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

by the resolution to deviate that the duty Oh hops was im-
politic, and that In any remission of takatioh ar adjnsttnent
offinancial btu-dens pro Vision should be made fort removal
of such duty. Ile concluded that what the h ,r. member
wanted was this—that the first £200,000.,,0r 30%000, or
2100,000 which the Chancellor of tho 131 equer could
spare should be devoted by Min to the a ition of the
hop duty. Ile did not blame those who had that kind

of intetest in the question which his honourable Mend
the member for Westminster and other honourable gen-
tlemen had—he did hot complain of the course they had

taken) because when they wished to get anything from
the Chancellor of the Exchequer they were not to be

mealy-mouthed 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 taxi but
notes ithstauding 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 hopLgtotette of
Kent and Sussex had not the same intetest, and they did
not come forward as an united family ; but since last year
the scales had dropped from their eyes, and they ratite 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, ho thought they might be
very well satisfied if they got it next year or the year after.
The question tould not stand debates like the one they had
had that evening. The reading of that debate next day
would necessarily convince everybody out of deers 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 ho would
be unable to resist it. With regard to the proposed pledge,
there was one difficulty which would be experienced. It
might be that gentlemen 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 net 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. lie did not wish to show at all that
there was any tax, on its own grounds, worse than this tax ;
but if his hon. tz 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 years 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 treated
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. He
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
I 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 washimself 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 ancient
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 lIOLMESDALE 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-
cause the tax on paper was levied on the manufactured arti-
cle, the supply of whick 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
hop dirty, 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
cause in their hands. And in what he had to say he would
venture to make certain reservations and qualifications, but
in speaking in all sincerity upon the various points which

bad been discussed he subscribed in a great degree to whai

had fallen from theta. (Hear, hear.) That, however,
which ho 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 he 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
charges—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 in collec-
tion ; but that was a mistake, for the money which came
into the Exchequer from the hop duty was among the
cheapfe-t 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, hut not in its consummation. On' the other hand, it
did not interfere with the operations of the producer._ His
hon. 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 1
an end to the distress by a repeal of the hop duty. (Hear,
hear.) His honourable friend near him (Sir J. Shelley)
said he had undergone considerable losses as a planter; but
he thought his statement was incomplete as an exhibition
of a general rule, because he would not contradict
him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) when he said that
there was an important clement in this case—he meant the
interest of the landlord in promoting the hop cultivation—
not only on account of the rent which it produced, but be-
cause of the market which he secured for his underwood.
He would not enter into the question of the morality or im-
morality from the concourse of persons employed in hop-
picking, but he would look at this simply as a trading ques-
tibn, and the truth was that it was unhappily distinct from
eery other agricultural product,- from the extraordinary
r venea which it offered to those who embraced the trade.
( ear.) In one season the hops were not worth the pick-
frig, while in another the producer might have £l.OO an acre
clear, after all expenses had been paid. (Hear.) The duty
acted as a deduction from the prizes, and an aggravation 1
o/ the blanks. (Hear, hear.) But it would be the greatest
d Ise4ott to suppose that the main cause of the distress was
t e operation of the duty. His hon. friend said it did not
t
i tt
did ax urni
ttnoh
iott r
kits o
thick
4£72000a
t 0,40,000.
atti
109 theta, year,rztt3hasiattot ,
accostcab 00 uot
ani
year,
te
aott
rho".
they
tbeyhruettirhe9e,
vrwe
lie
fullyt
uu ced reduce it
admittedi, ttl
wello i sooe
1 #,.ai figure he went back to a long term to strike his aye-
r eve, and when hop-planting was less than ,at present.
8 tag the facts as fairly as he (the Chancellor of the Ex-
e - 'l4l') could, ho would say, the average amount of duty

