The New York herald., 1874-12-10
CANADIAN RECIPROCITY.
Earls Derby and Carnarvon ON tho
British Commercial Relations with
Canada and the United States.


[From the London Post Nov. 27.I
Yesterday an influential deputation. represent
Ing nfty-two chambers or commerce, nad an in
rerview with Lords Derby and Carnarvon at the
Foreign ONCE on treaties OF commerce made on
behalf OF any colony or dependency OF Great
Britain with foreign powers. with special refer
ence to the draft treaty now pending between the
United States and Canada.
Mr.. SAMSON LLOYD N. p, said, with reference
to the treaty now pending between the United
states and Canada, they merely wished to submit
as Q principle which should not be deviated from,
that In any case where colony or dependency
negotiated treaty wi foreign country, It
should be principle that England should not be
put IN worse position tnan any foreign country.
II the treaty between the United States and
Canada was ratified proposed, and counte-
nanced up 70 a certain point by the government
English manufacturers coming IN under the gen.
eral tariff OF Canada would be at a great uisadvan-
tage as compared with the United States: and
tnereioreit was not only unfair in principle bus
exceedingly injurious 10 its practical effect.
Lord DERBY-l may save you some trouble at
the outset oy stating that there IS no difference OF
opinion between Her Majestys government and
yourselves IN the principle you lay down.
Messrs. Firth. Barber Martin and Hawkes. nav.
cipaly from import duties, and therefore as her
expenditure was likely to be largely increased on
~.
plain, much desired by the United States. there
was every temptation for Canada to treat the
United states more tavoraby than England and
this Was to be guarded against
in reply Lord DERBY said:-This Is q very i'm
portant matter and do not know that ever re-
celved deputation In whose views l 80 entirely
concur. Your case s in substance acceded to. I
must again repeat that which stated at the out
set, that upon the main point which is or was sup
posed to be at issue, viz,-its belng the duty OF
the British government TO see that IN any negotta-
tions OF this kind English trade and English man
aAfV tp00 ua Qf ianAu uauf
compared with the trade OF manufactures
OF any foreign countries, there Is between
should have failed most grossly in our duty IT. for
any interest, political or diplomatic, or for any
consideration whatever, no matter OF what KIND,
We had agreed 20 allow OF the imposition OF DIFF
ferenlal duty In favor OF the produce or the man.
fractures or the United States as against our own
("Hear hear.") That never has been our Intention,
and there Is nothing In the treaty, as we under
stand. which leads to that conclusion. Speaking
for myself think We have guarded that point
that learnt first OF the apprehensions entertained
on that subject thing you will excuse me II
don't go int some OF the minor matters which have
been edverted to. But some hing was said as TO
the Importance OF the Canadian canals. Well, no
CONSIDERATION; but may say, speaking generally,
that we have thought that In the course OF these
negotiations the colonial government ana the
colony were sufficiently good judges OF their own
local interests, and our duty was mainly, In
inserted IN the treaty and that nothing was done
winch was unIavorable to imperial interests.
ss Of ss in e rse1na
distinct or not, that Is matter upon which you
are eminently quained TO express an opinion, and
writing any statements In detail which you may
have to make on that point. Will only observe
always considerable dif1cuty with this question
OF definition, because the terms which are In use
~ one time pass out Of use IN few years, and
but mat some question has been raised
that the definitions were too vague The same OBJ
but we have memorandum OF the Colonial once
u ss
that during the twelve years during when 1t was
In operation, Involving an interchange o. no less
the e general words Words led to no = abuse ain.
Guilty. OF impeachment" Now, something was
said as to the danger Of creating : bad
ina ss tnss exists SesWeen England and Can Canada II
any provisions were inserted In this treaty una
e 1 aa suen
visions exist. and ! entirely concur In the argu-
a n sresns ss ds e
country and her colonies But there Is another side
to this question. Always projecting, as
British trade % we are bound Af to es' io,r a. the he
peculiar position OF Canada and the relations
bound TO place no unnecessary obstacle In the
way Of the freest possible commercial relations
oee
tia the treaty establishes di1erental duty IN
favor OF the United states Is thisthat In the case
diminished at once, whereas the duty on the same
class OF English goods was only to be reduced In q
Guarantee that an idea Of that kina was not enter
tained BY the colonies. That may be. You may
say there ana n n the treaty Pos
relations OF England and Canada are not matters
which can be dealt with IN treaty made with
Gomesdp p0Ms cOaracter is es question RUss
Canada ana England. and II any Canadian Paria-
ment were hereinafter 70 seek 70 impose dl-
ferential duties, to impose o higher scale oil du.
ties upon English goods than those Imposed upon
American goods, II would be fairly within the COM
potency OF the Governor General OF Canada and
the Colonial Once TO reserve the act for cue
consideration consider M on q Her Msesty's government.
a. sns sna IS y m ,s Can
terfere, and therefore Il IS not one that Would nd
ana e Gn.ea States Certainly ye'se we DO no oon
SIDE slider tnat there y anything In the provisions OF
sn our sa system o colonial sUn
sidertng the relations between the colony
ana the mother country, would make
impose dnerential duty upon England in favor
OF the United States. regret that this matter
think It would not have been dinlcuis to remove
the MISUNDERSTANDING which Il am aware mas ex-
listed n many the details O. ns
bring before me or my noble friend can only say
that shall receive sucn communications thank
fully and shall consider them with the utmost
care. tNf
LORD CARNARvoN'S REMARKS
The Earl OF Carnarvon said:-My noble friend has
gone through the subject 80 we'll and carefully,
touching upon all the different points, that 1t Is
almost wasting my time and yours to 20 over the
ground again. ! should hke merely to say lew
words, subscribing entirely to the declaration
winch he made az the outset. 1t is not tue inten-
tion and never has been the intention of
Her Majesty's governments to agree upon
the introduction OF dlnerentlal duties;
that Is principle we recognize here.
think ought to say In justice to Canada, as rep
resentng the colonial interests here, that t is not
the view which Canada has been really inclined to
take. am not aware that In the course OF
former negotiations or legislation there has been
any real sign on the part OF Canada OF wish to
impose dinerential duties, ana certainly as re.
CARDS this particular instance II you refer to the
parliamentary papers already laid before the
house, and which are In TACT now public property,
you win see that there was no intention on the part
or Canada to attempt to receive such an advan-
tage. At page II OF this Parliamentary paper you
find II stated In the memorandum drawn up by