The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-06 00:00:00

by the resolution to declare that the duty on hops was he-
politic, and that in any remission of taxation or Adjustment
of financial burdens provision should be made fort removal
of such duty. He Concluded that what the h ,r. member
wanted was this—that the first £200,000, or 300,000, or
£lOO,OOO which the Chancellor of the Ex ; equer could
spare should be devoted by him to the a ition of the
hop duty. He did not blame those Who hwi that kind
of interest in the question which his honourable friend
the member for Westminster and other honourable gen-
tlemen had—he did not complain of the course they had
taken, because when they wished to get ar*thing froth
the Chancellor of the Exchequer they were not to be
mealy-plouthed in the mode of expressing their opinions.
(A laugh.) He asked the house was it disposed to pass this
resolution and make this pledge ? He was as much against
the tax as anybody. He believed it was as bad a tax as it
had been described, and that no Chancellor of the Exche-
quer of the present day would be so stupid as to attempt to
propose for the first time so odious and absurd a tax; but
notwithstanding it must in a very short time be abolished,
yet he was not prepared, in the position in which they now
stood, to give a pledge that the first money the Chancellor
of the Exchequer could spare should be devoted to its re-
peal. The hon. member for Westminster had admitted that
the hop-growers had only just now become a happy family.
For several years his hon. friend the member for Rochdale
and himself were beset in the lobby by gentlemen wanting
something to be done in regard to the hop duty, There was,
then, a protective duty on foreign hops, and that seemed to
blind the eyes of every man connected with the growth of
hops. Last year it blinded the eye of the paper-maker. For
several years before it blinded the eye of the hop-grower.
So long as the protective duty remained the hop-growers of
Kent and Sussex had not the same interest, and they did
not come forward as an united family ; but since last year
the scales had dropped from their eyes, and they now saw
the question in the same light in which free traders had
seen it for many years, and they asked the house to abolish
the tax: It was however not common in this country for
persons when they had just found out that a tax was bad,
to ask for the repeal of that tax. That was a sort of court •
ship which was not very common with the Chancellor of
the Exchequer. (A laugh.) This was the first year they
had asked for this pledge, and though he should be glad if
they got the repeal of the duty, he thought they might be
very well satisfied if they got it next year or the year after.
The question could not stand debates like the one they had
had that evening. The reading of that debate next day
would necessarily convince everybody out of doors on this
matter who was not already convinced, and in another ses-
sion in all probability the question would be forced on the
Chancellor of the Exchequer in a way in which he would
be unable to resist it. With regard to the proposed pledge,
there was one difficulty which would be experienced. It
might be that gentlemc n near him and gentlemen opposite
had made it all right with the House of Lords. They might
have ascertained, for aught he knew,that if the question were
taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and a bill in-
troduced and passed repealing the hop duty, the House of
Lords would agree with the, opinion of the House of Com-
mons, and consent to the tax being repealed. But the house
was not certain of that. He (Mr. Bright) undertook to say
on behalf of the House of Commons that, however humbled
they might have been by what took place last session, they
had not yet come to that point of subjugation when they
should consent to send up to the other house a bill for the
repeal of any other tax until they had sent up another bill
for the abolition of the excise duty on paper. (Hear.) He
might compare the paper duty with this tax, but that was
really not his object. He did not wish to show at all that
there was any tax, on its own grounds, worse than this tax ;
but if his hon. ft iends had the exciseman. on their premises
for a few weeks in the year during the fine weather, the
paper-makers had him on their premises during 52 weeks in
the year, and to the paper-maker the exciseman was as
great a:nuisance as he could possibly be to the hop-grower.
(Hear, hear.) Moreover, the paper-maker had for many
years applied to Parliament to have the duty on paper
abolished, and last year he was treated in a manner which
no manufacturer in this country had heretofore been treatecY 1
by Parliament. He had therefore a right to come there
first to present his claim, and the House of Commons could
not pass by his case for the purpose of considering any other
case, however grievous. He would not refer to the ques-
tion of the burdens on the press or the injuries done to
education by the existence of the excise duty on paper. lie
did not pretend to make it appear that those injuries were
worse than the injuries done by this tax on hops. (Hear.)
He would place them both exactly on the same footing;
but he appealed to gentlemen in that house who were most
in favour of the abolition of the duty on hops, whether
under the circumstances of the paper trade and the circum-
stances under which the house was placed, it was not fitting
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues
should discuss the events of last year, and the incidence of
paper excise, before they took into consideration the griev-
ous tax which had been brought before them that night.
(Hear.) It was not necessary that he should enlarge on the
serious damage done to that house of Parliament by the
transactions of last year. He knew not that anything the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Government, or the house
could do, could set up the character of the house and place
