§ Mr. Patrick M. Stewart,rose to ask a question of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, on a subject of very great importance. In consequence of what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, on a former night, relative to equalizing the duty on Coffee, the greatest panic had seized the market, and he (Mr. P. M. Stewart) was, therefore, anxious to know—First, When it was proposed that the new scale of duties should come into operation? Second,—Whether it was intended that the stock of coffee on hand should be allowed to pay the reduced duty? Third,—In what manner he proposed to guard the British Colonists in the East and West, from the introduction of 1054 foreign East-Indian Coffee, imported as East-Indian Coffee of our own plantations?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that though he could not answer the hon. Member's questions in the exact order in which he had put them, he was quite ready to give him the information he required. When he had said, that he intended to propose an equalization of the duty on Coffee, he had added that he should, at the same time, take care that the relief did not extend beyond Coffee the growth of our own territories; and that the Coffee produced, for instance, in the Dutch East Indies, and other parts of Asia, should not have the same advantage as Coffee grown in the English possessions. He must apologize for doing more than answer the questions put, but something more was necessary. In order to give effect to the distinction, it would be required that the Coffee, claiming the exemption, should be accompanied by evidence to show that it was the growth and produce of one of our colonies: that was to say, that a certificate of origin should be sent with the Coffee, in order to entitle it to exemption. It was quite clear that the equalization of duty ought to apply to Coffee only which was imported with that evidence; and consequently, the East-India Coffee now in bond in this country, being unaccompanied by any such certificate of origin, would not be entitled to the exemption. As to the third question, relating to the mode and manner, they would be made known when the Bill was introduced. It would be his desire, in proposing an equalization of duty, to take care to prevent any abuse of the privilege which he hoped the House would concur with him in conferring.