, •
art with it. Ire thought his hon. friend near him (Mr.
Dodson) was much too sanguine in his anticipations of the
public and general results which were to follow the aboli-
tion of this duty, and he compared the repeal in this ease
tb the abolition of the duty upon bricks, soap, and glass,
omitting the effects of the customs duty. So far as regarded
the general public, he confessed he knew of no duty in the
repeal of which they had so little t 9 do. This was one of
those small amounts difficult to trace in its incidences, But

this was not, in point of fact, like the cases where they
, had been able to remove imposts comparatively small, to
give an enormous impetus to trade, and open up new sources
of employment; and which had operated to bring back
the revenue, either by augmented wages or otherwise,
to its original amount. The repeal of the hop duty was
the producers' question. (Hear, hear.) It was the
hardship to the producer they were called upon to deal
with ; and in this case it was clear that if they repealed
the duty it would be to make a present of it to the pro-
ducer. His hon. friend called him either a fearless or a
reckless financier, but notwithstanding the statements
which he had heard to-night, he would not bo so fearless or
so reckless as to accept the resolution. There was another
incidental point to which he wished to advert, and it was
this—there was a certain connection between the abolition
of the hop duty—what amount he could not say—and the
augmentation of the malt duty—(hear)—and many gentle-
men had in their interviews with him alluded to it, but by
some strange accident that topic had been forgotten in the
debate of this question in the hoiise, although it had been
suggested within the four walls of his room. That was the
suggestion which had been made for supplying the gap
which wottld be required to be filled tip. (Hear, hear.) In
the case of the hop duty it had been endeavoured to excite
compassion by stating that £lO or £l5 was levied 'Upon an
acre) when it only paid olie pound rent. But in the case
of barley for distillation, he would venture to assert that it
paid £4O to £5O, and even 1,60 tin acre duty upon the crop
of the year. The noble lord opposite said he asked for free
trade and nothing else, and he felt sure the hon. member
for Birmingham would find his heart leap within him
when he heard that definition of fief) trade accepted ill such
a quarter. There were important questionsnow as to what
constituted free trade. They were now happily all agreed
upon being free traders, but he belieVed the original
holders of the idea Contended that the essence of free trade
consisted in the abolition of protective ditties ; but there
was another school of free traders, who thought that all
articles subject to an indirect tax should be abolished, and
it Wtts in that setise that the noble lord asked for this
simple boon at their hands. The hon. gentleman the tim-
ber
,for Westminster (Sir d. ShelleT) bad complained of
the data duty of is. pet ti,i7t. fUr bonding foreign. hops
as not being an adequate counterpoise for the benefits
arising from bonding; but the Is. (1114 would not come
into operation until next year; and at present there was a
protection of 6s. in favour of British hops. No doubt the
importer of hops would be glad to give up the privilege of
bonding if they would give up the difference of duty. He
objected to the motion because it was an abstract re-
solution relating to a matter of finance, and he could not
but feel that this was a serious debate. He would not go
into the question whether the House of Commons w ntld be
justified in accepting this resolution; but it should be re-
membered that there was already one resolution of the
kind in existence, via., that relating to the paper duty.
(Hear, hear.) The fate of that resolution ought to be a
warning to hon. gentlemen against their adopting more of
that class. If it were carried, did his hon. friend suppose
that nobody else would follow his example ? There were
other duties pressing upon the house. The hon. member
for Dudley had endeavoured to obtain from the Government
a repeal of the fire insurance duty, and he would come down
and move a similar resolution. In point of fact, it was not
a question of one resolution, but of a string of them, and
every one would be supported and authorised by that which
had gone before. He would ask whether the result of this
process—condemning four or five duties—would conduce to
the credit of Parliament. On the contrary, he believed it
would weaken the authority of the House of Commons.
Besides, these resolutions were worthless in themselves,
dangerous because they gave rise to hopes which never
would be fulfilled, and certainly dangerous in leading to
contrasts and criticisms unfavourable to the character of
this house of Parliament. (Hear.) He had spoken of the
paper duty resolution, and he confessed it appeared to him
that the paper duty resolution as it stood, though ho upheld
all the opinions he expressed at the time—opinions which
experience had confirmed—was a warning to them to pause
and to hold their hands, and to consider how far they
should adopt the resolutions. (Hear.) These proceedings
were practically innovations. It was not the practice of

the House of Commons in fortner times to endeavour to
meet a cry out of doors, and to satisfy the permanent wishes
of any class of tha community by drawing these long bills
upon the future, and promise to do at another time that
which they were unable to do on the instant. He would
add that his friend had not improved in his form upon the
language used in the paper duty resolution, for they would
recollect that that resolution merely stated that it was un-
desirable that the duty should be continued permanently
to form a part of the fiscal arrangements of the country.
What the hon. member claimed was, that in some manner
or other they should get rid of this duty, at any rate, when
any change in our fiscal arrangements took place. If the
resolution wero carried, it would be unlawful to remit a

