IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) /. Mf ^^ i^M 1.0 I.I '• I. 125 i.8 1.25 1.4 ill 1.6 — — •■ lilll — ^ 6" ► V] y] cm/ o. / 6^: //a Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ) CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes tachniquas at bibliographiquas The tot The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ n n Couverture endommag^e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pellicul^e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes giographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) j I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ D Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autre signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". IVIaps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included In one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableeux, etc., peuvent Atre fllm6s A des taux de reduction diffArents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seui clichA, 11 est fiim« A partir da Tangle supArleur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'Images nAcessaira. Les diagrammas suivants iliustrant le m6thode. 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 '1 f o r V ,' BY AUTHORITY. THE CANADA COEN BILL. n:uf,/ LORD STAlfLEt^H IN THE HO;^BE 0? COMMONS, ON FRIDAY, MAY 19. SECOND EDITION. Price 2d. ; senLmct free/or Zd. ; 100 /w distribution 12s. Ptddished by W. E.Pamt^: Church Sf State Gazette Office, M% Strand. Lord STANLEY rose and, spoke to the following effect : — Sir, under ordinary circumstances I. should have requested the indulgence of the house in order to enable you at once to leave the .chair,, and to permit me to make in Committee tlie statement with which it is my duty, on the part of the Government, to preface the resolutions which I; sl'all eventually have to propose. But the motion of Avhich the right hon. gentleman the member for Taunton has given notice is one which, according to the rules of the house, cannot be submitted when , the liouse has resolved itself into committee ; and I therefore deem it more satisfactory .to the house, and more fair towards the right hon. gentle- man,. that I should give him the opportunity, of moving his amendment after he shfeU.have heard my statement, rather than leave him lo pro- pose it without any previous explanation on our part as to pur objects and intentions::. (Hear, hear). And, Sir, I must confess that I am the more deisirous of giving such an explanation, and have thought it desirable, to place on record the grounds and motives of the Govern- ment, more fully than is usual in a merely preliminary resolution, on account of the very general misapprehensions which exist, and the gross misrepresentations which have been made with regiard to the intent and scope of our measure— misapprehensions which have been probably increased by the. sensitive condition of the agricultural interest at this moment, which have produced, and, no dbubt^ may produce a veryj unfavourable impression, but which I will Jaindertake to show are , merely the consequence of misunderstanding. (Hear, hear). Sir, with respect to this matter, I charge no one with misrepresentation; but at lea§t I am not in error in saying that on both sides of this house the objects of this measure have been much exaggerated ; that, on the one side, the most exaggerated expectations ,have been raised as to its! probable benefit to the consumer-^and that, on the other side, a most exaggerated apprehension as to its probable effect on the agriculturist, has been widely and generally entertained. •I am aware, Sir, of the difficulties I must encounter in dispelling these fears. I am aware that the arguments I may use in addressing myself to the one side of the house will probably deprive me of some support from the other. Her Majesty's Government are, in fact, open to a sort of cross fire, and I feel that there is hardly any argument which I can address to one party which will not deprive me of some support fr»r» ,»«w,-.v.r.i.c «r. tho r>i-iior siflp. ( \ laiich^. But be tliis as it mavt I am delennined to avail myself of »o consideratipnaof tempoi^ftry ad- F5oD vi n vantage. (Hear, hear). I shall use no trick to obtain votes. I shall use no artifice to pervert the real facU ; I shall not seek to exaggerate ; on the cmitrary, it will be my object to diminish appreliension ; and, to prove my sincerity, I will at once frankly acknowledge, that if I did not feci myself bound by a sense of duty— if it were not for the implied promisewhich was last session held out to the Legislature of Canada— and for the obligation which rests on the Government to fulfil that promise to the best of its ability, I should consider the measure