The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-17 00:00:00

TRE S Ln

etemit,
th4.tious7 every year should be placed on the table of
bled the
principallewould read the result as far as it affect-
tieports, showing that the ext,nsion of
clatiesl'ad been co-extensive with the repeal of these

LONDON.
111
t. 1842 the ships from toreign parts that en-
i 181."146 the port of London, were ...
4...
ads entered in 1842 were ...

6,379
7,521
484,000

... 567,000
• LIVERPOOL.
L 184423 the ships that entered this port were. 3,285
3,900
4 1425 the goods that entered were ..• •••
218286'000
000
••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 1,1.
4 18 NEWCASTLE.
42 the ships that entered this port were 612
141845
908
.4 180 ..• ... • . ... ....
22,000
4 1845 the goods that entered were ... ...
30,000
I ••• ••• ID" ••• •• ••• ••• •••
411 i DUBLIN.
41642 the ships that entered this port were 261
4 ... ...
... ,•• . . . 307
•. ••• •••
v 842 the 21,700
to ia4s goods entered were ... ... ...
Itow L
••• ••• . 30,219
ile Would go to gCotl.a;d:—••
I I,_ DUNDEE.
1: ;87 the ships that entered here were ...
413 '
1414: the 'go' od.s..tha.i.enie—red..w. were ... .••

