HC Deb 12 November 1830 vol 1 cc471-84

On the Motion of Mr. Herries the report on the Bill regulating the trade of America with British possessions was brought up.

Mr. Whitmore

said, that by this Bill, the old principle of protection, which he had hoped had been exploded, was renewed. When he looked at the duties on articles imported from North America and the United States, he saw clearly what the object and intention was. He could not look at this as at all a measure of policy, inasmuch as the effect would be to give a misdirection to capital—to raise up certain interests which ought to be left to their own resources, and which, on some future occasion, we should again be called upon to protect. All these duties were for the benefit of the West-Indies, but opportunities would occur for their consideration at a future period. The whole system was one of error, which ought not to be perpetuated, as it would ever afford a strong ground of objection. The entire Colonial system required the most minute attention, as there was nothing more productive of expense, exclusive of the shackles it imposed upon commerce. He would not then occupy the time of the House further, but he must enter his protest against the whole proceeding.

The Resolutions were read, and on the question that the first Resolution be read a second time,

Mr. Keith Douglas

contended, that the present schedule bestowed no boon upon the West-India interests, for that, before 1825, the trade between the Colonies and America was not incumbered with any duty, and the Colonies would not be better off now than before that year. In fact, the duties laid on by Lord Goderich were less than those now proposed. In justice to the colonists, some protection ought to be afforded to the West Indies, which were subject to duties, not for their benefit, but for the benefit of the Crown, and they were imposed, just as suited, the political views of the mother country. Justice should be done to all parties, and without due protection to the West Indies gross injustice would be rendered.

Mr. Warburton

observed, that scarcely had his hon. friend uttered his prediction, relative to the West-Indies, than it was fulfilled by the Representative of that interest who had just spoken. He, however, in the name of the people of England, must protest against any duty upon sugar, which was an article of the first necessity. Were the West-India interest not satisfied with protecting duties to the amount of a million and a half, but they must require fresh imposts in addition? The Colonies were most expensive encumbrances, and there was no end to the outlay required in their favour, for, in addition to all these duties, they would have fortifications, canals, &c. to provide for.

Mr. Jephson

also protested against the present Colonial system.

