Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T19:02:09.218Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. John Methuen and the Anglo-Portuguese Treaties of 1703

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

A. D. Francis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Much has been written about the Methuen Commercial Treaty and its influence for good or bad. Rather less has been said about the negotiations which related to it, though Sir Richard Lodge wrote a good summary of the three Methuen treaties in Professor Prestage's Chapters in Anglo-Portuguese Relations and there is an excellent and much fuller account in German by Johann Albrecht. Some of the facts relating to these negotiations are still little known and there may, therefore, be scope for the following article, which attempts to set out some of the difficulties with which John Methuen had to contend and to place the commercial treaty in perspective.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , June 1960 , pp. 103 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Englands Bemühungen [um den Eintritt Portugals in die grosse Allianz] (Bremen, 1933)Google Scholar. See also Damião, Peres, A diplomacia portuguesa e a Successão de Espanha, 1700–1714 (Barcellos, 1931).Google Scholar

2 Cal[endar of] Sxyqtate] P[apers] D[omestic], 1678 and Addenda 1674/1679, 394.

3 For Merchants' Memorials see, e.g., British Museum, Burney Coll. 816. m. II (year 1678): P[ublic] R[ecord] O[ffice], CO. 388/3, fo. 186 (year 1694): P.R.O., CO. 388/15 (year 1711).

4 See Cal. S.P. XVIII, 510; XXI, 437.Google Scholar

5 B[ritish] M[useum] Add. MSS. 35101, fo. 251.

6 B.M. Add. MSS. 29590, fo. 403.

7 Visconde, de Santarem (Manoel Francisco Barros de Mesquita de Macedo Leitão e Carvalhosa), Quadro Elementar, XVIII (ed. Luiz Augusto Rebello, da Silva, Lisbon, 1860), 127–44.Google Scholar

8 For the pragmatica or sumptuary laws of 1677, 1686, 1688, 1690, 1698 and 1702 and the decree raising the prohibition of English woollen cloth on 26 April 1704 see Colleccão das Leis Extravagantes, II (Coimbra, 1819), 79, 163, 178, 262, 326, 339, 344.

9 B.M. Add. MSS. 29590, fo. 385.

10 Santarem, , Quadro Elementar, XVIII, 201, mistakenly gives the date as October 1697: see also Methuen to Hedges, 2 Oct. 1696 (P.R.O., S.P. 89/17). Dates given in this article are New Style when not otherwise stated. Where the S.P. fos. are not paginated the date is given.Google Scholar

11 Santarem, , Quadro Elementar, XVIII, 201.Google Scholar

12 See de Sampayo, Luiz T., ‘Para o Tratado de Methuen’ (Revista do Instituto, LXXVI, Coimbra, 1928), 6.Google Scholar

13 B.M. Add. MSS. 28056, fo. 53: Narcissus, Luttrell (Brief Relation of State Affairs, 1678–1714, V, 619) speaks of Methuen advancing £37,000 to Charles III of Spain on his own credit.Google Scholar

14 From John Methuen's last will, dated Portsmouth 30 June (O.S.) 1702.

15 He mentions Houblon several times, and the death of his younger son together with a son of Houblon in a brawl in Lisbon after a dinner at Mr Browne's is referred to by Luttrell, op. cit. III, 362.

16 S.P. 89/17, 28 June 1692. Placed separately at end of volume.

17 Methuen in House of Commons defending himself against Montagu. See James, Vernon, Letters [to Duke of Shrewsbury, 1696–1708], II, 429, ed. James, G. P. R. (1841)Google Scholar; also Santarem, , Quadro Elementar, XVIII, 204.Google Scholar

18 John Colbatch to Bishop of Salisbury (B.M. Add. MSS. 22908, fo. 25).

19 See Burke, O. J., History of the Lord Chancellors of Ireland (1879), 97–100Google Scholar, and report of Methuen's speech in Howell, T. B., State Trials, XIII (1812), 712.Google Scholar

20 See Vernon, Letters, 1, 101, 146, 160, 179, and H[istorical] M[anuscripts] C[omission], Bath, Coll., III, 80, 82, 110, 113, 351, 375.

