The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-22 00:00:00

COMMERCIAL OPINIONS ON THE

BUDGET.

A large meeting of persons interested in the
wine and spirit trades was held at the London
Tavern yesterday, to consider the proposed alcoho-
lic test of the strength of wines as regulating the
duty ; and also the justice of demanding a draw-
back upon wines in stock in April, 1861, should
any further reduction take place in the duty. Mr.
Trowers took the chair, and denounced the proposed
alcoholic test as impracticable, cumbrous in work-
ing, likely to lead to confusion in the trade between
buyer and seller, and furthermore to the bribery of
Custom-house officers by unscrupulous importers.
He also argued at great length upon the injustice
that would be done to them if they were not
allowed the draw-back contended for. Several
gentlemen addressed the meeting in a similar
strain, more especially with regard to the alcoholic
test, which was declared to be beautiful in experi-
meat, but impracticable in the carrying out of the
object aimed at, and likely to act only as a shackle
on the freedom of trade. Various resolutions were
carried embodying the arguments of the speakers
(to be submitted to the Chancellor of the Exche••
quer), and recommending the substitution of one
uniform duty on all classes of wine.

AGGREGATE MEETING OF HOP DELE-

GATES.

A meeting of delegates from the various hop-
growing districts in different parts of England was
held at Westminster yesterday, for the purpose of
receiving the reports of various district meetings
which have been recently held, and forming some
plan of concerted action, in order to induce the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to modify his proposal
with respect to the hop duty.
In addition to the delegates, the following mem-
bers of Parliament representing hop-growing dis-
tricts were present :—Worcestershire, Sir J. Pak-
ington, Lord Elmsley, and Mr Knight; Hampshire,
Mr. Beach ; Herefordshire, Mr. Wing, Mr. Mild-
may, and Lord W. Graham; Kent, Sir E. Filmer
and Viscount Holmesdale ; and Sussex, Mr. Dod-
son.

Mr. Punnett, a large hopgrower of Kent, occu-
pied the chair.
The CHAIRMAN called upon the various members
of Parliament present to state what course they
should advise the meeting to take iu order to secure
the objects they had in view.

Sir J. PAKINGTON said that although any obser-
vations upon his part might not be so worthy of
attention as those which fell from the representa-
tives of large hop-growing districts, yet as he was
connected with Worcestershire, in which a good
deal of land was planted with hops, he had consi-
dered it his duty to attend this important meeting.
(Cheers.) The chairman had desired the members
of Parliament to advert particularly to the question
of what they were likely to get from the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, but it was impossible to tell what
Parliament might be disposed to give. They could
all tell what they disliked—(hear, hear)—and, as-
sembled as they were from different parts of Eng-
land, his advice was, to confine themselves to the
statement of what they disliked. (Hear, hear.)
In attempting to make terms for themselves only,
they were only entering into matters entirely be-
yond their control, and therefore they ought to
confine themselves to the real issue, which was—
did they approve the proposals of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer t (Cries of " No, no.") That being
the case, he would suggest, as a matter of business,
instead of their going to the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, they should instruct their members to go
at once to the House of Commons and say, " This
budget does not suit us, and we will oppose it."
He should be disposed more than ever to think that
this was the proper course of proceeding after the
opinions he had heard expressed at that highly in-
fluential meeting, in which there did not appear to
be the slightest difference of opinion. An hon.
friend of his, who had attended a hop meeting a
few days ago, acting on the principle that union
was strength, had suggested there should be a com-
bined action on the part of all the trades who
objected to the budget—(hear, hear)—because the
hop interest alone could do little of itself more than
any other interest ; but if any combined action
could be obtained some good results could be
secured. As for the budget itself, he looked upon
it as a rash, meddlesome, and unsatisfactory
scheme, and if all the interests injuriously affected
by it would combine together, giving up their
immediate views with regard to their own indi-
vidual interests, the result would very soon be to
get rid of it altogether. The chairman had told
them that they would rather have free trade
in hops than the proposed modification of the
duty, but he did not think that they were very
likely to get free trade for financial reasons, for
it was not likely, considering the enormous amount
of the artificially created deficiency, that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer would give up the large
amount of revenue represented by the hop duty.
He therefore counselled them to unite with other
interests, and bring such a pressure to bear upon
Parliament as would put an end to the budget at a
blow.