Mr. Herries

said, that he did not consider it necessary to go again over the ground which he had so recently passed, by repeating the remarks which, on the introduction of the measure, he felt it his duty to offer to the House. The proposed schedule had been treated, although it contained a plan, more liberal than had previously existed, as if it were a departure from the principles of what was usually termed free-trade. The only objection he had heard to it related to the principle of the Bill; and if he rightly comprehended the objection, the measure had been as completely misunderstood, as could well be conceived. It had been stated, that the schedule now introduced by Government, was an innovation on the recognised system. Such was not the case. The object of the measure was not to impose, for the first time, the duties which the schedule contained. It was the sequence of an amicable termination to a long controversy; and the arrangement had been concluded on terms which involved no departure from those principles (either in respect of our trade, or of our colonial possessions) which his Majesty's Government professed. The Ministers had not acted in opposition to the abstract principles of free-trade, but they were not bound to follow them so closely as to lead to consequences of an injurious character. He knew nothing so dangerous as that sort of philosophy which called for the unqualified adoption of those principles. If he were accused of not acting up to general abstract principles, to that accusation he pleaded guilty. Abstract principles might be good in themselves, but nothing was more likely to plunge a country into danger and difficulty than to legislate on them without reference to the state and relations of the country. It was the duty of every statesman, however unexceptionable such principles might be, to regulate the application of them according to circumstances, and not, as was to be inferred from the hon. member for Bridport's doctrine, that circumstances, and expediency, and regard to long-established usages and interests, were all to be overlooked, or forced to bend in obedience to abstract principles. The general rule which his predecessors in office had acted upon, and which he purposed following, had been gradually to relax protecting duties; a rule to be departed from only when a departure should appear advantageous to the country. In 1822, Lord Goderich, then President of the Board of Trade, for the first time deviated from the ancient system, and laid down a new plan, by which our trade was thrown open, under certain restrictions. It was not then, nor could it justly be pretended now, that we ought to proceed upon principles adverse to separate interests, and embracing the good of the whole human race. The inhabitants of the earth did not yet form one family; and so long as they remained distinct nations, each pursuing its separate and independent interest, so long would it be the duty of the Legislature and Government of this country to refuse to foreign nations, the privileges of trading with our colonies upon the same terms as ourselves. He wished, however, to guard himself from its being understood that he desired to depart from those abstract principles of free-trade, any further than was demanded by a fair and rational attention to circumstances of present expediency. He was for affording all the relaxation that could safely be granted; and it was only when concession became dangerous, that he would stop short. Hon. Members were in error when they supposed that the schedule of duties was framed with a view to benefit the West-India interest, or any other interest than that of the empire at large. It was the result, as he had, on a former occasion explained, of the very satisfactory conclusion of a long and difficult controversy, involving many disputed points between this country and the United States, and it did not propose to effect more than to open the trade of our West-India colonies to America. Concessions had been made by the United States, which previously had been refused, and a participation in the trade of our western colonies had been granted them, under certain restrictions. Those concessions we were bound to carry into effect, by some such plan as that which he had introduced to the House. Under the restrictions laid down in this Bill, our northern colonies and the United States were permitted to trade with the West-Indies. It was no innovation on our commercial policy, the principle being, as nearly as possible, the same, deviating only according to existing circumstances, as that established by Lord Goderich, in 1822, and confirmed by the late Mr. Huskisson, whose name must be allowed to be an authority in such matters, in 1825. The conduct of the American government in refusing the terms offered to them in that year, compelled the British Government to issue the order which prohibited a direct communication between the United States and the West-Indies. The direct intercourse between the two countries was thus broken off, while, by the Act of 1825, the circuitous intercourse was established. After a lapse of time, circumstances indeed arose, which induced a hope that the line of conduct which had been adopted by the American government would be changed; but if the Government had suffered the interests of its colonies to have been again injured, it would not have acted with that strict regard to the welfare of the people in favour of which it had always manifested a strong disposition. After all the arguments he had heard, and after all the attention he had been able to bestow upon the subject, he did not think that a more beneficial course could have been selected. It had been said, that it should be the endeavour of the Government, when it imposed a tax, that such tax should yield a benefit to the country. That was the principle the Government was endeavouring in this case to act upon. The advantage apparently given to the United States was not meant for them alone, but would be divided with this country. His hon. friend who appeared as the Representative for the West-India interest, had only alluded to a few articles in the schedule, by which he thought the West-India interest would be injured; but whilst he carefully pointed out the part calculated to create a slight diminution of gain, he forgot the advantages that would be derived from the other parts of the schedule. The hon. member for Bridport had questioned the mark of favour which, he said, had been given to the West-India proprietors. He must beg leave not to make that a question of debate at present, as the time for the discussion of the sugar-duties would arrive in due season. But if the House were to deal with the Canadians by the rule which some hon. Members laid down, changing the favoured position in which they now stood, they would immediately say, "Oh, you are breaking through your promise." In his opinion, the measure adopted would most conduce to a general advantage; for when duties were imposed, the probability was, that the Minister who did not please either of two parties, had selected that which would prove the best. The advantages promised by the present arrangement to both countries, would no doubt be considerable, and therefore he trusted that the House would concur in the resolution.

