The Portland daily press., 1874-11-28
RECIPROCITY.
Lord Derby on the Treaty.

LONDON, Nov. 27.-Yesterday denutation
representing seventy-two chambers of com
merce waited on Lord Derby and CarDavon, the
Foreign and Colon al Secretaries to present OBJ
Jectlons 10 tue proposed Canadian reciprocity
treaty with the United States.
Mr.. Sampson Lloyd said that under the pro-
posed treaty the manufacturers of England
were placed at a great disadvantage compared
with those of the Urited States. The treaty
was unfair in principle and exceedingly inir-
rlous in practical effect. He wished to submit
as general principle that iu any case where
British coony or dependency negotiated
treaty with foreign country, Eogland shonld
not be placed III worse position than a foreign
country.
Lord Derby replied that the government full
ly agreed to the principle:
Mr.. Barren, representing Leeds. said that lie
do not desire to have protective clause. He
only wished Canada not to grant America any
thing more than England.
Mr.. Behrens, representing Bradford stated
that there was a party in Canada 50 powerful
that It might take action preiudcial to Eng
land III the treaty was not clearly worked to
prevent it, He asked for an insertion of a
clause Droviping that the United States shall
never nave the right to claim any remission of
dnties not accorded to British commerce.
Lord Derby then replied at length. He
sad:
do not know that we ever received a depu-
tauon in whose views We SO entirely concur.
AOui SaSo 10 III SuUStduCt dCCcupu 10 dDSOluteIy
and entirely. 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 En-
elish trade and commerce are not placed at
disvantage as compared with those of foreign
countries.
We should fail most grossly in our duty
if for any consideration whatever we allowed
the imposition of dItferential duty against our
own manufacturers. That never was our in
tentlon There is nothing in the proposed
treaty as we understand it leading to that con-
clusion. We learn that apprehensions are en-
tertained on the subject with some surprise
AS regards the difficulty of defining the article
mentioned in the schedule with sufficient clear
ness something must be allowed for he good
ness and facts of the governments charged with
the Interpretation of the treaty. AS for the
danger of creating bad feelings between Eug-
land and Canada if any provisions unfa,orabe
to British trade are inserted in the treaty. I am
firmly convinced that no such provisions exist,
and agree tiat did they exist, they would have
created bad feelings.
There is another side to the question While
protecting British trade we are bound to look
at The peculiar position of Canada in her rela-
tons to the United States. We are bound to
pace no unnecessary obstacle in the way Of the
free numerical relations between these eoun-
tries. 1t for any supposed interest of our own
we objected to a treaty establishing such free
dom, 1t is perfectly clear that discomfort among
loyal Canadians would result. Those attached
to the imperial government. who believe i'm
mensely preponderate, would lend strength to
the party which looks forward to annexation to
the United States.
apprehend that the view of those who sup
pose that this treaty establishes differential
duties in favor OF America is that the duties on
American goods were to be diminished at once;
whereas, the duties on some classes of English
goods were only to be reduced in series of
years, You say there is no guaranty of this in
the treaty. The reason is that the commercial
relations of England and Canada cannot be
dealt with IN treaty with n foreign power.
They are relations of Iucely domestic charac-
ter. If any iCanadian Parliament were here
after to seek to impose d.fferentiall ouries. the
Governor General would be competent to re-
serve such an act for the consideration of the
home government. l make this statement
clearly and distinctly, that there is nothing in
the treaty OF Which, considering the relations
of the mother country with the colonies, would
make it possible for Canada to impose differ
entia duties on England in favor of the United
States.
Lord Carnarvon spoke ia similar terms, say
ing that Canada had neyershown any intention
of imposing duties discriminating against
England.
The Clause EseIa ting to Manufactured
Lumber.
OTTAWA, Carada, Nov. GA deputation of
Ottawa lumbermen waited on the Premier YES
terday afternoon and asked an explanation of
the clause in the reciprocity treaty which refers
to unmanufactured lumoer. Mr. Mckenzie
said that what was understood between the
Secretary at Washington aud the Dominion
government was all dressed and planed lumber
moulding, etc,