I mean to stibtnit —in reference to the immediate interests of this country— in reference to the interests of the consumer as well as of the producer— of such slight and trivial importance (loud Opposition cries of " Hear, hear"), that, knowing as I do the impolicy and inconvenience of disturbing a great settlement, and knowing too well what are the sensitive feelings of the agriculturists at this particular time— if it were not that we were bound by faith and honour, I should have considered the mea- sure I am about to submit of such comparatively trivial import, that I would not have interfered with that interest by asking you to re- open the question of the Corn Law for the purpose of assenting to a bill of a scope so limited and so confined. (Ironical cheers and laughter from the Opposition.) I hear hon. gentlemen opposite cheering that avowal. I know I am exposed to their sarcasms ; but I state again, and distinctly, that I do not seek to magnify the importance of this measure, and that my sole object is to place it in its true light — in a light in which it has not yet been placed before either the house or the country. I do not desire to conci- liate for my proposal any support on the ground that it is an exten- sive measure, or that it is a great advance in free trade principles ; for it is no such thing. (Hear, hear.) I do not put it forward as a means of admitting an dmo^t unlimited supply of American corn upon conditions more favourable than at present; for it will do no such thing. (Hear, hear.) I shall not on the one side claim support, or on the other yield in silence to opposition, founded on • any mistake as to the real scope and object of my measnre. I do not bring that measure forward as a measure of free trade ; I do not submit it to you as a bill for facilitating the admission of foreign corn; but I do bring the measure forward as a great boon to one of our most important colonies. (Loud cheers.) I submit it to the house as a colonial and not as a fiscal question. If it was brought forward as a measure affecting either the fiscal or commercial inte- rests of the country, it would more properly be the duty of either my right hon. friend at the head of the Government, or of the Pre- sident of the Board of Trade (Mr. Gladstone), to propose it to your notice. It is because the measure is purely a colonial measure, that, as the Colonial Minister of the day, I now ask the house to grant to Canada a boon, which though insignificant to you to concede, it will be important to them to receive — a boon which they have solicited for at least five-and-twenty years — a boon to which they attach the greatest importance — which you can grant without sacrifice of your own domestic interests, and which Her Majesty's Government have on their part pledged themselves to grant in the event of certain conditions being complied with on the part of Canada, which condi- 4inrka alia m»atafn\\xi annoni'Oii nrut haa fnUhfllllv flll-frllpd. ^ChserS. I ui\etajr r7fiv eii -.?;•.■•-» i^.-^j "^» 1,..-.^* »....* — « — -«. j , ^ j. ^r, tbfkt is the sum and substoace otthe measure X am about to sub- l: d mit. It is a measure apart from the Corn Law— apart from any ques- tion of free trade. It lies in a narrow compass ; but although it does so, believe me, if it be a measure of pecuniary insignificance to you, your refusal to adopt it will not be insignificant to the interests of Canada. (Hear, hear). Sir, the measure I propose has for its object to give an encouragement to the agriculture of Canada, by admitting grain the produce of Canada, grown as well as ground in Canada, into con- sumption in this country on more favourable terms than at present, with- out varying, in any material degree, the effect of the existing law with regard to the produce of the United States. I propose the reduction of the duty on Canadian wheat and wheat flour ; I also propose to substi- tute, on American wh^at passing through Canada, the fixed sum of 48. per quarter for the present varying duty of from Is. to 58. per qu; t -ter. I do not propose any alteration whatever in the distinction at present drawn between wheat and wheat flour the produce of a foreign country. I do not propose to admit American wheat on terms different from those on which it is now admitted ; but what I propose is, to admit American wheat ground into flour in Canada at a duty of 4s. instead of the pre- sent varying duty, and that is the sole effect of the measure, as far as American wheat is concerned. N5w, Sir, as an hon. gentleman has particularly directed my attention to the state of the law as regards the importation of wheat and wheat flour from the colonies, and us I know that misapprehensions prevail on this point, perhaps