§ Mr. REMNANTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the nature of the general reciprocity scheme referred to in Mr. Bryce's despatch of 10th January, 1911 [Cd. 5523, No. 5]; does No. 5 represent the whole despatch from Mr. Bryce on 10th March, 1911; do the words general reciprocity scheme refer to the proposal for Free Trade in everything which President Taft stated at Atalanta on 10th March he had instructed his representatives to offer to the Canadian Government; at what date did Mr. Bryce communicate this proposal to His Majesty's Government and seek their instructions as to the line of action he was to take in regard to it; what was the nature of the 1491 communication Mr. Bryce had from Canadian Ministers; and what were the difficulties incident to the adoption of this general reciprocity scheme which still appeared serious at the date of Mr. Bryce's despatch?
§ Sir E. GREYNo. 5 is not the whole despatch from Mr. Bryce, but the part omitted referred to a different matter. The nature of the general reciprocity referred to is presumably reciprocity in manufactured goods, as well as in natural products; but I may add that, as has been stated by the Canadian Minister of Finance, the Canadian Government were not prepared to undertake to have Free Trade in manufactures generally. With regard to President Taft's speech at Atalanta, I would refer to my reply to the hon. Member of the 23rd instant. Generally speaking, I should like to say that I cannot make statements about difficulties affecting Canadian interests which Canadian Ministers may have anticipated in the course of the negotiations, and expressed to Mr. Bryce. To do so would obviously destroy the confidence which exists between Canadian Ministers and His Majesty's Government.
§ Mr. REMNANTIn the negotiations between Canadian and United States Ministers was a request made that British imports into the United States should be treated on the same terms as Canadian?
§ Sir E. GREYI must ask for notice of that question.