Sir Henry Parnell

said, he felt it right to raise his voice against the principle of the right hon. Gentleman's measure. He could not view it in any other light than as a revival of a system prejudicial to the country. The country was loaded with protecting duties on protecting duties, and monopolies on monopolies, and distressed, by the millions of money taken out of the pockets of the people, and he could not but feel it to be his duty to take steps to prevent as far as was in his power, the Minister from departing from those principles of commercial policy, which led to the abrogation of monopoly and protecting duties. The right hon. Gentleman called upon the House to retrace its steps with regard to free-trade; and to do what? Why, actually to impose a tax on the raw materials of industry. Was that the way the right hon. Gentleman proposed to carry into practical effect the great guiding principle which the House was bound to maintain—the interest of the empire at large? From the schedule before the House, it appeared that an additional duty was to be imposed on raw materials entering the West-Indies; and as a consequence, the cost of the production of sugar, the West-Indian staple commodity, would be increased, and that increase must act either as a diminution of the planter's profits, or raise the price of sugar to the consumer: the latter would, as the House knew, be the actual effect. On either supposition, could the right hon. Gentleman pretend to say, that the interest of the public at large was consulted? The whole measure of the right hon. Gentleman was so objectionable, that he would move, by way of amendment to its principle, that the duty on flour be omitted. That was not the only objectionable point in the right hon. Gentleman's proposition; but he fixed on it as a ready mode of marking disapprobation of the principles of commercial policy to which Ministers were attempting to induce the House to retrograde. He hoped the House would persevere in the policy on which it had hitherto acted, and diminish the protecting duties. The right hon. Gentleman appeared not to know what the real principle of the policy of this country should be. He would beg leave to tell him, that if he proposed to make a change in our commercial policy, that it would be attended with the most prejudicial consequences. The Legislature should do that which alone was for the benefit of the country, and the measure of the right hon. Gentleman would produce a different effect. It would most certainly sacrifice the commercial interest of this country. It was going back to a system which science, and philosophy, and practical good sense, had united to condemn and get rid of. It was clearly prohibitory, and he would make every endeavour to oppose it. Not only was it objectionable in principle, in practice it would also operate as a tax on the price of various articles brought from our other colonies to the West-Indies. The right hon. Gentleman had adopted a great error concerning our colonial policy. If any attempt were made on the renewal of the East-India Charter, for the reduction of the duty on East-India sugar, it would be met by the observation, that the West-Indians could not afford to sell their sugar so cheap, because the American corn and flour, with which they feed their slaves, were taxed by Government. It was under the expectation that these taxes would be soon reduced, that the House consented to the protecting duties of 1825, and it was in consequence of the foolish conduct of our own Government, that the intercourse between the United States and our West-Indian colonies had been cut off. It appeared from a paper printed last year, that for an average number of years pre- vious to the American Non-intercourse Act, the West-Indian colonies were yearly in the habit of exporting to the United States 24,000 hogsheads of sugar, 18,900 puncheons of rum, 1,200,000 lbs. of coffee, and 2,400,000 lbs. of molasses. The produce of these colonies, sent indirectly to the United States, was now comparatively trifling. The measures, therefore, of the Government almost annihilated the intercourse between the West-Indian Islands and the United States. The Ministers in the first instance, compelled the Americans to levy duties on our commodities; and when Ministers attempted to retaliate, they destroyed our own trade. He would remind the House that the duties on the import of American articles into the West-Indian colonies caused the United States to increase the amount of the duties in their tariff. The House would not do its duty to the country if it did not compel Ministers to abandon this measure, and in the hope that it would, he should persist in his Amendment, being also persuaded that the measure of the right hon. Gentleman would be injurious both to the colonies and the mother country, and would add to the general dissatisfaction.