the house will permit me to state how the case now stands, how it has stood, and how it has been practically acted on since the year 1828, farther than which period I think it will be unnecessary for me to go back. Wheat has been imported from the Canadas at a duty varying from 5s. to Is., according to the state of the British market. Flour has been imported from Canada at all times, liable to bear a proportionate amount of duty, according to the value of flour here. On the import of foreign wheat into Canada no duty has been imposed up to the present time. From every part of Europe and from the United States wheat has been admitted into Canada perfectly and entirely free from duty, and that wheat so imported and manufactured into flour in Canada, has ever been considered, if exported to this country, to have obtained and to enjoy all the privileges attaching to colonial produce. (Hear, hear.) Now this is no new regulation ; it is no new rule regarding United States or Canadian wheat alone ; it is a general principle which has been acted on from time immemorial in the Customs of this country with regard to manufactured goods — that manufactured articles, no mat- ter whence the raw mp,terial might come, should be taken as the produce of the country in which the manufacture took place. This question, in- deed, was brought under discussion many years back, in a case which is not a little curious. In the 18th of George III. — the year 1788 — a ques- tion was argued in the Exchequer Chamber, as to what should be the duty on ostrich feathers dressed in Finance, the said ostrich feathers being claimed as French produce. Now it was clear — it needed no certifi- cate to prove it — that ostrich feathers were not a French production (a laugh) ; but these feathers having been dressed in Franco, it was arguer' that they were a French manufacture, and the point having been o.scussed in the Exchequer Chamber, it was determined by the judges tiiat the ostnch leatiiers so oresseu in x'rancc w i.i_j come iu and to be charged duty as French goods, I mention this as a curious case bearing strongly upon this subject. In the year following an act — the 19th Geo. III. — was passed upon the subject. What did that act do ? Did it deny the principle ? By no means. It provided that the principle should hold perfectly good except with respect to the pro- duce of Asia, Africa, and America, and with this pretty large exception this act continued in operation until it was repealed by the 3rd of George IV. and 6th of Geo. IV. But under the Navigatioi Act, the 6th of Geo. IV., this broad principle was laid down in these terms — "All manufac- tured goods shall be deemed to be the produce of the country in which they were manufactured." A broader principle it would be almost impos- sible to lay down, and this was the principle establishedunder that act. But it will, no doubt, be questioned that this principle applies to corn ? Now, on that point, we have certainly no judicial decision, because the question was never raised so as to be brought under judicial consideration ; but in 1830, after the act of 1828 was passed, by which, for the first time, Canadian flour was admitted into this country, the question was raised by tlie Comptroller of the Customs at Liverpool, who, having some doubts as to whether United States wheat ground in Canada could be admitted as colonial produce, referred the question to the solicitor of the Customs, who gave an unhesitating opinion, " that flour made in Canada from wheat, the produce of the United States, was to be deemed the produce of Canada, and was entitled to enter this country as the produce of a colony, upon the production of the inspector's certificate applying to colonial produce, and required by the Act of Parliament." (Hear, hear.) This was the opinion given by the solicitor of the Customs on a question raised by a collector and comptroller of Customs, who asked for a legal authority upon which to act. This is the single case in which the point has ever been raised ; and I must next remark, that, to whatever question the law may be open, be the interpretation right or wrong, in the first place, the practice has been without ex- ception to admit United States grown corn, coming from and manufac- tured in Canada, as Canadian produce — that has been the uniform and unvarying interpretation and practice of the law — and, in the next place, be that law right or be it wrong, this bill does not touch that question — this bill does not refer to that question, and it leaves the law precisely as it now stands. (Hear, hear.) This then is my case. My sole object being the substitution of a permanent fixed duty on foreign wheat (loud cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition) — the