power to some person. Look at the case arising for having resort to a loan, it apof the treaty recently negotiated with the peared to us that a somewhat longer time United States in regard to Central Ame- might with advantage be gained. I have, rica. The Committee are, of course, aware, therefore, made an arrangement with the that in the United States the President Bank of England, in the event of the Gohas not the power of ratifying the treaty, vernment finding it expedient to raise the but that the power of ratification resides in amount by a terminable annuity, by which the Senate. The treaty with regard to they agree to advance the sum immediately Central America was negotiated in London upon a terminable annuity of £64,700 by Mr. Dallas, the United States Minister, for thirty years, or of £60,014 for thirtywith my noble Friend (Lord Clarendon), five years for liquidating the sum Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Fo- £1,125,206. Upon these terms the Comreign Affairs. They fully discussed the mittee will perceive that there will be no circumstances, and after they had come to difficulty in raising the loan, and I should an agreement, a treaty was signed by both, be disposed to recommend that course to which was remitted to the United States the Committee, if it were not that the for the approval of the Senate. The Se- present state of the balances in the Exnate, however, made alterations in that chequer seems hardly to justify a resort to treaty, and hitherto no final arrangement loans. In the financial statement which I has been come to. But that shows, that made at the commencement of this year, I even if this House had the power of ratify- informed the House that a part of my ing a treaty, instead of only furnishing the statement of the revenue and expenditure funds necessary for its completion, they of the year ending April 1, was necessarily must have confided to Mr. Buchanan, or founded upon an estimate. I made that to some other Minister, the power of statement on the 13th of February, and negotiating and signing a treaty for for the rest of February and the whole of their consideration. There was no other March I was compelled to make an esticourse by which the action of Parliament mate both of receipts and expenditure. It could have been left more unfettered, is generally prudent in such estimates to be or by which its advice could have been on the safe side, and I estimated the income earlier called in. The treaty was made to at £71,885,000, and the expenditure of take effect from the 1st of April last, but the year at £78,000,000. I calculated there was a protocol signed by the British the balances in the Exchequer at the end Minister by which the Danish Government of the financial year as compared with the engaged to take bonds provisionally from balances at the end of the previous year at British vessels passing the Sound after the £1,384,000. But the actual result was, 1st of April, on the understanding that that the income of the year, which I calthe dues were not to be exacted if Parlia- culated at £71,885,000, amounted to ment ratified the treaty; but that the £72,334,000, and the expenditure, which Danish Government would have the power I estimated at £78,000,000, was really of exacting payment if Parliament refused only £76,588,000, being £1,412,000 beto ratify the treaty. No precaution has, low my estimate. Thus, the excess of intherefore, been omitted by Her Majesty's come being £449,000, and the deficiency Government for securing a full and unfet- of expenditure £1,412,000, there is a sum tered consideration of the whole subject by of £1,861,000 in favour of the public beParliament. As to the mode of paying yond the estimate that I then stated to the the sum of money a separate convention, House. The result is, that the balances |