Mr. Courtenay

said, it was in the full recollection of the observation, that he who commences with asserting a principle generally concludes with supporting an exception, that he declaring himself an advocate of free-trade, stood up in support of the measure before the House. The principle on which it was founded was in perfect accordance with the principles of commercial policy pursued for the last few years by this country. The hon. Baronet treated the present measure as if it consisted in increasing the protecting duties from a low to a high rate. But what were the circumstances of the case? At present there was a state of positive prohibition, and it was proposed, in the place of this system, to adopt, in the first instance, a scale of high protecting duties, which it would be possible to lower as circumstances required. Nothing would induce him to support the permanent imposition of protecting duties in any branch of trade or manufacture; but he defended this measure, because a transition from a state of prohibition to one of freedom ought to be gradual. The adoption of protecting duties was for a time necessary for the protection of those interests which had grown up under a state of prohibition. He had formerly said in the House, that the advocates of free-trade did not make sufficient allowance for effecting this transition. Under the prohibition, interests grew up which it would not be consistent with justice suddenly to abandon. The hon. Baronet must surely be aware of the great advances made in our North American colonies, by the commercial and shipping interests, in internal prosperity; which were to be attributed principally to the cessation of the intercourse with the United States. The transition from a state of prohibition to one of perfect freedom, would lead to the immediate destruction of the interests of our North American colonies, which the duties imposed by this measure were calculated to avert. The measure would also be beneficial to the West-India colonies, by carrying the produce of our northern colonies to compete with that of the United States in their markets. The State had also been benefitted by the exertions made by the northern colonies to furnish the West-Indies, as they had enabled us to say to the Americans, "We are perfectly independent of you, and are perfectly able to supply our own colonies without your assistance." The hon. Baronet stated, that the present scale of duties was higher than the former, but he forgot that the circumstances under which they were imposed were very different from the present. The principles now acted on were adopted by previous Governments of 1822 and 1825.He would read an extract from a speech delivered by Lord Goderich, who was then at the head of the department to which he belonged. That noble Lord said, in a speech delivered April 1st, 1822,—"Every one knows that the staple articles of produce in the latter are similar to those of the United States; and recent circumstances, arising out of our restrictions on the one hand, and retaliatory restrictions by the United States on the other, have led to a much more extended import of corn, flour, and lumber from Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, than otherwise would have taken place. This trade will necessarily be more or less affected by the proposed changes; and I confess that I do feel that our North American colonists have strong claims upon us for a favourable consideration of their peculiar interests. Speaking the same language, living under the same laws as ourselves, distinguished by the same characteristic traits as their European brethren, they have secured, by their attachment to their mother-country, a title to her gratitude and protection. That protection can, in this instance, be afforded to them in no other way than by imposing a moderate duty upon the importation into the West-Indies of those foreign articles, such as grain, flour, and lumber, which are equally the production of our own dominions. I shall not now trouble the Committee by going into any details upon this part of the subject, further than to state, that the duties should be so moderately calculated, and so justly apportioned, as not to deprive the people of the United States of their fair proportion of this necessary supply, or seriously to enhance the price to the consumer."* The present measure was not in opposition to the opinions and conduct of Mr. Huskisson, when President of the Board of Trade. Among the papers of that office he had lately found a valuable minute, which he would read to the House, and from which it would appear that the present measure was not opposed to the system recommended by him. "Our general and first principle is to tender to all nations, alike and indiscriminately, equal facilities of commerce and navigation, and equal inducements to visit the ports of this country with their merchandise, either for our own consumption, or in the way of transit (entrepôxt) to other parts of the world. In furtherance of this principle (with the single exception of wine from Portugal, under a specific and very ancient treaty), we have proceeded: first, to abolish all discriminating duties affecting differently the like productions of foreign countries, and, in lieu thereof, to establish one uniform tariff for the whole; secondly, to reduce that tariff to the lowest degree consistent in each particular article with the two legitimate objects of all duties; either the collection of the necessary public revenue, or the protection absolutely requisite for the maintenance of our own internal industry." He must observe, that the protecting duties now substituted for prohibition, were not to be considered as permanent, but might be reduced from time to time, as the interests of the country required, or as circumstances rendered necessary. There were some articles of supply to the West-Indies admitted free of all duty, because they were not furnished by or through our northern *Hansard's Parl. Debates, vol. vi. New Series, p. 1419–20. colonies. On the whole he was satisfied, advocate as he was for freedom of trade, that he ought to support the present resolution.

Mr. Hume

was at a loss to understand the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, who stated that he was a supporter of the principles of free-trade, and at the same time argued in favour of a system of protecting duties. The measure would add to the price of every article imported into our colonies from either the Canadas or the United States, and would not be of the least benefit to any one. So far from being a benefit to the West-Indian colonies, it would be a great curse, as it would materially increase the price of their food, and Great Britain would have to pay an increased sum for the sugar and for every article imported into this country from the West-Indies. If the right hon. Gentleman really wished to have a scale of duties which might be gradually reduced, he should have commenced at a duty of 5s. a barrel on American flour, instead of 6s., as he had proposed. The right hon. Gentleman called himself an advocate for the principles of free-trade, and what was his measure? Why, to increase the protecting duty on American flour from 5s. to 6s. a barrel, and to increase the duty on shingles from 6s. to 10s. a thousand. When the time came for taking the East-Indian duties into consideration, this protecting duty would be urged as an argument against the reduction of them. The American tariff was entirely the consequence of the conduct of Government. A right hon. Gentleman attempted to bully the Americans, but found himself mistaken, and the Government had now been glad to admit them into the trade again on nearly the former terms. The most judicious policy for this country, would be, to diminish duties gradually, until at last it might be expedient to establish an unrestricted intercourse. The Americans were enabled to sell timber and shingles to our West-Indian colonists, at a much lower rate than the people of our North American colonies; and it was a folly to put duties on for a purpose which never could be attained; namely, entirely to exclude articles of American produce from our colonies. As a matter of course, whatever tax was imposed on a commodity; must fall upon the consumer. Thus we should have to pay, in the increased price of our sugar, the whole amount of the duty i of the right hon. Gentleman. The House was entitled to ask two things of his Majesty's Government. In the first place, that the duty on American flour should not be higher than it was before; and, in the second place, that the amount of duty should decrease one-fourth every year, until the whole was extinct, when the trade might be thrown open. Unless Ministers would consent to some modification of this kind, when the Bill went into a committee he should propose that it be restricted to a period of five years. If the people of the North American colonies had embarked capital in judiciously in any concern, they had no right to complain of the Parliament, but of the Government which induced them to enter into speculations, on the faith of keeping up a system and restrictions which never could be maintained; that, however, would not be the first occasion in which the colonists had had reason to complain of the injudicious interference of Ministers. He should support the Amendment of his hon. friend; but he would also most certainly move the Amendment of which he had given notice on the bringing up the Report.

