TARIFFS AND TRADE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7446, 22 May 1911, Page 7

TARIFFS AND TRADE

RECIPROCITY TERMS DISCUSSION ON CANADIAN-AME-RICAN AGREEMENT. A CRUMBLING CUSTOMS WALL. By Telegraph— Press Association—Copyright LONDON, May 19. In the House of Lords the Earl of Selborno raised a debate ou tho Ame-rican-Canadian Reciprocity Agreement. Ho said it was the first time a part of tho Empire had obtained better terms from a foreign couhtry than Britain and tho rest of tho Empire. The precedent was capable of largo extension, and if it became general it was difficult to soo how the Imperial system was going to work. Lord Selborno criticised the British Government’s supinenoss in tho matter, and said tho only escape from tho difficulties ahead was by the adoption of a system of Imperial preference with joint Imperial negotiations with foreign countries. Lord Lucas, Under-Secretary for the Colonies, replied that the Government was not alarmed at the crumbling of the American-Canadian tariff wall. It was impossible for Britain to interfere without infringing on Canada’s fiscal liberty. Ho agreed that Britain was entitled to the same treatment as Canada, and said that tho British Foreign Office did not accept the American interpretation of the most-favoured-nation clause. Viscount Haldane, Secretary of State for War, said the enlargement of Canada’s trade with tho United States would increase tho markets for British goods. He added: “We regard preference as an utterly unscientific policy.” CANADA AND JAPAN PROPOSED RENEWAL OF TRADE . AGREEMENT. OTTAWA, May 19. During a discussion in tho Canadian Parliament of a resolution for extension of the trade agreement with Japan for two years, the Opposition contended that renewal would not be beneficial. Opposition members also demanded the prohibition of Japanese immigration. AUSTRALIAN TARIFF .

QUESTION OF REVISION REICE 1 VINO. ATTENTION. MELBOURNE, May 20. The question of a revision of the tariff is still unsettled. The Minister of Customs, Mr Tudor, has circularised the manufacturers with the view of determining if a revision is necessary. The response, however, is unsatisfactory.