HC Deb 26 April 1843 vol 68 cc974-6
Mr. Milner Gibson

wished to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman some information respecting the subject which had been noticed last night, he meant as to the amount of the differential duties it was proposed to be levied on foreign and colonial sugars. He was aware of the reluctance there must be to answer his question, but he believed the Government had come to a determination on the subject, and he wished for information. He did not mean to press any question as to whether there were to be a reduction of the duties, he would only ask on what grounds the Government proceeded? After Mr. Ellis had arrived at Brazil, the Brazilian government had made a proposition to him, and stated that it would be content were the sugar and other produce of the West Indies only favoured to the extent of 10 per cent. The Brazilian government was ready to enter into the negotiations, on the principle that its produce, including its sugar, should be subject to a duty of 10 per cent. higher than the duty on colonial sugar. He asked whether that would satisfy the West-India interest, or whether her Majesty's Government had ascertained what amount of differential duty would satisfy the claims of the West-India proprietors? This question related clearly to the policy of the Government in a great practical measure, and he wished to know what amount of protection her Majesty's Government had authorised Mr. Ellis to offer. He thought her Majesty's Government—[Order]—He was not going to argue the question; he only asked the right hon. Gentleman—and he thought, that in this particular the House had a right to know, as they knew the proposals of the Brazilian Minister—what were the proposals of our own Minister? It was but fair, that they should be known. The basis of the proposed negotiation had been divulged on one side, why were they not divulged on the other? The proposition on which he wished to get information, the question he took the liberty of asking was what was the amount of protection which was insisted on by the gentlemen of the West-Indian interest? The other question he had to ask referred to Portuguese wines. In case the treaty with Portugal had succeeded, the effect of it would have been to establish a differential duty in favour of the wines of Portugal. It would have set up a monopoly on behalf of Portugal against ourselves. Portuguese wines would be favoured, and the higher duties continued on French wines. Would that, he wished to know, be the case, or would the duties on both be reduced? It was clear, that had the treaty taken effect lesser duties would have been levied on Portuguese wines, and he wished to ask if there was to be an exception of that kind in favour of Portuguese wines, or whether the reduction of duties would extend to all wines?

Sir Robert Peel

wished he could reward the ingenuity with which the hon. Gentleman sought to extract information from him; but really he was unable. The hon. Gentleman asked him what proposals Mr. Ellis was authorised to make to the Brazilian government respecting the duty on sugar. Now, that was a point on which he could give the hon. Gentleman no information. With respect to the other questions, he was ready to give the hon. Member some information. Supposing there had been a reduction in the duty on port wine, it would necessarily follow that there would be a reduction of duty on sherry. Had the negotiation with Portugal been successful, and the reduction of duty under that treaty taken place, it would, as a matter of course, have led to a reduction of the duties in Spanish and French wines also.

Mr. M. Gibson

simply wished to know whether the negotiations with Brazil were broken off in consequence of the difficulty of giving protection to the West-India proprietors, or upon the question of slavery? Whether the difficulties were moral or pecuniary, whether we objected to the Brazilian proposition on account of our desire not to encourage slavery, or to secure a sufficient protection to the West-India proprietors?

Sir Robert Peel

said that he had given all the information he possessed yesterday, and he had stated that he might possibly be doing an injustice to the Brazilian government by undertaking to answer any question upon this subject, without being in possession of its letter. Mr. Ellis, writing immediately before the departure of the mail, said that he had received a fresh communication from the Brazilian government of which he could give only the substance, and the substance as given by Mr. Ellis was that the only terms upon which the Brazilian government would treat were, that the differential duty between Brazilian produce and colonial produce should not exceed 10 per cent. The negotiation was broken off on the ground that Mr. Ellis was not authorised to treat upon that basis—the only basis proposed —namely, a differential duty of 10 per cent. It was not possible, Mr. Ellis said, to give the letter of the Brazilian government, and thus he was only able to state the substance.

Sir W. Barron

Then there was no question about slavery mixed up with the negotiation?

Sir R. Peel

was understood to say that it had been quite unnecessary to go into that subject, as the negotiation came to a premature close.

Mr. Barnard

said some difference of statement existed whether the treaty with Portugal had been broken off, or only interrupted. He wished to ask what it was?

Sir R. Peel

said the hon. Gentleman was now referring to an announcement made by the Portuguese government. That announcement, as it appeared in the paper was, that the negotiation was broken off. He believed that the proper construction of the word used by the Portuguese government was "interrupted," and not broken off. The terms which we had stated we should abide by had not been accepted by the Portuguese government, and, therefore, so far there was an end of the negotiation. He could not answer for the future, but there was an end to the negotiation for the present.

Subject at an end.