The Sun.
London, England, 1852-03-23 00:00:00

110 P DUTIE'.

Mr. FREWEN brought forward a motion to the
effect that, in the remission of taxation, the repeal
of the Excise duty on hops ought to be taken into
serious consideration by the House. Though this
duty brought comparatively a small amount into the
Exchequer, yet it pressed with excessive severity upon
his unfortunate constituents. What with free trade and
the imposition of this duty, there was ruin and
distress in every direction of the hop-growing
districts, and ho thought the sufferers were entitled
to demand redress. The fact.;of there being such a tax
gave rise to excessive gambling as to what would be the
amount of duty paid in a forthcoming year, and he had
the best authority for saying that large bribes were
given to the Excise officers for the purpose of ascer-
taining the number of pounds of hops gathered in par-
ticular districts.
Mr. HODGES cordially supported the motion, and
hoped that the remission of the hop duty would engage
the early attention of the next Parliament. In every
third year since 1819, when the currency was changed,
there had been complaints of distress among the growers
of hops.
iThe CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
his Hon. Friend had proposed a very moderate and tem-
perate resolution. The Government were perfectly
aware of the suffering in the part of the country re-
presented by his Hon. Friend, and if it were in their
power by a proposition to remedy the sufferings of any
class of her Majesty's subjects, they would only be too
ready to come forward. With regard to the present
case, his Honourable Friend had justly stated that it
would be improper to press the Government for
any definite expression of opinion upon the sub-
ject. (Hear, hear.) All he asked was, that
if a revision of taxation took place the question of hops
might not be overlooked; and he could assure him that
such would be the cue. The Government would always
consider it their duty to give their utmost attention and
consideration to any representations which might be
made to them from any class of the people.
Mr. HUME said though this was brought forward as
question, he considered the duty
anon aghroipcsultural
presied most unequally upon a
class, and therefore ought to be removed
They had freed the food of the poor man from tax, and
why should they not relieve his beverage of taxation?
In Belgium and Bohemia beer was untaxed and was con-
sumed to a large extent for the purpose of pre-
venting intoxication.—(Laughter.) Honourable Gen-
tlemen might laugh, but when a man could
obtain good beer he would sold have recourse to ardent
spirits, and if the House sincerely wished to carry out
its social and free trade policy, they would at once
abolish the tax on malt.—(Hear, hear.) The
Protectionists protested that they wanted an
opportunity to relieve
,the farming interest of this
country from unequal taxation, and if they really meant
what they said, here was a capital chance for showing
that they were in earnest.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. DRUMMOND said, the speech of the Ho-
nourable Member was one of the most extraordinary he
had ever heard, when he remembered the Hon. Member
antecedently, for year after year, he and others had
been attempting to obtain a repeal of this tax, and year
after year had the Hon. Member voted against that mo-
tion.—(No, no.)
Mr. HUME—I always voted in favour of the mo-
tion.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. DRUMUOND admitted this splendid exception,
but Mr. Cobden and Sir James Graham had always op-
posed it.—(Hear, hear.) Both those Hon. Members
when they were advocating the repeal of the
corn-laws told the farmers that the malt-
tax could not stand after the corn-laws were
gone, and he now called upon them to fulfil their own
prophecies.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. COBDEN disputed that the malt-tax was a tax
upon the farmer. It was paid by the consumer, and
therefore it was a tax upon the people. As for the
hop duty, it was certainly of a very obnoxious cha-
racter, while the amount it produced was really insi,
nificant ; but when they came to:treat of the malt-
tax it became a much larger question.—(Hear,
hear.) It produced a large sum annualiy, and
before they could repeal it they must be prepared with
some substitute for it.—(Hear, hear.) Well, then, he
was at a loss to understand what tax could be suggested
which the people would accept as a substitute for
the malt-tax, for there was a large class who
advocated the tax on the ground that it had the effect
of diminishing drunkenness, and they certainly would
oppose its abolition.—(Hear, hear.) The hop-tax, how-
ever, was not viewed in that light; it was a tax in fact
upon the wholesome beverage of the poor man,
and having had some experience in the House of the
difficulty of carrying large questions, he could tell those
who advocated the repeal of the tax they must per-
severe, in spite of the temporary difficulty which it
might impose upon the Government.—(Hear.) Her
therefore hoped this motion would be pushed to a divi-
sion, and then the poor man would see who were his
friend and who were not.—(Hear.)
Mr. FREWEN was quite satisfied with the answer
that had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
and under those circumstances ho should not put the
House to the trouble of going to a division.—(Hear.)
Mr. BASS admitted that a good deal of distress had
prevailed of late years amongst the farmers of Kent and
Worcestershire, but it did not result from the growing of
hops, but of wheat, and he recommended them to devote
more attention to hops than corn. He denied that the
use of gentian had increased in proportion to the
recent increase in the consumption of bitter ale as was
alleged by one Hon. Gentleman who had taken part in
this debate.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Sir E. FILMER, the motion
was withdrawn.