CUSTOMS ACTS—THE TARIFF — BACON. (Hansard, 25 May 1842)

Mr. Miles
said, he wished to direct the attention of the House to the effect of a differential duty upon hams between the colonies and the United States. They might look for a great importation of salt meat from the United States, and in that case, coming by New Orleans, the freight would be 1s. 6d. and the duty 8s. per cwt., making altogether 9s. 6d.; if the Americans, however, wished to import it through the Canadas, the freight would be 4s. 1d. and the duty 2s. 6d., making altogether 6s. 7d. per cwt. In the case of bacon and hams, the duty, if taken directly from America, would be 14s.; if from the Canadas only 3s. 6d.; the same freight would be applicable whether taken by the river to New Orleans or down Lake Erie. So a hundred weight 739 of hams, if sent to New Orleans, would pay 1s. 6d. freight and 14s. duty, altogether 15s. 6d. If, however, sent through the canal and by Lake Erie, it would be 4s. freight, and 3s. 6c?. duty, making altogether 7s. 6d., so there would be a difference of 8s. in favour of transporting through the Canadas rather than by the natural channel. He had risen merely to submit this to the House: he thought it worthy the attention of the right hon. Baronet, as relating to the subject of differential duties.

§ Sir R. Peel
said, that of the two doctrines announced by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Ho wick) and by an hon. Gentleman last night, the one for imposing no new differential duties on the productions of the colonies when imported into this country—the other, of placing the colonies in this respect on a footing with the rest of the empire, as if an integral portion of it—he certainly preferred the latter. With respect to the item now under discussion, he thought that, considering the difficulty of transit, except at one part of the year, from the Western States to Canada, heavy goods would not be much carried to evade the duty.

§ Mr. Labouchere
said, this was true of cattle, but not of provisions; for of many of the Western States the, St. Lawrence was the natural outlet, and it was of great political importance to this country so to keep it. There was a commercial body in Canada as well as an agricultural one, whose interests ought to be attended to. He considered the boon which was bestowed would be diminished if the Government refused to allow the importation of provisions across the borders into Canada from America. By allowing that importation provisions might come into this country at a lower rate, and it would have a tendency to increase the commercial relations between both.

§ Mr. Gladstone
said, the same means would be adopted for the prevention of fraud in the importation of provisions into this country from America through Canada as were now used to guard against fraud with respect to the importation of American flour.

§ Viscount Howick
said, he thought her Majesty's Government ought to impose a duty on all bacon introduced into Canada from the United States of America. If they adopted the principle of the differential duties, they must introduce what 740 was really United States bacon, under cover of being Canadian bacon, at a lower rate of duty than if it came by its natural channel. Instead of fixing a duty, as now proposed, of 14s. on the bacon of foreign countries, and 3s. 6d. on that of the colonies, he would ask, whether it would not be more reasonable to adopt a lower and intermediate rate of duty, which would be applicable to all bacon. He did not wish to go back to the discussion of the general question of differential duty, but he must say, that he believed it to be impossible to place our colonies on the same footing as English counties. The fair way would be to impose the same rate of duty upon articles, come from what country they might, and not. give the colonies any advantages by a false principle of differential duty.