substi- tution of a permanent fixed duty on American wheat imported through the province of Canada, at the rate of 4s. a quarter, for a duty on such wheat varying from 6d. it was formerly. Is. it is now, to 5s. per quar- ter. (Hear, hear.) I say, Sir, that that is the sole alteration I pro- pose; and such being the only alteration, I think that her Majesty's Government has cause to complain of the misrepresentations which have been sedulously disseminated amongst the farmers as to tiie intro- duction of United States corn, <' which," say some hon. members, " the Government are seeking to bring in by a back door, not daring to open the front." (" Hear, hear," and cheers.) Now, Sir, let me here say, once for all, that neither in this bill, nor in any other bill with which I am connected, nor with which my colleagues are connected, will her Majesty's Government seek to introduce furtively or by stealth that which thev dare not introduce broadly, plainly, and openU% ^Loud and repeated cheers.) This " back door," as you are pletised to call it, i i- i i- 4 %i lias been open for a space of not lass than 15 years (renewed cheers), that is to say, if by the '* back door bei;ig open" you mean that United States corn can be admitted into Canada duty free, and as flour ground, in Canada can obtain admission into the ports of England. (Cheers.) From 1828 to 1843 that door has been open — through that door a con- siderable portion of American grain has been admitted, and instead of opening that door wider,our proposition is now to take a toll of 3s. upoa every quarter of corn that must pass it. And then we are told — 1 hear it at county meetings — that we are doing an injury to the agricultural interest. The hon. member for Rutland presented this evening a peti- tion, praying that there might be no diminution of agricultural protec- tion ; and gentlemen talk and farmers are told that they have grievous reason to complain of her Majesty's Government, for seeking to intro- duce United States wheat into Canada at a duty of 3s., forgetting, of course, to put the counterpart, that up to this very moment there is no duty at all, and that, instead of paying 3s., United States wheat enters Canada duty free. (Hear, hear). Again : I know it has been stated, at i ovcral meetings, that we are about to inflict, by this measure, a griev- ous injury on the milling interest of this country (hear, hear) — that wo are going to introduce United States wheat in the shape of flour, whilst we reject it in its unmanufactured condition. My answer to this is, that we make no alteration whatever in the present state of the law. (Hear). Reject this law altogether, and the milling interest will be in precisely the same condition as if you passed it. You afford the mil- ling interest no pr(;toction whatever by its rejection, because, even now, flour from Canada, ground from wheat of the United States, is im- ported at the colonial rate of dutv. This bill, therefore, as to the agricultural interest, or as to the milling interest, can produce no effect whatever if the fixed duty we propose be only equivalent to the existing rate. (Hear, hear). I shall now endeavour to prove that it is so. The present rate of duty — and for the convenience of the house I will refer tliroughout to the duty on quarters of wheat, without reference to the barrel of flour, and assuming that the due proportion is maintained be- tween wheat and flour — the present rate of duty on United States wheat is precisely the same as on colonial wheat. Mr. Roebuck : Do you mean wheat or flour? Lord Stanley : I mean that, by the law, as it at present stands, wheat imported from the United States into Canada cannot be im- ported here except as flour, nor will it be imported in any other way by the law we propose. As flour, as manufactured produce, it will be admitted at the new rate of duty, which, as I said before, we consider equivalent to the old rates. The present duty levied on flour in this country varies from 3s. per quarter when the price is below 55s., to Is. per quarter when the price rises as high as 58s. Up to 55s. there is a duty of 5s. per quarter. By the measure which I propose there will be levied, at all times and under all circumstances — hon. gentlemen may have the advantage of another cheer, if they please, at the idea of a fixed duty — by the measure which I propose there will be levied, at all times and under all circumstances, a fixed duty (ironical cheers) on wheat imported through Canada of 4s. per quarter, whether the price be 40s. or 60s., instead of a duty which at present amounts to 5s. up to 563., and thence falls to Is. as the price rises to 58s. Perhaps hon. gen- tlemen may say that a