Tho CHAIRMAN observed that the reason why
free trade in hops was suggested was because several
of the members in the house who supported the
Ministy would then vote for the removal of restric-
tions as a portion of their free-trade policy, while
it was hoped that for once the Conservative party
would waive their differences, and, on account of
the exceptional nature of the trade, vote for total
freedom in this article. The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer's scheme, if carried out, would be infinitely
worse for the hopgrower than free trade.
Sir J. PAKINGTON observed that the chairman
had suggested that if nothing else could be done,
the Conservative party, laying aside their political
bias, should vote for free trade in hops. It was his
decided opinion that the Conservative party in the
House of Commons would support free trade in hops
if the hopgrowers wished it. (Cheers.) He certainly
had not the slightest objection to do so. Still it was
his decided opinion that the course of combined
action which he suggested was the best.
Mr. KING, M.P., said that, as a member of the
Conservative party, he had always ecusidered the
question of the hop duties an isolated question, and
not in the light of a party question.
Mr. KNIGHT, M.P., was of opinion that the only
way to meet their difficulties was to say " No, no,
no," to the budget, for if they were allowed to get
into committee upon it, although every interest
would complain in its turn, yet the Government
would be able to bring a majority to bear against
them in every instance.
Lord HOLMESDALR, M.P., quite concurred in the
opinion that the hop trade would receive no favour
at the hands of the Government, and that it was
their duty to vote against the budget as a whole.
Some further discussion having taken place, the
following resolution was carried unanimously :
" That the members of Parliament for East and
West Kent, Worcester, Hants, Hereford, and Sus•
sex, be requested to wait upon the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, to place before him the views of
their constituents, as expressed in the resolutions
laid upon the table, and to ascertain from him how
far he is open to the consideration of any other pro-
position with reference to the hop duty than that
which he has himself suggested.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN PRUSSIA

The Prussian Government possess an easy means
of ruining a journal which pursues Liberal prin-
ciples, viz., by prohibiting it from being sent by
post. This despicable method of getting rid of a
literary adversary has been employed recently
against the London paper Hermann, a German
journal which has zealously striven to inculcate
the ideas of national unity and liberty, and to
aid the political movement at home. It is no
doubt in consequence of the fearless exposures of
the vile system of espionage and official corrup-
tion prevailing in Government circles in Berlin,
that the Hermann has thus been
fansamciyttetno by ye
aa
police ordinance, which we might
leaf taken out of the book of the most profligate.
and bashaw-like regime. Nevertheless
every reason to think that the voice, there ii
of tiuths
will not be entirely stifled by the lawless act of
the Prussian Regent, and that the efforts of those
who prize free institutions will only be doubled
after this most recent exhibition of Governmental
Sultanism.—Advertiser.

RECENT BUDGETS.—The following table exhibits
at a glance the reduction and imposition of taxation between
1843 and 1858 :

Year. Taxes Repealed or Reduced. Taxes Imposed.
1843 ........... £111,821
1814 . .......... 4
458,810
1845 .. ...
,516,303
1846 . .......... 1,151,790
1817 . .......... 314,886
1848 ........... ,
585 968
1849 ........... 388,798
1888:3021 . .
2
• .
............................ 1;
63,71,905 i
981265811 ..
600,000
1853 . .......... 3,247,474
1854..... 1,284,107
1855312,960
1856. 2,203,475
1857 . 10,753,582
1858
the large range of the figures in the years 1854-5-6-7 is of
course to bo attributed to the Crimean war ; but taking the
whole period there appears to have been a net reduction of
taxation of no less than £12,226,701. Notwithstanding this
very considerable remission the net revenue paid into the
Exchequer advanced from £52,582,817 in 1843 to X 61,812,555
lu. 1858, so that the revenue-yielding powers of the empire
would seem to have increased in tho 16 years about 40 per
cent.