21 See Davenport, F. G., European Treaties (Washington, 1934), III, 29. The Spanish Treaty contained commercial clauses prohibiting the import to Spain of Portuguese tobacco, but lifting the embargo on the export to Portugal of Spanish corn in the event of war. There were separate agreements about the Asiento slave trade.Google Scholar

22 For Methuen's instructions see B.M. Add. MSS. 29590, fos. 434, 439. Luis, da Cunha, Portuguese Minister in London 1697/1712 (Instruccoẽs a Marco Antonio de Azevedo de Coutinho, ed. Pedro, de Azevedo (Coimbra, 1929), 42) said that Methuen was instructed only to ask for neutrality and that the suggestion to ask for an alliance came first from a Portuguese Minister, to whom Da Cunha had recommended him. But in his ‘Memorias [do Tratado de Utrecht]’ (B.M. Add. MSS. 20817, fo. 336), probably composed about 1706, da Cunha said that Methuen was instructed to ask the King to exchange the French Alliance for one with the Allies or at least to remain neutral. The Allies were anxious to have the use of Portuguese harbours in their projected operations against Spain.Google Scholar

23 For Pedro's character see John, Colbatch, Court of Portugal (1700), 3Google Scholar; Santarem, , Quadro Elementar, XVIII, 202; and B.M. Sloane Coll. Add. MSS. 2294, which contains an able report written in French supposedly by an Italian who came to Portugal in the suite of the first Duke of Schomberg. The reference below to the King's moods is from this source.Google Scholar

24 B.M. Add. MSS. 28056, fo. 46.

25 The Enciclopedia Portuguesa e Brasileira (Lisbon, 1953) is informative on these statesmen, and contemporary opinions are reflected in the Recueil [des Instructions aux Ambassadeurs de France], vol. III, Portugal (ed. Vicomte de Caix, de Saint Aymour, 1886). The latter (pp. 200, 229) however, confuses Arronches with his son-in-law, a Belgian named Prince de Ligny, who according to the Enciclopedia spent most of his time in Italy.Google Scholar

26 Receuil, III, 239; Albrecht, , Englands Bemühungen, 19.Google Scholar

27 B.M. Add. MSS. 29590, fo. 28.

28 Boxer, C. R., Vicissitudes of the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance (Lisbon, 1958), 13.Google Scholar

29 E.g. Schonenberg to Manchester, n.d., but about first week in June (B.M. Add. MSS. 29590, fo. 40).

30 Methuen to Manchester, Vernon, Manchester and Nottingham, 10 May, 10 May, 19, May (ibid. fos. 17, 19, 21, 29).

31 Ibid. fo. 29. Alegrete then told Methuen that he was sure that the French could not send the aid demanded, since the Portuguese request had been purposely exaggerated. See also ibid. fo. 61; Paul Methuen to Nottingham, 14 July 1702. Alegrete was ill again in January 1703 (Albrecht, Englands Bemühungen, 43).

32 Because of anti-English policy and the fear of incidents following upon Portugal's alliance with France and Spain (ibid. 16).

33 Ibid. 24–6; Luis da Cunha, ‘Memorias’, fo. 336, B.M. Add. MSS. 29590, fos. 96, 100, 130; H.M.C., 7th Report, 763–4; S.P. 80/18, 9 May, S.P. 80/19, 12, 19, 26 July.

34 Lodge (Anglo-Portuguese Relations, 159) said that the passage of the fleet past the Tagus by night was a diplomatic blunder, but the facts scarcely bear this out. See B.M. Add. MSS. 29590, fos. 99, 101.

35 B.M. Add. MSS. 29590, fo. 111.

36 Recueil, III, 217–26; da Cunha, ‘Memorias’, fo. 377.Google Scholar

37 Recueil, III, 214.Google Scholar

38 Recueil, III, 232.Google Scholar

39 B.M. Add. MSS. 29590, fo. 351.

40 ibid. fos. 29, 101.