reduction of even Is. per quarter, i, e., from 5s. to 6 48., in the duty, is, in the present state of agriculture, a matter of con- Hiderable importance ; but let it be observed, as appears, indeed, from a paper laid on the table of the house upon the motion of the hon. member for Stoke-upon-Trent, that then; has been no year during the last five years when the average amount of duty levied on colonial corn has exceeded 4s. In one year the average was 43., but in another year it was only 6d. ; and the average amount of duty for the whole period has been 2s. Id. upon American wheat imported through Canada in the shape of flour ; for which, by this bill, I propose to substitute a duty of 4s., whatever the price of the market may be. And let the house observe this, that the present duty is chargeable only on the fine flour imported, and only when brought into home consumption in this coun- try ; whereas three-fourths of the duty proposed to be levied is to be levied on the whole bulk of wheat imported into Canada, without the credit, which is now obtained, of six, eight, ten, or twelve months, ac- cording to the state of the market, and upon the whole amount, inclu- ding seconds, inferior flour, and the refuse. I do think that 4s., to be so levied, is a fair, just, and ample equivalent for the existing duty. Sir C. Napier : It is more than ample. Lord Stanley : The hon. and gallant gentleman says, it is more than an ample duty ; but let him recollect that at the present moment a duty of 5s. attaches invariably, till the price of wheat is 55s. I know by what objection I shall immediately be met here. I have anticipated it in the cheer I have already heard from the other side of the house, when the subject of a fixed duty was mentioned. " After all," it will be said, " you are coming down to a fixed duty of 4s. upon wheat." I beg to say I am not coming down to any such thing. I am coming down to no fixed duty of 4s. on wheat. I should have been glad to know how the noble lord opposite, who proposed a fixed duty of 8s. per quarter on wheat, would have dealt with this particular article, and whether he would have subjected to an 8s. duty wheat, the produce of foreign countries, imported through our own colonies, and thereunder- going the process of manufacture. Unfortunately the noble lord had not the opportunity of submitting his plan in detail to the consideration of the house ; his project was cut off in the bud ; but I should like to know how he would have dealt with that question. I have no hesita- tion in saying, that, whatever may be the advantage of the sliding scale over a fixed duty, setting other objections apart, the fixed duty has the merit of simplicity ; and if I could adopt that which, under all circumstances and under all seasons, and witli reference to all coun- tries, should strike a fair average of duty, of course I should pre- fer, as any man of sense would (cheers and a laugh) — I don't think there would be any difference of opinion on any side of the house — I should prefer the simplicity of a fixed duty to the complication inse- parable from a sliding scale. (Cheers.) Let the noble lord or any person propose a sliding scale, the extreme point of which shall be 8s. on one side, and 12s. on the other, and I tell the house very frankly, that rather than take a sliding scale, the extreme of whose protection should be 8s. the minimum, and 12s. the maximum, and for that varia- tion rendering necessary the complicated machinery of the averages, I would infinitely prefer the average between these two amounts and take the fixed duty of 10s. rather than the fluctuating duty. (Loud cheers.) The advantage of a sliding scale arises from the extent of range whicn it must cover ; you can take no amount w'liich shall fairly represent an average of a duty ranging from 208. to In. If thu scale vilnato only for 38. or 4s., you may tlispense with the unnecessary complication of the sliding scale and take the average ; but if you have a scale with a protective duty of 20s. at one end, and a comparatively free admission at Is. at the other, proportioning the protection to the varying exi- gences of the case, no average can be struck (cheers). Therefore, I say, it is perfectly consistent in me, if the duty is to vary from Is. to 48., to say I prefer a fixed duty, whatever it may be, between those limits, and at the same time to say, that if at one time you require com- paratively free importation, and at another protection amounting to almost a prohibitory duty, I take the sliding scale, because you can have no fair average in such a state of things (cheers). But, again suppose a distinction is to be drawn in favour of Canadian wheat — that Canadian wheat imported into this country