Mr. Robinson

observed, it was not clear to him that those hon. Members were right who advocated what they called the principles of free trade, nor was he satisfied that those who so strenuously argued in favour of that system, understood the subject better than their opponents. It might appear better to the hon. member for Middlesex and the hon. member for Bridgnorth, that these principles should be carried into execution, but he doubted whether the result would be beneficial. At any rate those hon. Members were not justified in arrogating to their side of the question all the good sense of the House. They so eulogized the advocates of free trade, and designated them so repeatedly as enlightened, that it appeared as if they meant to insinuate that all who opposed those principles were ignorant and stupid. The history of past ages would not warrant them in forming such a conclusion. In the United States of America—a country which was, in fact, treading in our footsteps (and it was not improbable that in the course of a few ages, she would attain an eminence and rank among nations equal to any on record) in that country the principle had not been acted upon to the extent stated by hon. Members. Many of the most eminent men of America had been the advocates of restriction; and the hon. member for Bridgnorth must excuse him if lie preferred the authority of a Washington, of a Jefferson, a Madison, and a Munro, to his. Ail these distinguished men advocated the principle of protection to trade, and, in some cases, even of prohibition. Notwithstanding this, there were persons who asserted that the trade of America was free, while that of Great Britain was shackled and restricted. That, however, was not the fact. The Americans, indeed, began with a principle of free trade, but they afterwards adopted a system of protecting duties. He saw no objection to admitting the Americans or other nations to trade with our colonies, but it would be proper to put on a protecting duty in favour of our own commerce, and especially for our shipping interests, as he did not comprehend the use of keeping colonies, and throwing them open to foreign nations to trade on an equal footing. If, however, his opinion could be shown to be wrong, he should be glad to be convinced of his error; but at present he was sincere in supporting the opinion he had announced. The hon. member for Middlesex stated, that he could not approve of the continuance of the protecting duties in favour of the import of our own colonial produce into the West-Indian colonies; but important interests had recently grown up in those colonies, which would be materially injured by a sudden change. He was an advocate for free trade, at least in principle, as well as the hon. Member, but he objected to acting partially on the principle; for until it was established in every instance, including corn, he could not agree to its application to only a few articles. His objection to free trade was, that it was not universal; and as long as that was the case we ought to prefer our own colonies to the United States. The hon. Baronet who was an able advocate of the principle should induce the Government to establish a free-trade in corn. He had read that hon. Baronet's book with considerable satisfaction, but with all possible deference for his talents, he could not think the measures pursued in regulating the intercourse between the United States and our colonies were deserving of the character given of them for they had been attended with great benefit to our shipping interests. The hon. Baronet stated that trade between the United States and our West- Indian colonies was carried on to a large amount previous to the prohibition, but that it has been almost destroyed in consequence of that. He must observe, however, that the trade was now carried on between our North American and West-Indian colonies, which was formerly carried on between the latter and the United States. If it be contended that the Legislature is bound to look to particular interests, as well as those great principles and effects which may be felt throughout the whole empire—it must be satisfactory to it to know that the shipping interest, one of the most important of the empire had been materially benefitted by these restrictions, and particularly the colonial shipping. Previous to the American Non-intercourse Act, only 36,000 tons of shipping were employed in the trade between the North American and West-Indian colonies; but since the passing of that Act, the average amounted to 90,000. That was an important point for consideration. Since that time, also, the trade of our West-Indian colonies with the mother country had increased to such an important extent, that it was a question of policy whether any alteration should be made. In 1816, the tonnage of the American vessels trading to our West-Indian colonies was 102,000, while that of England engaged in the same trade was 111,349, showing a balance, in favour of England, of 9,000 tons. In the course of a short time, the number of English ships engaged in this trade so declined, that, instead of there being a balance in our favour, there was a falling-off of 13,000 tons, while the tonnage of the American shipping increased to 161,829 tons. Previous to the renewal of the restrictions, the tonnage of the American vessels engaged in this trade exceeded that of the English vessels by 60,000 tons; but subsequent to the restrictions, the colonial shipping had very much increased. It was comparatively of little importance, whether the West-Indian colonies had to pay a shilling or two a thousand more for their shingles, provided so important an interest as that of the shipping could be so materially assisted. The former was a matter of trifling moment, in comparison with the latter. We were bound to protect our colonies as long as we kept them, which we never could do if we placed foreign States on the same footing as ourselves. Mr. Addington, the British minister to the United States, in a letter to Mr. Canning, when Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in 1827, gave it as his opinion, that but for the operation of our prohibitory system, by which American corn was excluded from our market, the high duties would never have been imposed on English commodities. That Gentleman stated that, had it not been for our corn-laws, the Americans would have freely admitted our manufactures into their markets. He was an advocate for a liberal commercial policy, but we ought to commence with the raw material, including corn. He considered the question respecting the scale of duties as of small importance in comparison with finding a market for the produce of our North American colonies. He wished to ask hon. Members whether they thought that, as a trade in timber, &c, to the West-Indian colonies had been commenced from the Canadas and Nova Scotia, and was now in a thriving state, it was likely to continue if the Americans were allowed to compete with our colonists on an equal footing. He doubted if we were prepared to abandon all our colonies, and thought, therefore, that our great object should be to protect and cherish our own colonies and shipping.