41 See Stepney to Hedges, 12, 15, 19 July, 18, 28 Oct., 25 Nov., 2 Dec. 1702 (S.P. 80/19), 7, 22 April, 23 May 1703 (S.P. 80/20); Stepney to Shrewsbury, H.M.C. Buccleuch, 11, 659; Meyer, F. M., Zeitschrift für die Oesterreichische Gymnasien (Vienna, 1884), 1–27.Google Scholar

42 B.M. Add. MSS. 29590, fo. 64.

43 B.M. Add. MSS. 29590, fo. 106.

44 S.P. 104/195, fo. 160; Cal. S. P. 1702/3, 246.

45 For text, including the secret articles, see Ferreira Borges, de Castro, Colleccao de Tratados, II, 142–187Google Scholar, or Santarem, , Quadro Elementar, XVIII, 220.Google Scholar

46 For evidence of his intrigues see Naval Records Society, Leake, 1, 303, 313, etc; B.M. Add. MSS. 28056, fo. 36.

47 Stepney to Hedges, 21 June 1702 (S.P. 80/18); 19 Nov., 20 Dec. 1702 (S.P. 80/19); 7 Jan. 1703 (S.P. 80/20).

48 See S.P. 84/224, fos. 316, 317, 416.

49 E.g. Sir Thomas Hanmer in House of Commons on 29 Jan. 1707 (Vernon, , Letters, III, 329Google Scholar; Santarem, , Quadro Elementar, XVIII, 220).Google Scholar

50 B.M. Add. MSS. 29590, fo. 80.

51 Corn, butter and cheese were duty-free imports into Portugal and there was a regular trade in them with England and Ireland. When the alternative sources of supply, Spain and Italy, were cut off the Portuguese were all the more dependent on England. Corn exports from England to Portugal in the years 1701–3 were as follows (figures in quarters: P.R.O., M.A.F. 7/1, fos. 27–31).

The corresponding figures (in firkins) for exports of Irish butter to Spain, the Straits, and Portugal (principally Portugal) were: 1701, 14,729; 1702, 21,940; 1703, 35,224 (P.R.O. Customs, 15/6–8).

52 Methuen to Rooke, 31 Oct. 1702 (B.M. Add. MSS. 29590, fo. 146); Stanhope to Hedges, S.P. 84/224, fos. 403–4. For Stanhope's opinion of Vigo see S.P. 84/224, fos. 159, 191, 197.

53 Stepney to Hedges, 9, 13, 23 Dec. 1702 (S.P. 80/19); 10 Feb. 1703 (S.P. 80/20); Methuen to Nottingham B.M. Add. MSS. 29590, fo. 122. Jose Soares da Silva, Memorias 1701–15, commonly called Gazeta em forma da Carta (1700, reprinted Oeiras, Lisbon, 1931), 39, thus described the Admiral's death in 1705: ‘The great Admiral is dead, cause, origin and fount of all this martial fuss, of which he spun the plot and left it hanging, as his own life did, by one thread.’

54 B.M. Add. MSS. 29590, fos. 163, 179.

55 Ibid. fo. 219, 3 March 1703.

56 Ibid. fo. 219, 3 March 1703.

57 Ibid. fo. 450, undated. Sampayo's article (see n. 12 above) confirms that the archives at the Torre de Tumbo, Lisbon, and at the Portuguese Foreign Office have gaps from Feb. 1703 to Oct. 1704 and Dec. 1702 to Dec. 1704 respectively and do not throw light on the main period of the commercial negotiations. But he quotes (p. 9) a despatch of 29 Oct. 1702 in which da Cunha reported an interview with Nottingham on the subject of Portugal's entry into the Grand Alliance. Da Cunha recommended seizing the opportunity to drive a hard bargain, but suggested that if Portugal preferred to remain neutral agreement might be reached on the basis of England's granting changes in the 1654 treaty in Portugal's favour and concessions in the wine duties in return for the granting of naval facilities in Portuguese ports.

58 B. M. Add. MSS. 29590, fo. 478, undated.

59 S.P. 84/224, fos. 404, 408 and Cal. S.P. 1702/3, 683.

60 It was, however, repudiated by the States General and the dispute was settled only after a decision to treat it as a private matter for discussion between the Dutch West India Company and the Portuguese Minister at The Hague.