415
7,042
9,645

••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •••
1. 18
14
42 the GLASGOW.
4 18 - ships that entered this port were 280
5
418
1111 42 the goods that entered •were ... ... 212,000
.845
.. 307,000
1"11 ."
***
**
.
lathe r owed the great increase which had taken place
'At
Zigo trade of the country is the three years
'At it ha ' Passing of the Act in 1842, compared with
l been previouily.
As MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
tilt,Bengers from the Lords brought down certain
etikter some delay,
24 DaTOMS AND CORN IMPORTATION.
tipoi,,cose then proceeded with the further considers-
atts "(e report as to the Customs and Corn Impor-
„ a..
us th
Oft be question of the reduction of the duty on hops,
gsti • ' LUMPTRE wished to call the attention of the
Nieri,to the effect that the measures of the Government
i'Vok4,..."e upon the hop-growers of Kent, Sussex, and
~,`SI, pe,,l'er-cw They considered that a protective duty of
t the ii ~ as proposed, would do the greatest injury
L4o°l3le grower. Those acquainted with the growth
17417,0 tbnst know that some time .was required to
1111 cc,satations into a proper state for their growth.
1.7 6%."4tY Was attended-with expense, as buildings had
erected for drying them. Between 20,000 or
ktpiu acres were occupied in the growth of hops in
Ik whi/I°tgle- He could not speak of the extent
1 bleu they were grown in other counties,
Nsyri;4 knew that those plantations gave ern-
ad 'tit to great numbers of men, and their wives and
‘4,41; who were paid on the average SL per are
likti iltill'ln those employed on arable lands. But if
Zlts owed the importation of foreign hops, great num-
Ntilt°,,t'ld be thrown out of employment, and large
L'its-,6' land in Kent and other counties. in which hops
1b5,:..4* grown, would be turned into arable land. The
bte,l'A'rer considered that if the present duty of 455.
Ittc he reduced, that the Excise duties which they
entopelled to pay must be remitted, because, if
'toced the duty to 25s per cwt., and retained the
, , t'tY, then they would be compelled to discharge
sith..^rkpeople, and the vast sums of money
'lttle i!leY li-td expended in the cultivation of the
114kin!lould be lost. The hop growers of East Kent
IN ~iZI a better price for their hops than those of Sus-
lap 10 would, therefore, be more seriously affected
~,,,s-me former. He therefore earnestly entreated the
Li "tuent to give the subject further consideration.
kt,
here ten pounds paid on an acre of hops to the
2144 t
toealon who worked upon it. If they were to
N.y,4:lnd thP hop plantations b _this reduction of
keYtstruwculd throw a great many persona out of. !m-
-il ~.t Who had no other means of gaining a living.
t„,,,,was another point to which he would advert. and
el,„_4. that as the proposed. reduction would injure
srwer of hops, her Majesty's Ministers would reduce
fip„itletit, excise duty.
Nk, I'ILEL did not know that he could add any-
t 04,4 what he had said to the Honourable Member
411 "set, When the duty on hops was reduced at a
kke't Pe •
h rio Period, it was then said that the reduction would
Laite4 Legates'): diminish the growth in this country. The
bet grew hops, and they were an article which
1„714,11ef1t by a long voyage, and this country would
•;`te.• -ne.tu compete with America in a very small de-
°pl4 ir,V)llsidering the small amount the Americans
0 Ist' ~. Port into this country, and the great expense of
.c., s 'to
to t 4 he Age, he did not consider there was any in-
111:1,S11„Ipprehended. He could add nothing more
%f „mobic,",%4 been already said, but with great respect for
~'se Friend he could not consent to the reduction
qr. pe's(' duty on hops.
badel/4141 LLER sail that the repeal of the corn-laws
,144._ough, but to take off the duty on hops wonld
i‘tittdtltve°l.Be-* The Government ought to repeal the
. ;„ y which resred on the industrious classes, and
'oll.stilgthly
lasi. r they did or
injurious to the agricultural interest ; but
not, he wholly concurred in the
.that that tax could not endure one single year
0,4 repeal of the corn-laws.
tatiZel AUSTEN thought it was unnecessary to put
1 hoP•growers in competition with the American
bske4terers, He had been informed, by a gentleman
loetlttz, in the cultivation of hops, that if the Gover9
culd allow of a sufficiently low duty to let in
'o} hops, he would send over his own cultivators,
itt-prt hops from that country into England.
'IIIGLI r, ass Member for a hop-growing county,
IL-
it' ,Pt allow the proposed reduction of the duty t.
-Nkitl!hout comment. It appeared to him that any
' t4ty 4,441 in the duty would distress the English grower
ii, ,;,ch, because he paid the duty before the hops were
i;',Qtem,Lie the foreign grower would pay the duty only
411,NsorPs that were already dried and sorted. He
,N''"ocl that hops imported from Belgium had been
Nykdocle the river at 21.25. per cwt., but they were
L, 4, from being brought in, owing to the duty
ititlit.4
:141 4,3. per cwt. If, however, the proposed duty
4to the to force, these hops would have been brought
ad, theill\-at etriment of the English grower. He
