Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1874-11-28

The Reciprocity TreaIy-RemORstraH
from English 8AHufaetursrs Ar
sweFs OF she FersiER and CeIsnIaI
Secretaries.

! LONDON, November ga deputa-
/ ton representing fitty-two chambers OF
| commerce waited on Lords Derby and
! Carvarvon, foreign and colonial secrets-
| ries, to present objections TO the pro-
posed Canadian reciprocity treSty with
] the United States. Sampson Floyd
said that under the proposed treaty
! the manufacturers of England were
placed at great disadvantage compared
with those Of the United States The
treaty was unfsir in principle and would
7 be exceedingly injurious in its practical
/ effect. He wished TO submit, as a gen.
eral principle, that in any case where
British colony or dependency negO-
| tisted treaty with q foreign country,
England should not be placed in q worse
position than that foreign country.
Lord Derby replied that the govern
ment fully agreed to this principle.
Mr.. Barron, representing Leeds, said
he did not desire to have 3 protective
clause. He only wished Canada would
not grant America anything more than
England.
Mr.. Bshrens, representing Bradford,
stated that there was party in Canada
which was so powerful that il might
take action prejudicisl to England il the
treaty was not clearly worded to prevent
it. he asked for the insertion Of clause
providing that the United States shall
never have the right to claim any remis-
sion of duties not accorded to British
commerce.
Lord Derby then replied at length.
He said: al do not know that We ever
received a deputatiOn IN whose views
we do entirely concur. Your case is, in
substance, acceded to absolutely, entire
y. We agree with you on the main
point, that in every negotiation Of this
kind it is the duty Of the government to
see that English trade and commerce.
are not placed st 3 disadvantage SIS
compared with those Of foreign coun-
tries. We should fail most grossly
in our duty if for any consideration
whatever we allowed an imposition OF
defersntiRl duty againstOuT own manu-
factuTers. It never wEs our intention.
There is nothing in the proposed treaty,
as We understand il, leading to that
conclusion. learn with some surprise
that apprehensiOns are entertained on
the subject. As regards the difficulty of
defining the articles msntiOned in the
schedule with sufficient cleaTDess, some |
thing must be allowed for the good sense
and faith OF the two governments |
charged with the Interpretation Of the
treaty. As for danger of creating bad |
feeling between England and Canada,
il any provisions unfavOTable to British |
trade are inserted in the treaty ! am /
firmly convinced no such provisions eX-
is, and ] agree that did they exist they /
would have created bad feeling. There |
Is another side 10 the question. While |
protecting British trade we are bound |
TO look at the peculiar position OF Canada |
In her relations to the United States. |
We are bound to place no unnec sssary
obstacles in the way Of freest CONNER
sial relations between those countries
II for any supposed interest Of our own
We objected to the treaty establishing
such freedom, il is perfectly clear that
iiscOntent among the loyal Canadians
would result. These, attached to the
imperial government, who believe inn
nensely prepondei ate, would lend
strength to the party which looks for
ward to annexation TO the United States.
apprehend that the view Of those who :
uppose this trea'y establishes q differ
initial duty in favor of America is, that
be duties on American goods were to
De diminished at once, whereas, the du- [
les on the same class Of English goods {
we're only to be reduced in a serIes OF
'ears. YOusay there is no guarantee OF |
his in the treaty. The reason is, the
commercial relations of England and 7
Canada cannot be dealt with In q treaty
With a foreign power. These are rela-
ions OF purely domestic character. I'll /
my Canadian parliament were hereafter
o seek to impose differentisl duties, the ,
,OvernOr-general would be competent to (
eserve such an act for the consideration
# the home government. / make the
tatement clearly and distinctly, that
hare is nothing in this treaty which,
the relations Of the mother
.Ountry with the colonies, would make
possible for Canada 10 impose defer
initial duties on England in favor Of the
United States."
Lord CsrnovOr spoke in similar terms,
,ointing out that Canada had never
hown any intention Of imposing duties
discriminating against England.