61 B.M. Add. MSS. 29590, fos. 233–4.

62 Cal. S.P. (Dom.), 1702/3, 25, 40.

63 Luis da Cunha, ‘Memorias’, fo. 400.

64 These two acts were entitled ‘Impost of 1692, 4 & 5 Will. & Mary and 2nd 25% on French Goods, 7 & 8 Will. & Mary, 1696’, and applied to French wines only. All wines paid the Old Subsidy, Additional Duty, and Coinage dating from the reign of Charles II or earlier, the New Subsidy of 1699, 9 & 10 Will. III, the one-third Subsidy 2 & 3 Anne 1704 and from 1705 the two-thirds Subsidy 3 & 4 Anne, 1705.

65 This Act was called Impost on Wines and Vinegar. I. James II. 1685.

66 House of Commons Journals, II, 160.Google Scholar

67 House of Commons Journal, IX, 91/92, X, 502/511, XI, 149, 160.Google Scholar

68 Relations Anglo-Hollandaises, Gabryelle, Van Den Haute (Louvain, 1932), 199.Google Scholar

69 For the stages of the negotiation see Methuen's letters in B.M. Add. MSS. 29590, fos. 380, 384, 391, 396 and inquiries fos. 403, 411, 415, 417.

70 S.P. 104/195, Hedges to Methuen 30 Jan. 1704 and S.P. 89/18, fos. 81, 89 and Hedges to Methuen S.P. 104/108 of 18 and 20 Jan. 1703 O.S. For laying of treaty with Methuen's despatch before Parliament see House of Commons Journal, XIV, 289, and House of Lords Journal, XIX, 377.

71 The 1704 Act was called the one-third subsidy, Queen Anne 2 & 3, cap 9, the 1705 Act the two-thirds subsidy, Anne 3 & 4, cap 5. For the proposal and dropping of Is. duty see Luttrell, 's Brief Relation, V, 365, 380, 395 (4 Dec. 1703, 15 Jan., 26 Feb. 1704).Google Scholar

72 This text is the English translation submitted with the Latin original to Parliament on 20 Jan. 1703/4 O.S. (see House of Commons Journal, XIV, 289–90, and House of Lords Journal, XVII, 377). It differs slightly from the Board of Trade translation used by Chalmers, Hertslet, Adam Smith, etc., and is closer to the Latin.

73 For the text of this treaty signed on behalf of Portugal by Catharine of Bragança, Queen of Great Britain, Regent of Portugal, see Castro, J. Ferreira Borges de, Colleccâo de Tratados, II (Lisbon, 1856), 211. Catharine of Bragança, acted as Regent on various occasions during the absence or illness of Pedro II.Google Scholar

74 In later years much of the bullion was smuggled out in the Falmouth packets, though Paul Methuen, inaugurating the service in 1702, stipulated that their official privilege must not be abused.

75 House of Commons Journal, XVII, 430.

76 Good summaries of Portuguese views on the treaty are to be found in Francisco Antonio, de Correa, O Tratado de Methuen (Lisbon, 1930)Google Scholar, and Carlos Hermangildo, de Sousa, O Tratado de Methuen na Economica National (Aveiro, 1938).Google Scholar

77 Recueil, XIII, 256.

78 S.P. 110/89, 37.

79 Da, Cunha, Obra, I (1821), 104.Google Scholar

80 Azevedo, J. L., Epocas de Portugal economico (Lisbon, 1924) 415, quoting Memorias Historicas de Jacob Frederico Torlades Pereira de Azambuja.Google Scholar

81 Methuen received £2000 for secret services in 1703 (Calendar of Treasury Books, 1703, 65).

82 The shortage of corn preceded the Methuen Treaty and its accentuation afterwards was due to the deterioration in Portuguese agriculture which followed the Brazilian gold rush. Corn could not grow on the rocky hillsides suitable for vineyards, and the vineyards affected by the later legislation of Pombal were not on the Douro. See Tenreiro, A. Guerra, Douro, Esbocospara sua Historia Economica (Oporto, 1942), I, 119; Correa, O Tratado de Methuen, 6; J. de Macedo, A situacao economica no tempo de Pombal (Porto, 1951), 91; João Ameal, Historia de Portugal (Lisbon, 1942), 481.Google Scholar