them exactly in the position in which they were last year.
(Hear, hear.) This, however, he did say, that if they did
what it was in their power to do—if they took the first op-
portunity of re-asserting the right which they recorded in
the resolution last year by again passing a bill for the aboli-
tion of the excise duty on paper, and that bill was agreed to
by the other House of Parliament, and became law, he
should not have the smallest objection to vote for the
strongest resolution, or for the most instantaneous action
on the part of the House of Commons on behalf of the abo-
lition of this duty. But he should feel he was himself base
as a member of the house, and that the House of Commons
would be unworthy of its history, and unworthy of the
slightest confidence on the part of the people of England, if
they did not on the very first opportunity assert its anoient
rights, and teach those who had for a moment forgotten it
that there and there alone rested the power to tax the peo-
ple, and to determine what should be raised from them to
satisfy the exigencies of the Crown and the service of the
year. .
Viscount HOLMESDALE charged the hon. member for
Birmingham with being like the dog in a manger, he could
not get the paper duty abolished and consequently he would
not give relief to another suffering interest. He denied that
paper and hops could be placed in the same category, be-
esuse the tax on paper was levied on the manufactured arti-
' cle, the supply of which was fixed and certain, while the tax
on hops was levied on the raw material, the supply of which
was uncertain in. quality and precarious in quantity.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said'he
was bound to say that in common fairness to the case of the
Lop duty, it had been stated to-night both by his hon.
friends behind him and by noble lords opposite with a great
deal of ability. (Hear, hear.) It was impossible that greater
justice could be done to the arguments in favour of the
clause in their hands. And in whet he had to say he would
venture to make certain reservations and qualifications, but
in speaking in all sincerity upon the,various points which
had been discussed he subset ibed in a great degree to what
had fallen from them. (Hear, hear.) That, however,
which he would endeavour to urge upon the house, and
Which the house should bear in mind was that the question
which they Were called upon to debate to-night was not the
merits of the hop duty. He would ask no hon. member to
give an opinion upon the merits of the hop duty as a tax to
be continued in this country. But be would endeavour to
state to the house what he thought were the conclusive
grounds why they should not adopt the motion of his hon.
friend. He thought the hop duty was fairly open to these
jcharges—that it was unequal in its produce as a fiscal re-
source, and that it was unequal in its pressure upon the
different classes of hops in a degree which, although it might
be possible to find parallels and even stronger cases on com-
modities of various kinds, yet..not in regard to domestic
commodities which were. fairly liable to excise. ' This duty
tended to aggravate distress, and there was no trade in which
reverses were so sudden. (Hear, hear.) It was also open
to objection as being levied upon an article of raw produce.
These were objections which might be fairly urged against
the hop duty. There were other .objections taken, but
which he thought were not sustainable. It was said, for
example, that this was a duty which was costly be collec-
tion; but that was a mistake, for the money which cape
into the Exchequer from the hop duty was among the
cheapest so far as collection was concerned. The noble lord
who spoke with such great ability, alluded to certain ex-
, cessive excise restrictions, but there were no such restric-
tions which in any appreciable degree interfered with pro-
duction.
No doubt the tax was unfavourable in its incep-
tion, but not in its consummation. .On the other hand, it
did not interfere with the operations. of the producer. His
lion. friend the, member for East Sussex (Mr. Dodson) who
had spoken of the fickleness of the hop plant, and others
who called.upon the house, must not depend upon putting
an-end to the distress by a repeal of the hop duty. (Hear,
hear.) His honourable friend pear him (Sir J. Shelley)
said he had undergonnconsiderable kisses aa a planter; but
he-thought hia statement was incomplete as .an exhibition
of a general" rule, because he would pot .contradict
him (the_ Chancellor of the ExChequer).when he said that
there was an important element In this. case..-.he meant the
interest of the landlord in promoting the hop cultivation--
not only on account of the rant which it produced, but be-
cause of the market which ha secured =for his underwood.
He would not enter into the question dale morality or im.
moralityfrom the concourse of persons employed in hop
picking, but he would look at this simply as a trading ques-
tion, and the truth was that it was unhioily distindt from
every.other agricultural product, from the extraordinary
reverses_which it offered to those who embraced the trade:
(Hear.) In due season the hops wore not worth the pick-
ing:, while in another the producer might have £lOO an acre
dear, after all expenses had been paid. (Hear.) The duty
acted as a deduction from thd 'prized, and an aggravation
of the blanks. (Hear, hear.) Bid it would be the greatest
delusion'to'suppose that the main cause.of the distress was
the operation of the duty. His hon. friend,said it did not
amount to £200,000 a year, but in 'order to reduce it to so
lbw a figure hd went back to along term to Strike his aye-
-Itges, and *hen hop-planting was lead than at present.
ating the facts as-fairly as he (the Chancellor of the. Ex-
equery could, he would say, the average amount of duty
Was front 1300,000 t4/350,000.ay'ear*,Buthe folly admitted
t this wait an unbertain amount to the revenue. Still he
net think that vu that accohlit they 'would do well to
liclA

td.aira-vdt

"113111 U