is to be subjected to no duty, or only a nominal duty, and American wheat to a protecting duty, I want to know, if the duty ist to be levied in Canada, in what manner it is even possible to have a sliding scale from 48. down to Is.? (hear, hear.) In what manner will you at the Canadian frontier fix the sliding scale, and declare the averages with reference to the price in this country ? If you are to draw the distinction between Canadian and American wheat, you must levy the duty on the Canadian frontier, and not in this country. If you are to levy the duty on the Canadian frontier, and not in this country, then the sliding scale is impracticable. Levying a duty only varying 2s. or Ss., the sliding scale is inapplicable ; and with- out departing m any degree from the principle of protection as applied to the agricultural interest in this country, you have no resource but a fixed duty between the very narrow limits to which your scale would fluctuate to one side or another. (Cheers). I have answered this argu- ment to the best of my ability (cheers); but I confess I do not lay much stress on it as an argument. It may do very well to excite a Parlia- mentary cheer, or to raise a taunt of personal Inconsistency (hear, hear) ; but against the measure, as I propose it, it is no argument at all (hear, hear) ; and I have shown that it is not an argumer.t, that, on the ground of inconsistency, can fairly be urged against those who support a slid- ing scale. I now come to a more important point; that is, will the duty in Canada be levied ? Be the duty what it may, it would be levied in the Custom-house in this country ; and I am ready to admit, that if any reasonable apprehension can be entertained on the ground that the duty might not be levied in Canada, it would be a strong argument against the measure which I propose. Never was there a more chime- rical apprehension entertained than that wheat would be smuggled into Canada to escape a duty of 3s. (Hear, hear). I will prove it to you from circumstances, from probability, from practice. Hon. gentlemen are very much in the habit of saying that the boundary between Canada and the United States is for a long distance a mere river, that there is no difficulty in passing it, and that you might easily throw a biscuit across it ; but what is the real state of the case ? I put Lower Canada out of the question altogether, because it produces little or no wheat ; certainly very far short of what is required for its own con- sumption. The whole of the wheat of which the Canadas have any surplus, of their own produce, is grown in Upper Canada. A large portion of that which comes into this country is not the produce of Cnnaila at nil, hutof ilio Unitod States, tho great states of the west- Illinois, Ohio, and Indiana. Trom the point nt which the St. Law- rence becomes tho boiindury between Canada and the United States to Kingston, tho distance is 70 or 80 nules, up a very rapid and broken river. Mr. Roebuck : There is not a single rapid from Prescott to King- ston. I know the place well. I have gone \ip the river in a canoe hundreds of times. Lord Stanley: Be it so; but that is not tho district in which tho wheat is produced. Above Kingston conies Lake Ontario, about l.'iO miles long ; it is united by the Niagara Uiver to Lake Erie, a lake of 200 miles long, both of these lakes varying from GO to 70 miles in breadth. There is, therefore, a distance of from 350 to 400 miles, connected only by a river for the space of 20 miles, that river 'ncluding the rapids above, and the whirlpools below, the falls of Niagara, per- fectly impracticable. The wheat-growing districts are, in the first place, the Canadian districts on the north of Lake Erie, and the great American districts to the south-west. These are the districts— Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois, from which corn is brought to Cleveland, the principal shipping port of Ohio, and thence the trade is carried on partly in steamers, but principally in large schooners built for carrying cargoes of this nature ; passing through the Welland Canal and a succession of British locks into Lake Ontario, and thence to Montreal, whence shipuients arc made to this country. There is a distance of above five hundred miles between the ports of shipment. The north side of Lake Erie is cultivated to a certain extent, and grows Canadian corn ; the south side is cultivated by the Ameri- cans. The schooners engaged in the trade are all perfectly well known — they carry on their operations as a regular systematic trade— their owners are all known ; the north coast, on the Cana- dian side, is singularly destitute of all harbours; the lakes they have to cross are about four times as wide as