[A2-6-2] The two commercial treaties between Rome and Carthage, 348 and 306 before Christ (Polyb., III, 22 ff.), are a clear proof that, in the interval, the mercantile superiority of Carthage had increased. While the Romans in 348 had still the right, under certain limitations, to carry on trade in Sardinia and Africa, it was in 306 entirely denied them.
[A2-6-3] As guild-privileges make annual fairs (Jahrmärkte) and governmental fixed prices necessary.
[A2-6-4] Commercial treaty of the Venetians with the Latin empire in Constantinople, of the Genoese with the Greek after its restoration; in which, for instance, it was promised to the former, that no citizen of a state at war with Venice, should be permitted to sojourn in the Byzantine empire; to the latter, that they alone of all foreigners should enjoy freedom from taxation, and, with the Pisans, navigate the Black Sea. As long as the Dutch were the hereditary foes of Spain, they were much favored in France. Commercial treaty of 1596, putting them on an equal footing with the French; and which, considering their superiority at the time, was necessarily of greater advantage to them than to the French. Colbert's step to destroy this preponderance is coincident with the changed foreign policy. (Richesse de Hollande, I, 127.) In the peace of Nijmegen,[TN 130] again (art. 6 seq.), France tried to separate the Dutch from their allies by the restoration of their former rights. In the Spanish war of succession, France entered into a treaty with the arch-duke, Charles, that a common commission should fix the duties on English commodities, transfer the trade with America to an English-Spanish company, but that the French should be excluded therefrom. (Ranke, Franz. Gesch., IV, 257.)
[A2-6-5] The king of Bosporos had the rights of citizenship in Athens, and enjoyed that of freedom from taxation of his property there. In consideration of this, the Athenians were released from his corn export duties of 1/30. (Isocr., Trapez., § 71. Demosth., Lept., p. 476 ff.) Commercial treaty of Justinian with Ethiopia: the latter was to afford aid against the Persians, in return for which Byzantium promised to supply its requirement of silk no longer from Persia, but from Ethiopia. Commercial treaty between Florence and England, 1490: England promised to permit all the wool destined for Italy, except a small quantity intended for Venice only, to go over Pisa, and as a rule, not through foreigners. Florence, on the other hand, was to receive English wool only through English ships. (Rymer, Foedera, XII, 390 seq. Decima dei Fiorentini, II, 288 ff.)
[A2-6-6] The difficulties of such negotiations described by an experienced politician (probably Eden): Historical and Political Remarks on the Tariff of the French Treaty, 1787.
[A2-6-7] The Methuen treaty (1703) was considered an English master-piece, because Portugal had actually exported a great deal of Brazilian gold to England. Pombal said, in 1759: "Through unexampled stupidity, we permit ourselves to be clothed, etc. England robs us every year, by its industry, of the products of our mines.... A severe prohibition of the exportation of gold from Portugal might overthrow England." (Schäfer, Portug. Gesch., V, 494 ff.) And yet the treaty only says that Portugal withdraws its prohibition of English woolen wares, and restores the former duties (15 per cent.), while England continues to permit Portuguese wine to pay a duty 1/3 less than French wines! Singular doctrine of Adam Smith (W. of N., IV, ch. 6), and still more of McCulloch (Comm. Dict., v. Commercial Treaties), that this commercial treaty was unfavorable to England and very favorable to Portugal, although, in fact, later a duty of only about 3 per cent. was imposed here on English commodities. (Büsch, Werke, II, 62.) The English-French commercial treaty of 1786 introduces in the place of the former prohibition, duties of 10, 12 and 15 per cent. for a number of industrial products. The French soon came to believe that they had been taken advantage of here. A. Young found the desire very general in the north of France, to get rid of the Eden treaty even through a war. (Travels in France, I, 73.) Many of the cahiers of the third estate demand that no treaty of commerce should be entered into without previous consultation with the industries interested. (Acad. des Sc. morales et polit., 1865, III, 214.) But in England, also, bitter complaints of the opposition, to which Pitt replied, that commercial treaties between agricultural and industrial countries result to the advantage of the latter, independent of the fact that England obtained a new market of 24,000,000, and France of only 8,000,000 persons. Compare the extracts in Lauderdale, Inquiry, App., 14. Forcade: Revue des deux Mondes, 1843.
[A2-6-8] Urged very largely in southern Germany against the Prussian-French commercial treaty of 1862. But is it really an "advantage" for France to have in the interior more toiling (Plackereien) for inlanders as well as for foreigners? Or that its consumers must pay high taxes to the producers of certain wares?
[A2-6-9] Seldom in antiquity. Compare, however, Inscr. Gr., II, No. 256, and the reciprocal granting of the rights of citizenship of Athens and Rhodes. (Livy, XXXI, 15.) Among the moderns, Flanders followed free-trade principles similar to those followed later by Holland, at the beginning of the fourteenth century; for instance, it refused to gratify France by breaking off its trade with Scotland. (Rymer, Foedera, II, 388.) Florence, in 1490, promised the English, that in all treaties to be entered into with others, it would permit it to enter. In the French-Florentine commercial treaty of 1494, it is stipulated with the Florentines that their ships Gallica esse intelligantur and their merchants tanquam veri et naturales Galli etc. (Decima, II, 308.) Swedish treaty with Stralsund, 1574, that every privilege granted to a Baltic city should also be, of itself, to the advantage of Stralsund. Mutual equal treatment of subjects promised between Portugal and England, 1642; Portugal and Holland, 1661; mutual treatment on the basis of the most favored nation: between England and Portugal, 1642; Holland and Spain, in the peace of Utrecht; Spain and Portugal, 1713; Spain and Tuscany, 1731; England and Russia, 1734. But how far such principles were removed from the beginning of the eighteenth century is shown by the speech from the throne of the 28th of January, 1727, of George I., in which the Austro-Spanish treaty of 1725, that placed the subjects of Austria in the colonial empire of Spain on an equal footing with the English and Dutch, is described as a violation of the dearest interests of England, and in which it is said that England must defend its own unquestionable right against the covenant entered into to violate public faith and the most solemn treaties; that it might be that Spain thought of subjecting England once more to the popish pretender. Even in 1713, it was one of the principal points in controversy between the Tories and Whigs, whether, in a commercial treaty with France, the latter should be accorded the rights of the most favored nations. Compare Daniel Defoe, A Plan of the English Commerce, and per contra, The British Merchant.
[A2-6-10] English treaties with Prussia, 1824; the Hanse cities, 1825; with Sweden, 1826; France, 1826 (England removed the limitations still retained without compensation, in 1839); Naples, 1845; Sardinia, Holland and Belgium, 1851. Prussian treaties with Russia, 1825; Naples, 1847; Holland, 1851. French with Bolivia, 1834; Holland, 1846 (in which reciprocity is extended even to the navigation of rivers); Denmark, 1842; Venezuela, Equador and Sardinia, 1843; Russia and Chili, 1846; Belgium, 1849; and Portugal, 1853.
[A2-6-11] Marking an epoch in this respect are the treaties of the United States with Holland (Oct. 8, 1782), Sweden (April 3, 1783), Frederick the Great (Sept. 10, 1785), and England (Oct. 28, 1795); recently that entered into by Napoleon III. with England in 1860, and with the Zollverein in 1862.