~..11, the average price of hops had been 51. 9s. 2d.
nit'? not a very high price, but, he would arg'le.
''§kkt, ,k°rvign hops could be brought into the river at
:` eq't"e addition of the proposed duty making 4/. 7s.
,'l,, 0 this price would be far under what the Eng-
, '047P-grower had been able to accomplish,
app 'would be able to accomplish, The con-
' I/ -.4
i ho would be that a very large proportion
• gP land would be thrown out of cultivation, and
•10,-
v, vourers would be compelled to give up their
li,, tritt- Supposing the hop grounds to be broken
`l4-osll4l,2toch he was assured would be the case—what
%I come of these unfortunate people ? Tney must
Op, it burdens on their parishes, in the same way as
lizkft:Y branch of trade was suddenly given up in a
N!tikhturing town. In the hap districts the wages of.
Ors:Per were generally very good, much superior to
Isiartrs given to any other class of agricultural
0,: The bop grounds were perfect gardens.
Jetisults much in hopes, before the present free-trade
•74 -„of the Government were introduced, that the
,(I.' England, with proper attention, would have
•L ele large garden. He sincerely hoped tilt-
-I%lAs.t°lloitrable Baronet would not reduce the price so
i4tit be
Prevent the English hop growers from cul
ati
4 te,, . Plant. The Right Honourable Gentleman
e
Alps tamed the hop trade as a gambling speculation.
of t„° certain extent a speculation, because •the
%„ ,i Loa crops could never be ascertained before-
tAtsi 14 it was perfectly true that none but men of
liitise°llld embark in the trade, so that they could
:Ired to bear up against the exigency of a bad
, tvtlll,44°ut the real question was, shall we ruin those men
i tho we not ? Another consideration was, that in
41) districts upwards of a million and a half yards
k
, „ cloth were consumed for the purpose of
~ le,,uags, and ten thousand tons of coals were an-
k,
„04.,t0p-.4.4 in order to kiln dry, and clean the hops.
‘‘Zlisi '.llMption of canvas and coals must neceassarily
~,, ~1.6 d if the hop trade is destroyed. He hoped
~1 Nrt Hon. Baronet would remove altogether the
' ' ks,„alltY on hops, if foreign hops were to be admitted
i
it,-`l,_tlCed duty, lf - the Right Hon. Gentleman
114„‘5 give the poor man cheap beer, let him take off
:,-.,' lit on malt, and he would have the power entirely
o io '‘F "4 hatidg.
1/4gi 4 alderman HUMPHERY said the hops were
, VAt Zon as they were grown, and the merchant
114vp eta generally at a high price before the new
, ere sown. He did not think there was any
,41,,,it? fear that hops grown in America would com-
e* .11 those that were grown in Kent.
t,'spt,?,_,E observed that hop growers were not, pro
,71 111- epee
cultivators of the
ki
soil; they were traders
tt4114- cultivators. Generally, the cultivation of hops
4411410:5t, uncertain speculation. The same care and
4t,,,_ 4 t4at procured a good crop one year, would not
ttiNsa ,slmilar result on the following year. Hop
41,11tito
enable
to the surplus of a profitable year in
Is, it
...11able them to meet the reverses which attended
e
Yells 711- The English growers depended on
Ni'vstri, that attended their favourable years. Hop
Atit'br bW,lthout a capital, were not able to stand a
Is‘_, litio,so seasons ; but the hop grower, who had
41%74,‘ was able to lay up his harvest in a plentiful
Itottl24l sell it at a fair price in a scarce one, to enable
% .tet its deficiencies. But, with free trade in hops,
Vi 4 get its
would be no longer open to him ; he
LI4 he tilth'ilged to sell, no matter at what sacrfice.
Net, f,„:4lght established the ease for protection—
;l4at 0,-; the time being, the peculiar difficulties at-
N. ath,,,,,- Ine cultivation of the hop. But when they
4144,etki that it payed the enormous excise duty of
hadt•tleee Per Pound, and when they considered the
tng 0 rtainty of the produce—the grower ever de-
-44 tpthe (111 ,t,lie superfluity of one season to enable him to
yeti ekonen.'etency of the next—surely they could not
el,tl etsit a very great hardship to diminish the pro.
V :" VII this plant in the least particular.—(Hear,
ttti'llgi '
op
6 own part he ^onsidered the Excise duty
itt P. trestest evil inflicted on the hop culti-
s. th 144 •
Vre fit, If they wished a free trade in hops,
tittllltood ,ti remove the duty.—(Loud cheers.) lie
0 lstr,.' at at the very present moment a merchant
dipiite Ott:rprder for American hops, which he would
itt ttthost oplg into the market at a much cheaper rate
kl 4 b„..11t0 1,,,, home growth, and he was informed that
ti,lZt of tZat present at Lloyd's.—(Hear, hear.) In
Ngt s 44'4-e country where he lived land let at ten
Ali 'l* we, acre, an
shillingst price of the agricultural
tlttyttiriZt, he:
rt.7.....e1vf e
.g a week all the year round
Iv ti
or W°°(l to or in winter they were employed in
tltil six _ Prepare for the harvest ; and during the
oits.a tr2celts that the latter lasted the wages;
K4S ),
ov 6 ty 07! that
more, not taking into account
N,Pige,itwe,cf a whole family were employed, from
me hop. to the eldest. Let them take protection
arcv•rp and the result would be that the