the Straits of Dover ; if it were attempted to run a cargo of wheat, and land it on the Canadian side for the purpose of saving 3s. per quarter duty, the mere expense of landing and conveying it again to a wharf, and transhipping it, would very materially exceed the duty which it was the object of this not very wise smuggler to evade. (Hear, hear). I would ask any of my hon. friends the members for Kent and Sussex did you ever hear of French wheat being smuggled and landed on your shores ? No— and why not ? Because, first, although the duty is much higher, the risk more than counterbalances it ; and, next, for this very good reason, which equally applies to Canada as to Kent and Sussex — that the shore to which the smuggler must come is occupied by persons whose direct and immediate purpose it is to prevent the possibility of smuggling that particular article. It is quite true, that it is in some cases easy enough to smuggle from Canada to the United States, and from the United States to Canada — it is easy for fugitives from justice — it is easy for deserters from the service — it is easy to carry over a pound of tea or silk in a canoe — but to carry over a quarter of wheat at great risk, and where there are no harbours and few roads, to re-ship and tran- ship it, for the purpose of evading a 3s. duty, is the most chimerical ap- prehension ever entertained. (Hear, hear). Does practice bear us out in this view ? From 1825 to 1831 there was imposed a duty of, t 9 not 38., but 8s. a quarter on UnHod States wheat imported into Ca- nada. I have not been able to ascertain the precise amount of duty which was collected ; it is included in tlie generalrcvenue of the colony ; but in the Blue Hooks of the colony, although they are not altogether to be depended upon for accuracy as official returns, I find that in every year a certain amount of American M'heat was imported and brought to charge; and in no one year from 1H25 to 1831, while 8s. per quarter was charged, was there any allegation from any quarter whatever that a single bushel of wheat had been smuggled into Canada or had evaded the duty. ( Hear, hearj. Hero, at least, is negative proof— no such allegation was ever made. (Hear, hear). But perhaps hon. gentlemen may say they will smuggle tlour into this country ; why don't they smuggle flour now ? 1 will tell you why. The duty is sufficiently high to tempt them; but it is with flour as it is with respect to corn— the interest of the whole population is against the smuggler of flour, and in favour of the levy of the duty. (Hear, hear). Let the house recollect that the duty on American flour imported into this country is 20s. per quarter ; on Canadian flour it is 53. Under the existing 'riw, therefore, the temptation to smuggle flour into Canada, for the purpose of having it introduced as Canadian flour into this country, amounts to 15s. per quarter, or 300 per cent, on the duty ; and yet to this hour I never heard the allegation made that uae single barrel of flour had been smuggled into Canada ; nor do I believe that a single barrel has ever been introduced without a bona fide certificate. (Hear). On the practice, therefore, of six years, during which an 8s. duty was levied on the clear interest of all parties on the spot to prevent smug- gling — on the physical impediments standing in the way — in the absence of any allegation that it has ever existed— on all these grounds, I say, no apprehension of smuggling need be entertained. This was the view taken before the 83. duty passed, both by Lord Dalhousic in Canada, and Lords Liverpool and Bathurst in this country, when it was said we should be inundated with American wheat and flour ; and when that duty was taken off" as part of the Customs' regulations of the year by Mr. P. Thompson, not a single allegation was made that it had been evaded. (Hear, hear). I have endeavoured to deal with this question with reference to the apprehensions which have been enter- tained as to the importation of American wheat under the name of Canadian wheat : with the permission of the house I will now consider the question as it affects the importation, at a reduced rate of duty, of bona fide Canadian produce — the growth as well as the manufacture of Canada ; and here I say distinctly, that it is our wish to give encou- ragement to colonial produce, to the agriculture of Canada ; that as a Government we are pledged to do so, and that we may safely do it with- out detriment to any interest in this country. (Hear, hear). This is an object which Canada has had at heart for the last twenty or twenty- five years ; and I have in my hand a succession of despatches from Go- vernors, and memorials from Boards of Trade and from both branches of