The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-08-20 00:00:00

COMMERCIAL TREATIES.

A meeting which, according to the notice convening
it, was "free from party bias," was held in London,
on Tuesday afternoon, at the Cannon-street Hotel,
for the purpose of petitioning Parliament against
binding the country for a period of years by commer-
cial treaties.

Mr. John Scott presided, and was supported by Mr.
Mclver, M.P., Sir Charles Whetham, Captain Bed-
ford Pim, and Mr. Warton, M.P.
Mr. C. W. Stokes stated that he had been requested
by a number of citizens to call a meeting to obtain an
expression of public opinion on the question of the
renewal or non-renewal of commercial treaties, and
the terms upon which they should be proposed. That
expression of opinion was the more necessary because
there was no Chamber of Commerce in London.
The chairman observed that he hoped the proceed-
ings would be kept above personal or party interest;
for the object of the conveners was to safeguard the
interests of trade in this great country. The movement
would affect the well-being of the country in
every branch of industry. He thought that free trade
was a good thing provided other nations would adort
it, and therefore he supported the promoters of the
meeting, as if their objects were logically carried out
they would tend to induce other countries than Eng-
land to adopt that principle. The question was not
for a few persons nor for one party to decide, but the
commercial relations of this country with other coun-
tries Was a matter for the country and the Govern-
ment. It was for the people themsel,,es to express
their view as to whether there should be concluded a
new treaty that would bind up the well-being of the
country for another ten years.
Mr. C. W. Stokes moved—" That this meeting is of
opinion that. it is most important that no commercial
treaty should be concluded less favourable to England
than the French Treaty of 1860, or which would bind
the country for more than one year, and that whatever
may be the new treaty it shall be first submitted for
the approval of Parliament."
Mr. David Evans seconded the motion.

Mr. Mclver, M.P., in supporting it, said that there
were only three treaties which were not terminable
within twelve months, so that there was a precedent
for that which was asked. He and others would be
prepared to consent to a good treaty with France if
they could get it; but there were many reasons for
doubting that a good treaty could be obtained. There
were certain active negotiators on the treaty who
would make a good bargain for themselves; but
there was much reason for supposing that England,
as a whole, would get nothing better than
the present treaty, simply because we had no ma-
terials wherewith to bargain in our one-sided policy.
The statistics of our trade with France showed plainly
enough that however much the existing treaty might
be for the benefit of certain persons and trades, as
a whole the renewal of that treaty as at present would
not be to the advantage of Engladd. We were now
suffering a grievous wrong at the hands of France,
notwithstanding the so-called most favoured nation
clause. Year by year the business with France of the
citizens of London, Liverpool, and other places which
might be named, was more and more diminishing.
No treaty which contained the surtaxe d'entrepOt
clause should be entered into with Prance, for it was
most prejudicial te the merchants, brokers, and
traders of England; and, in any case, no treaty
should be entered into for a period of more than ten
years.

Mr. Keene supported the motion, as did
Mr. Leach, who said that during the anti•corn law
agitation reciprocity was a great deal talked of, and it
was said that other nations would reciprocate when we
adopted free trade; but that, it had been found to our
cost, had not been the case.
Captain Hyde spoke of the unfairness of the present
treaty with France and said that English traders
could not send a single article into France unless it
was subjected to almost prohibitory duties. He
moved as an amendment :—" That, in the opinion of
this meeting, there should be no commercial treaty
with France or any other ccuntry that did not secure
equal and just terms on both sides."

-The amendment was subsequently accepted, and the
original motion withdrawn.