HC Deb 17 February 1845 vol 77 cc528-9
Mr. Hastie

, seeing the right hon. Baronet in his place, wished to ask him whether it was his intention to admit East India sugar under the new Sugar Duties Act in the same class of sugar in which it had heretofore been admitted, namely, as Muscovado sugar?

Sir R. Peel

said, he had stated on Friday that a distinction was intended to be made between Muscovado and white-clayed sugar.

Mr. Hastie

remarked, that the classification of the sugar would make a difference in the duty of 2s. 4d. a cwt. There were 70,000 tons exported from India, of which about 50,000 would consist of granulated white sugar, and he wished to know whether this would be liable to the additional duty.

Sir R. Peel

thought, it would be better to postpone for the present any discussion as to the details of the measure.

Mr. Gibson

wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in classifying sugars into clayed and Mscovado, and fixing the different rates of duty, he contemplated the adoption of the ad valorem principle of duty, and whether he meant that the higher rate of duty should always apply to sugar of the greatest value?

Sir R. Peel

said, that would generally be the case, although he would not pretend to go into every particular case. Presuming that clayed sugar was generally more valuable than Muscovado, that would be the effect of the arrangement.

Mr. Labouchere

apprehended it was the right hon. Baronet's intention to propose that the Sugar Duties Bill should be passed for one year only, as had hitherto been the case. As there was some doubt among the public regarding the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, and it was a point of great constitutional as well as commercial importance, perhaps he would state whether that were his intention.

Sir R. Peel

answered, that under any circumstances, if the Sugar Duties were made permanent, he should have been very much disposed to propose that some other duty, of nearly equal amount, should be made temporary, in order that there might be no infraction of constitutional principle. His own opinion was, that it would he better that the new Sugar Duties should be of a permanent character; but, under all the circumstances, looking at the greatness of the change, he was not prepared to advise that the new Sugar Duties, supposing them to be sanctioned by Parliament, should be continued beyond the 5th of July, 1846.

Back to