the Legislature, from the year 1821 to the present time, all urging the propriety of acceding to their prayer in this i-espect. If there be one subject of legislation upon wliich Canada from one end to the other has been and is unanimous^ it is in urging that, in order to enable them to consume more largely the manufactures of this country, you will treat them as part of the parent state and admit ou easy terms the bona fide 10 produce of their agriculture. I say you may safely grant this boon. I know not whether I ought to argue on a question of this kind, because if the boon ought to be granted, I am satisfied there is sufficient public spirit m the country not to weigh too nicely the possible disadvantage to our own mterests (hear) ; but, I say, you may safely grant it without any mjury to agricultural interests— without any reduction in the existing price of agrieultural produce. Let the house recollect, that hitherto the import of American wheat into Canada has been wholly free ; and what quantity ha? been imported into this country ? In the course of the last 13 years, irom 1830 to 1843, the amount of wheat and wheat hour inriported into this country from Canada, including what was im- ported from the United Stages, was only 1,163,968 quarters. That is to say, somewhere about. 90,000 quarters of wheat is the whole amount, which, upon an average of thirteen years, Canada has been able annually to export to this country; not, be it remembered, from her surplus produce only, but that being absolutely the whole of her surplus i)roduce, sup- ported and backed up by all that she could import from the United States tree of duty (hear, hear). And this brings mo to the question, at what rate can this Canadian corn be imported and brought into consumption Here i Ihis is not an unimportant point to keep in view, in the discus- sion ot any measure having for its object to give greater facilities to the trader. Now I find that, of the 1,153,9G8 quarters, there were imported at and above 67s. 387 389 quarters; at and above 55s., and under 67s. 1 1 'o nn*^^'?^'^^'^' ™ "•' ^" *''*^ ^^°^^ '^^"^Q 950,000 quarters, out of _l,li)3,000, imported and brought into consumption here, when the price "? I'noTA^'^ exceeded 55s. a quarter. At lower prices than tnose, ajout 93,000 quarters were imported when the prices ranged from 50s. to jys., and the whole amount brought into consumption, when the prices were under 50s., scarcely exceeded 106,000 quarters during the whole thirteen years importation* (Hear, hear). But this is not all. I wiU go turther, and will show you how, and when, and under what circum- stances the importation took place when wheat was below 50s. in price. 1 have not the returns as to flour ; but I have a return as to wheat, and I hnd t ns result:--! here were three years, and three years only, in which wheat was brought into consumption from Canada, at a rate of price below VS«" AT^ ♦-'ou'jtry ; and those were the three years~1834, 1835, and 1836. Now, I beg attention to these facts. 1831 and 1832 were years ot ver y high prices, and acc ordingly wheat from Canada, imported and * The following Table will, perhaps, assist in explaining the noble lord's figures : Wheat and Flour, the produce of British North American Colonies, admitted to Home Consumption between the 5th of Jan. 1830, and the 5th of Jan 1843 When theaverngo price of wheat was under 50s. ,.. 50s. and under .55s ■558. and under C7s AVIioat. Wheat Flour. WTieat and ^^'^^eat Flour stated in qre. Quarters. 74,439 75,193 270,186 1 06,579 Consumption. 111,626 62,217 1,037,965 772,838 Quarters. 106,332 93,499 566,748 387,389 07s. and unwai'ds Totals 586,326 1,984,646 1,153,968 11 brought into consumption, was, in the first year, 110,000 quarters, aod in tho next year, 164,000 quarters. The next year, 1833, was a year in which the price varied from 49s. lOd. to 55s. ; and in that year the im- port fell from 1 64,000 to 61 ,501 quarters. The three next years were years of constantly falling prices. In the first year prices fell to 4 1 s. lOd. • in the next, to 36s. lOd.; and at the commencement of the third year prices for a considerable period averaged 36s. 8d. Now, in these years, so hope- less diu the Canadiai merchants consider tho prospect, that, by re- ferring to the returns moved for by the honourable member for Bristol and now upon the table of the house, you will see that not a single quarter of wheai was imported from Canada in the years 1835, 1836, and 1837; and that the merchants who had brou<»ht largo stocks into this country upon the faith of the high prices of 1831 and 1832, and who held back in 1833 in the expectation that they would yet be able to realize a profit by the rallying of prices, were obli