Letters and Journals of James, Eighth Earl of Elgin

by Earl of James Bruce Elgin

I believe that the operation of the free navigation system will be what you anticipate, to a great extent at least, and that it will tend materially to equalise prices on the two sides of the line. At the same time I do think, that there are circumstances in this country which falsify, in some degree, the deductions at which one arrives from reasoning founded on the abstract principles of political economy. One of these circumstances is the power which the farmers in the Western States, having no rents to pay, have of holding back their grain when prices do not suit them. You must have observed what hoards they poured forth when they were tempted by the famine prices of 1847; and I cannot but think that this power of hoarding, coupled with an indifferent harvest, must account for the great disparity of price, which has obtained during the course of the present year in the New York market for bonded grain, and grain for the home consumption. I fully expect, however, to see the price of Canadian grain, bonded at New York, rise, now that it can be exported to Liverpool in the New York liners, which will carry it for ballast. Nevertheless, I think that Sir Robert Peel's dictum with respect to the Repeal of the Corn Laws, on the day on which he retired last from office, when he observed that thenceforward, even when the poor suffered from the high price of bread, they would not ascribe that suffering to the fact of their bread being taxed, applies with at least equal force to the reciprocity question as affecting the Canadian farmers. For sure am I that, so long as there is a duty on their produce when it enters the States, and none on the introduction of United States produce into England, they will ascribe to this cause alone the differences of price that may occasionally rule to their disadvantage.

The history of the two measures which Lord Elgin so ardently desired, and which in the foregoing and many similar letters he so urgently pressed, was eminently characteristic of the two Legislatures, through which they had respectively to be carried.

[Sidenote: Repeal of Navigation Laws.]

In England, the repeal of restrictive Navigation Laws was contended for by thoughtful statesmen on grounds of public policy. The protective and conservative instincts of the old country, fortified by the never-absent spirit of party, resisted the change. When fairly beaten by force of argument in the House of Commons, they entrenched themselves ha the House of Lords; and it was only after a hot struggle that the Act was passed in June 1849, of which one effect was, by lowering freights, to increase the profits of the Canadian trade in wheat and timber, and thus to advance, in a very important degree, the commercial prosperity of the colony.

[Sidenote: Reciprocity Treaty.]

The delays which retarded the settlement of the Reciprocity Treaty were due to causes of another kind. The difficulty was to induce the American Congress to pay any attention at all to the subject. In the vast multiplicity of matters with which that Assembly has to deal, it is said that no cause which does not appeal strongly to a national sentiment, or at least to some party feeling, has a chance of obtaining a hearing, unless it is taken up systematically by 'organizers' outside the House. The Reciprocity Bill was not a measure about which any national or even party feeling could be aroused. It was one which required much study to understand its bearings, and which would affect different interests in the country in different ways. It stood, therefore, especially in need of the aid of professional organizers; a kind of aid of which it was of course impossible that either the British or the Canadian Government should avail itself. Session after session the Bill was proposed, scarcely debated, and set aside. At last, in 1854, after the negotiations had dragged on wearily for more than six years, Lord Elgin himself was sent to Washington in the hope—'a forlorn hope,' as it seemed to those who sent him—of bringing the matter to a successful issue. It was his first essay in diplomacy, but made under circumstances unusually favourable. He was personally popular with the Americans, towards whom he had always entertained and shown a most friendly feeling. They appreciated, moreover, better perhaps than it was appreciated at home, the consummate ability, as well as the rare strength of character, which he had displayed in the government of Canada; and the prestige thus attaching to his name, joined to the influence of his presence, and his courtesy and bonhomie, enabled him in a few days to smooth all difficulties, and change apathy into enthusiasm. Within a few weeks from the time of his landing he had agreed with Mr. Marcy upon the terms of a Treaty of Reciprocity, which soon afterwards received the sanction of all the Governments concerned.

The main concessions made by the Provinces to the United States in this treaty were, (1) the removal of duties on the introduction, for consumption in the Provinces, of certain products of the States; (2) the admission of citizens of that country to the enjoyment of the in-shore sea-fishery; (3) the opening-up to their vessels of the St. Lawrence and canals pertaining thereto.

A good deal of misconception prevailed at the time as to the amount of the concession made under the second head. The popular impression on this point was, that a gigantic monopoly was about to be surrendered; but this was far from being the case. The citizens of the United States had already, under the Convention of 1818, access to the most important cod-fisheries on the British coasts. The new treaty maintained in favour of British subjects the monopoly of the river and freshwater fisheries; and the concession which it made to the citizens of the United States amounted in substance to this, that it admitted them to a legal participation in the mackerel and herring fisheries, from illegal encroachments on which it had been found, after the experience of many years, practically impossible to exclude them.[3]

The duration of the Treaty was limited to ten years, and has not been extended; but it is not too much to hope that it has had some effect in engendering feelings of friendliness, and of community of interest, which may long outlast itself.

[Sidenote: Views of Government.]