The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-19 00:00:00

fourtt Vbitton

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve o'clock.
CHARING-CROSS-BRIDGE BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
KENSINGTON IMPROVEMENT BILL.
This Bill was read a second time. .
PETITIONS.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from Ire
land praying for a remission of the paper duty.
General LYGON presented a petition from Leicester
against the hop duty.
Sir E. FILMER presented several petitions from
different places in Kent against the duty on paper.
A large number of petitions were presented against
the establishment of a Roman Catholic hierarchy in
England, and among them one by Mr. HENLEY from
Oxtordshire, praying also for the repeal of the Catholic
Emancipation Act of 1829, which excited animated and
ironical cheers from both sides of the House.
Lord DUNCAN presented several petitions against
the window duty.
Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition very numerously
signed from Northumberland praying for a modification
of the income-tax. He also presented petitions from
Finsbury and Lambeth.
Mr. WAKLEY also presented a petition from the
coach-builders of Kensington praying fur a reduction of
the tax upon carriages.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD gave notice that he
should, when the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill went into
Committee, move that it should not extend to Ireland.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
Oa the motion of Mr. MORRIS, Mr. John Martin
was excused attendance on the House fur a month, in
consequence of the death of a near relative.
On the motion of Sir ROBERT FERGUSON, Sir
Denham Norreys was excused attendance for a fortnight,
on account of the dangerous illness of one of his
HOP .
On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
Mr. FREWEN said that before the Bill received the
approval of the House he hoped it would consider deli-
berately what it was about to do. He had received seve-
ral deputations from the growers of hops, and from the
representations of them all he found that the law was in-
jurious to every class except those who were most im-
mediately benefited by it. Whether their representa-
tion.• were correct or not, it was plainly evident that the
hap duty was oppressive and unjust.—(Hear, hear.)
That duty was imposed as a war tax during the last cen-
tury, and an expectation had always been held out that
,t should in the time of peace be remitted altogether.
With respect to the imposition of an excise duty he
would say but little, but what he would say was that
where there was a difference made between one part of
the country and another, the tax imposed was evidently
injust and must of necessity be injurious. He did not
hesitate to say that it was to the operation of this duty
it was owing that the growth of hops had been reduced
rom 56,322 acres, in 1837, to 43,125 acres
luring the last year. In Herefordshire there had been
a reduction from 10,603 acres, in 1837, to 5,126 acres, in
a.st year. In Sussex the reduction was from 12,068
acres to 9,780 acres. In Essex a great breadth of land
devoted to the cultivation of hops had been reduced to
125 acres. In Lincolnshire the acreage had been re-
duced from 607 to 260; in Wiltshire, from 1,222 to only
5 acres; and in Worcestershire the reduction was from
1 888 to 1,031 acres. In fact the only places where
there had been no reduction was about Farnham and in
Kent, where the growers enjoy peculiar advantages. He
eid nut mean to say that if a man took a good sample
tutu the market he should not get a good price for his
goods, but the advantages were altogether on one side,
.nd as the law as it at present stood was not only op-
pressive but calculated to encourage. trickery—(Hear,
hear)—he trusted that the House would take some mea-
su, es to protect the public. In order therefore to minis-
ter to that object he should move the second reading of
the Bill before the House.
Mr. DEEDES said that the Hon. Gentleman below
'him (Mr. Frewen) had complained of the unequal ope-
ration of the hop-duty. He did not mean to defend the
imposition of an excise duty on hops, for he himself had
frequently waited with others upon the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, with a view to obtain a remission of the
duty; but his Hon. Friend had mixed up two subjects of
a totally different character. If he had divided his Bill
into two parts, he should very gladly have supported
him ; but the Bill as it now stood was altogether injurious,
and would practically work great mischief. He stated
that his object was to protect the public. Now it should
be remembered that hops, when prepared for the
brewer, were a very delicate article and required
much judgment to distinguish a superior from
an inferior quality, and, therefore, every assistance
ought to be rendered to the public, in order to ascertain
the quality. The best guide that they possibly could
have was the amount of duty paid upon the article.
Fir this reason he should move that the Bill be read this
day six months.
Mr. 11. DRUM.M.OND had very great pleasure in
seconding the amendment. Everybody knew that Fern-
Amu hops were the best in the country, and that Sussex
Cops were the worst.—(Hear, hear.) It was utterly im-
possible to protect the public without some legislative
interference. He had no objection to the Hon. Member
for Sussex getting
,up a little Parliamentary capital in
the face of a general election, but he did protest against
imposing his own advantage on the shoulders of the
public, and he should therefore vote for the amendment.
Mr. FULLER said that, seeing the great opposition
-which the 'Bill had met with, and was likely ;to
meet with he should advise him to withdraw the Bill.
Mr. BASS said that being a large buyer of hops he
might be permitted to say a few words on this subject.
—(Hear, hear.) He merely wished to observe that
hops were an article which it required great judgment
and experience to estimate. There were many hop mer-
chants who knew very little about beer, and many a great
brewer who knew very little about hops, so that he was not
surprised to see this Bill in the House; but he hoped
that this would be the last they should ever hear of it,
for ho was quite sure that the public required every pro-
tection that it could obtain. No greater facility could
he afforded to the ignorant and inexperienced than the
mount of duty paid and the marks which were placed
epon the several bags; and he should, therefore, vote
against the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. HODGES,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
without wishing to throw any imputation on his Ho-
nourable Friend the Member for Sussex, he could not
help saying that it appeared to him that the Bill was
brought in to serve one object, while it in effect
Professed to aim at another. With regard to
the remission of the hop duties altogether, he
tueueht that a fair subject for discussion, and when the
proper time came he should be ready to enter'into it; but
!ais was altogether a matter of a different character, and
feeling that no Bill ought to be brought into the House
in the Way in which this Bill had been introduced, he
,hould vote for the amendment.
Mr. PLUMPTRE said that if the differential duties
~;ere equalised no reliance whatever could be placed on
toe marks on the bag, and,
therefore, they would be-
come perfectly useless.
Mr. C CRTEIS said that the Government had already
lost much of their popularity in his part of the country,
nd he warned them that their Opposition to this mea-
sure would tend greatly to increase the dislike with
which they were regarded.
reply, repudiated the charge of
Mr. FREWEN, in
unfairness which bad been
stated that the bop-growers
Each
the country ought to be placed pr_fcctshely in the same po-
sition as the growers of wheat.
market, and let each in like manner_deepert.d for his price
upon the quality of his goods.—(hthear.) There
was no reason for showing more favour to one grower
tam: to the other, and he should, therefore, notwith-
standing the taunt of seeking for popularity, persist
with his Bill.
Mr. A HOPE having briefly eupported the Bill on
the ground that the growers on pour lands ought not to
be placed et any disadvantege,
The House divided, when there appeared--
For the Bill ..• 9
Against it •.• •••
Majority •••
The Bill was consequently lost.
SUNDAY TRADING PREVENTION BILL.
Mr. B. WALL presented a number of petitions agains
this Bidi.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS moved the second reading of
this Bill. He had undertaken the charge of it at the
r,queert of a great number of his constituents, but as
it was materially the same as the Bill of last session, he
should not go at length into the details of it. The first
Act to prevent Sunday trading was passed in the reign of
Charles the Second, and the principle of that Bill was
much the same as the present Bill. The evidence which

::--122