land would be thrown oiif Of cultivation, and these ad- ,
vantages would be cast away. But on the contrary, let
them remove the excise duty, and then the growth of
hops would be followed as a lucrative trade, and not in
the spirit 01 gambling. They ought to remember that
hops were of perrennial growth, and that once planted
they must be treated as trees ; he, therefore, considered
that, under all these circumstances, the Government
should be exceedingl). cautious before they would entirely
destroy a produce—productive of such advantages to
the labourers employed upon the soil where it grew; and
considering that it paid such an enormous duty to the
excise, in the same proportion did it demand an increased
amount of protection.
Mr. H. FREWEN said that the Right Hon. Baronet
bad alluded to the great fortunes amassed by hop
growers. Now the fact was, that although many hop
growers had made a great deal of money, it would be
found that the contrary was the case with a lar4e majo-
rity. In England, wherever sufficient protection was
afforded, the manufacturer was sure to reduce the amount
of his profits to the lowest possible amount. In hi:opinion,
if all the hop gardens in England had been in the hands
of one man for the last ten, twenty, or twenty-five
years, he would have infallibly lost money.—(Hear.)
The Hon. Member for Southwark had alluded to the
year 1817, as corroborative of his statements, but
that was admittedly a very extraordinary year, and ought
not, therefore, to be quoted as a precedent. He would
assure the House that the hop-growers generally looked
on the present measure as one seriously destructive of
their interests. He would not have made these obser-
vations were it not that he considered himself bound to
answer the argument of the Hon. Gentleman.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was ex-
ceedingly, pleased by the statements made by the last
speaker. He had told them that the system of protec-
tion had the effect of rendering the growth of hops a
losing concern. Could there be any argument stronger
in favour of its abolition than the fact that under the ab-
solute system of protection, persons of smell capital en-
gaged in the growth of hops were, in the long run, al
most always losers.—(Hear, hear.) But when they
talked of a free trade in hops, they must remembr that
the Government has not put the foreign trader on an
equal tooting with the home merchant—on the former
they had imposed a double duty. He would ask them,
was it fair that an article of such necessity should vary
in its price from 51. to 381. per cwt. ? or should the
excise, for the sake of maintaining a protection, lose
220,000/. a year of revenue ? The Hon. Gentleman,
when he stated that the duty should be paid by the pro-
ducer before the hops quitted the roast-house, stated
what was not the fact—the duty was not paid until
several months after—and he was often not called upen
to pay for a considerable time after he had sold the crop.
Lord G. BENTINCK said that th,•re had been a
great deal of grumbling with respect to the gambling
hops were likely to produce, but very little of the same
spirit was manifested with reference to the gambling
really going on in railways at the present
moment. He considered that no trade ought to be put
down in this country, because gamblers chose to bet
upon the honest efforts of patient iaduatry.—(Cheers.)
He apprehended that the hop growers were not the
gamblers—(Hear)—and therefore he considered there
never was a more flimsy objection against any measure
than that made by his Right Hon. Friend the First Lord
of the Treasury.—(Hear, hear.) The greatest proof of
the advantage arising from the abolition of excise duties,
was the fact that they had abolished the excise duties
on auctions, amounting to 900,0001., and they had saved
52,632/. in revenue, and 450,0001. in salaries to excise
officers.. They ought to follow the suggestion of the
Hon. Member for Southwark, in permitting the hop-
grower to bond bis hops. A Gentleman from Kentwall
assured him (Lord Bentinck) that under the regulation
of ti.e excise, he paid in 1836, 18s. Bd. a hundred weight
on 15i tons, and the year being a plentiful one, he
held over his store, which he was even, ually obliged to
sell for 16s. a cwt. The Chancellor of the Exche-
quer said that in 1817 hops were 381. a cwt., but what
did he tell you ? That he hunted all Europe
over, and no hops were to be found. Why,
what did that prove? Nothing but that Providence
visited every other country with the same blight
which had fallen upon this. But he would ask them,
supposing they threw the hop gardens out of cultiva-
tion what would they do with the Tithe Commutation
Act, He understood that the same land which
as weak soil paid 7s. an acre, as hop land paid 295.
It would at least take seven years to remedy that evil.
As the forms of the House prevented him from propos-
ing any intermediate duty, he wished to protest against
the support he would give that resolution, as being in-
dicative of his opinions.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw,
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For omitting the item
For retaining it 9l
Majority
. . - -

