The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-17 00:00:00

HOP CREDIT.

On the next resolution—" That, towards raising the sup-
ply granted to her Majesty, the duty of excise, which for
the time being is or shall be chargeable on hops growing or
to grow in Great Britain, shall be payable on the Ist day of
May, 1861, and afterwards on the Ist day of January next
after the curing thereof."
Lord H. VANE said an hon. member who was not now
present had given notice of an amendment to this resolu-
tion. All who were concerned in the culture of hops wore
of opinion that the time had come when the duty on that
article ought to be removed altogether. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer had so far agreed to this that he had re-
duced the duty, and he was sure that it was only the neces-
sity of his position which prevented him from abolishing
the duty forthwith.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was
glad it had been in his power to propose a reduction of the
duty, and if it had been in his power he should have pro-
posed the total repeal.
Sir J. SHELLEY said the hop-growers were now willing
to see a free trade in hops, He believed they could compete
against all the world. He trusted his right hon. friend would
remain long enough in office to carry out what he believed
he would be glad to do, a repeal of the duty and a fres trade

in hops.
The other resolutions, as to British chicory, contract
notes, assignments of leases, accidental death insurances,
and foreign promissory notes, were also agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER announced
that the resolutions as to spirits would be embodied in the
bill that was passing through the house.
Mr. WALPOLE said the proposal was a very unusual
one, and he should think it would be objected to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained
that no detriment would be done to the rights of the house,
for the bill might be recommitted, if necessary, anynumber
of times.
The helve then resumed.
BANRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.
This bill on being called on was postponed.
Several hon. members requested an explanation, and were
informed that it was only in consequence of the accidental
absence of the Attorney-General. Before, however, the
house had passed to the next order Sir R. Bethell came in,
and was received with some cheers.
The committee was then resumed at clause 128, which
was agreed to.
On clause 129, •
Mr. CRAWFORD wished to explain that the statements
of the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Murray) and of the
hon. member for Kendal as to the profit made by the Bank
of England were inaccuracies. The hon. gentlemen had
said, for instance, that the average cash balance in the Bank
was £lOO,OOO, but he found that though in the course of last
year thebalance was once ashigh as £151,000. it very speedily
fell below £lOO,OOO, and was in a few weeks reduced to £420.
Then it was stated that the annual remuneration received
by the Bank was between £3,000 and £4,000 ; whereas
he found last year that it was only £2,270; out of
which they had to pay the salaries of officers charged with
the business of the department, and a number of incidental
charges which absorbed the whole sum.
Mr. MURRAY said it was clear the hon. gentleman
could not have seen the return which he held in his hand,
and which gave the quarterly balances held by the Bank for
the last five years. In that period the total receipts were
£3,500,000, and the payments £6,000,000 and upwards.
The accountant in bankruptcy stated that the average ba-
lance was £97,458 lls. 6d. As to the remuneration paid to
the Bank, he found from the return that it had been as
follows :—For 1855, a 655 Os. 11d.; 1856, £1,871 7s. 5d.;
1857, £2,408 ; 1858, £3,139 ; and 1859, £3,160. The hon.
gentleman was therefore not justified in charging him and
the hon. member for Kendal with inaccuracy.
The clause was then agreed to, as were also clauses 130
and 131, with some verbal amendments.
Upon clause 132,
Mr. E. P. BOUVERIE said the clause provided that
the funds of creditors paid into the account of the accountant
in bankruptcy should be invested in three per cent. consols,
and as this was for the security and benefit of the creditors
it was only reasonable that they should run the riskof any