Mr. Herries explained,

that there would be in every sense a diminution of duty. For instance, there was formerly a duty of 1s. on flour that came from our northern colonies to the southern.

The schedule having been read a second time,

Sir Henry Parnell moved, that the duty of 1s. 2d. the bushel imposed on wheat be reduced to 1s.

The House divided; for the Amendment 39; Against it 136—Majority 97.

Resolution agreed to and Bill ordered to be brought in.

List of the Minority.
Adeane, H. J. Killeen, Lord
Althorp, Viscount Kennedy, T. F.
Bunbury, Sir H. Lumley, Saville
Colborne, R. Leader, N. T.
Chapman, — Lambert, J. S.
Dawson, Alex. Morrison, John
Douglas, Keith Marshall, William
Evans, William Malcolm, N.
Fergusson, Sir Ronald Martin, John
Grant, Right Hon. C. Marryatt, Joseph
Gisborne, Thomas Macnamara, Major
Jephson, C. D. O. O'Farrell, More
O'Connell, Daniel Warburton, H.
Palmer, Fysche Wyse, Thomas
Palmerston, Viscount Wood, John
Pendarvis, E. Whitmore, W.
Phillips, G. R. Wrightson, W. B.
Rice, Spring Wynn, Right Hon. C.
Strutt, Edward TELLERS.
Smith, Vernon Parnell, Sir H.
Wayland, — Hume, Joseph.*

*The following is the Schedule mentioned in the Debate, and the Resolution agreed to by the House.—Resolved: That in lieu of the duties now payable, the following duties be levied and charged on certain articles of provisions, and of wood, and of lumber, not being of the growth, or production, or manufacture, of the United Kingdom, nor of any British possession, imported or brought by sea or by inland carriage, or navigation, into the several British possessions in America, viz. Imported or brought into the British possessions on the Continent of South America, or in the West Indies, the Bahama and Bermuda Islands included, viz.

£ s. d.
Provisions, viz.
— Wheat, the bushel 0 1 2
—imported from the Northern Colonies Duty free
—Wheat Flour, the barrel 0 6 0
— imported from the Northern Colonies Duty free
—Bread or biscuit Duty free
— Flour or meal, not of wheat Duty free
— Peas, beans, rye, calavances, oats, barley, Indian corn do.
— Rice do.
— Live stock Duty free
Lumber, viz.
— Shingles not being more than 12 inches in length, the 1,000 0 10 6
—imported from the Northern Colonies Duty free
—being more than 12 inches in length, the 1,000 1 1 0
—imported from the Northern Colonies Duty free
— Staves and headings, the 1,000 00 l8 9
—imported from the Northern Colonies Duty free
— Wood hoops, the 1,000 0 7 10
—imported from the Northern Colonies Duty free
—Other wood and lumber, the 1,000 feet, of 1 inch thick 1 11 6
— imported from the Northern Colonies Duty free
Imported, or brought into British possessions in North America, viz.
Provisions, viz.
Wheat flour, the barrel 0 5 0
may be warehoused without payment of duty, for exportation to the Southern Colonies.
Wheat Duty free
Bread or biscuit Duty free