The next article was boots and shoes.

Mr. KNIGHT suid, with regard to boots and shoes,
he had to state that since the proposal of the reduction
one house in London, which paid no less than 5001. a
week in wages, had shifted its establishment to Ostend.
This firm was in the habit of manufacturing and export.
ing an immense number of boots and shoes. He very
much feared that many other interests affected by the
tariff would be similarly circumstanced, and would be
obliged to adopt a similar course.
. .

Sir G. CLERK said that in 1842 there had been a
reduction in the articles of boots and shoes of 17s. This
was a large amount of duty on an article the original
value of which was only ls. The reduction then made
brought the duty down to 7s. 6d., and it was now pro-
posed to make it 55., which was only 20s. per cent. on
en article which could be smuggled with the greatest faci-
lity. The consequence of suppressing smuggling by
decreasing the duty was the means of increasing the
home trade in this article. They need not, therefore,
Leer foreign competition. The reduction proposed
would still afford ample protection to those employed at
home in this department of trade.
The item was then agreed to.
On the reduction on straw-plait being proposed,
Mr. REPTON regretted that the Right Hon. Baronet
had proposed any reduction in the duties on foreign
straw, and he doubted very much whether, if passed into
a law, it would he productive of good. In the counties
of Hertford, Buckingham, Bedford, and Essex, there
were from 40,000 to 50,000 individuals employed in
plaiting straw. They manufactured it at their own
nomes, and many of the persons so engaged were chil-
dren and young girls. The grass out of which the plait
was made grew in Tuscany, in Italy, and between Pisa
and Florence ; and there were three or four kinds of
plait used, which were of different qualities. Much had
been said by the Right Hon. Baronet about promoting
the welfare and morality of the industrious classes, but
he (Mr. Repton) doubted very much whether this re-
duction, if carried into effect, would contribute to im-
prove those who were dependent on this department of
industry. If the reduction took place, the quantity of
plait which would be introduced into the country would
be very great. He did not wish, however, to press the
matter to a division, but he could not allow the item to
pass without making his protest against the reduction.
The item was then agreed to.
The next item proposed was the reduction on silk.
Mr. BANKES would propose to omit this, as well as
a number of items of the same nature, of which it was
proposed to reduce the duty to a large extent. In doing
so he would take the liberty of referring to a challenge
which had been made some time since by the Right
Hon. Baronet, who challenged any one to show that any
disadvantage or deterioration had resulted to any de-
partment since the reduction of duty which had taken
place on the articles affected by the last change in the
tariff. The Right Hon. Baronet undertook to say that
no such deterioration had taken place. He (Mr. Bankes)
would have no hesitation in accepting that challenge,
and though he had no practical knowledge or experienca
on this subject, nor had received any instructions upon
it from his constituents (who were nevertheless inter-
rested in it), yet he had an authority to rely upon
which could not be disputed, that the reduction of the
duty on this article had been productive of any thing but
good to those engaged in the manufacture in this
country. So fur from the reductions which had been
made by Mr. Huskisson, benefiting the trade, they had
the effect ofmaterially injuring it. This had been urged upon
Parliament with such forcible reasoning that the weight
of it could not be resisted. Accordingly, in 1832, a
Committee was appointed far the purpose of investi-
gating the subject. There were 32 Members of the
House appointed on that Committee, and of these seven
only were Members of the House now. The Right
Hon. Baronet was among the number, and he had to
state that the Right Hon. Gentleman attended the sit-
tings very seldom. He (Mr. Bankes) thought, if cir-
cumstances had enabled the Right Hon. Gentleman to
attend that Committee oftener, he would not have thrown
out the challenge respecting those whose trade or occu-
pation had been affected by his tariff. Had he attended,
he could not entertain such opinions as he did, influenced
as he would have been by the weight of evidence given
before that Committee. It commenced its sittings early
in the month of March, and had been occupied most as-
siduously for a long time afterwards in investigating the
subject. The Hon. Member for Montrose had been in
constant attendance, as he always was, when the public
service required his labours. The terms on which the
House had agreed lo appoint that Committee were—
" That a Select Committee should be appointed to in-
quire into the state of the silk trade, and to see what
effect the change made in the tariff in 1824 had upon it ;
also to inquire what measures might be adopted compa-
tible with the interests of the public to check smuggling,
and to report their observations on those matters to the
House." That Committee sat for five months, and only
closed its labours when Parliament concluded its sit-
tin's. It sat, therefore, from the Ist of March to the
2nd of August. Before they dissclved, they reported to
the House that they regretted they were unable
to draw up a general report on the several matters
that had been submitted to them ; that the
extent of the subject and the number of witnesses who
were examined, and who still remained for examination,
prevented them from doing more than laying before the
[louse the evidence which they had taken. With the
impressions which he entertained in consequence of that
evidence, he would, had he been a member of the next
Parliament, have moved for the re-appointment of that
Committee. He had not, however, been a member of
the next Parliament, nor had he sat in the House for
several years afterwards. Had this been the case it would
not have been his (Mr. Bankes') fault if the opinions
which he, and more than half a dozen of that Committee,
had entertained on that subject were not carried into effect.
On that Committee was, if he did not mistake, Sir E. L.
Bulwer. A majority of the Members had made up their
minds to a division on resolutions, but before the division
took place, an Hon. Member was sent for (Sir Henry
Parnell) who, during the previous sitting of the Com-
mittee, had absented himself, and by this vote (which was
the ca*aing one) were the Members who were guided by
the evidence defeated.—(Hear, hear.) That was suffi-
cient to show that there had been no report worthy the
consideration of the House. Had the report of the Hon.
Members who took his (Mr. Bankes) aide of the ques-
tion, been carried, it would have shown that, so far from