duty on the smallest article, however urgent the case
might be, until this tax was repealed. The hon. gentle-
man's resolution would stand in the way, and they must
lay a fine of £300,000 or £400,000 a year to the hop grow-
ers in order that they might address themselves to the
repeal of any other duty, however small. Now, it was
the invariable duty of the person who held his position to
remind the house when it was asked to give pledges for
the repeal of any particular duty, of the position in which
they stood. In the course of a few weeks the financial
year would be brought to a close, a year of critical circum-
stances, on account of extensive changes introduced into
the law, and the condition of trade, and the peculiarly
disastrous character of the harvest last year. But, with-
out insisting too strongly on these circumstances, he put
it to the house, that it was their duty not to consider claims
for the remission of taxation one by one, separating the
one from the other as one might be pressed with greater
eagerness or greater skill by the advocate of the particular
interest, but to wait till the time came when they knew as
a whole the financial condition of the country, when they
saw what was to be its expenditure, and what would be
their means. And in dealing with the claims for remission,
if they had an opportunity for remission they should deal
with them sn a fair comparison of their respective merits.
The hon. member had forgotten that they were levying a
duty on tea at a rate imposed during the war, that the
duty on sugar was in a similar condition, that the duty on
paper which they passed a bill to repeal last session was
still levied ; and he had forgotten that the income tax was
at tenpenco in the pound. Ile might go on enumerating
more cases of the same kiwi. The hon. member had also
forgotten the case of many other taxes which thehouse had
been called upon to take into its serious consideration. Now
he did not want to take an advantage over his hon. friend,
unless it were such as by the form of his motion he
could take. Ile (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
did not ask the house to affirm that the duty on hops was a
popular duty, or that it ought to be permanently retained ;
nay more, he did not ask the house to eleclare that there
were more serious claims upon it; but he entreated the
house not to prejudge those questions that would come be-
fore tnem when the estimates of the year were fully pre-
pared, and when by the best means in their power they had
arrived at an estimate of what their revenue would be. That
was the time when his hon. friend would have the opportu-
nity, with others, of making his proposition, but he must
say that it was the essential and invariable nature of a mo-
tion of this kind to point to the particular subject, and it was
an unfair and surreptitious advantage over other claims
which might be as well entitled to consideration. He asked
his hon. friend to be content with equality of dealing, and by
equality of dealing he would bs placed in the same position
as the advocates of other interests. He would be in a position
to urge his claim at the proper time, when the house c uld
enter into a searching inquiry of it with other claims. Those
were the grounds on which he felt persuaded that the
house would not accede to the request of the hon. gentle-
man. It would be the grossest dereliction of duty if, from
the popular character of the hon. gentleman's motion, and
from the knowledge of a phalanx who supported him, if
they were to refrain from entreating the house to hold this
question over till the financial statement of the year had
been made, which must of necessity in a few weeks be brought
before them, but above all, he called upon the house to
avoid the repetition of resolutions of this description with
regard to the abstract merits or demerits of taxes, which
resolutions were valueless of themselves and injurious from
the expectations they excited, and which were a departure
from the practice of former times, when they were not accus
toured to give pledges with regard to the repeal of taxes;
which pledges they could not always fulfil.

Lord HARRY VANE said the Chancellorof the Exche
quer opposed the resolution mainly on the ground of its
being an abstract resolution. Now, he was ready to admit
that objections were to be raised to abstract resolutions, but
he must say that those who succeeded in their objects gene-
rally succeeded by abstract resolutions. He believed that
this year this duty would yield hardly any revenue at all,
and the next crop must be a bad one. If the duty were
repealed the deficiency would soon be made up by the in-
creased quantity of malt that would be used.

Mr. DISRAELI hoped the house would well consider
the step they took before they agreed to the motion. He
was not at all insensible to the strength of the claim which
had been brought before them that evening. It had been
his lot on several occasions to have the case of the hop-
growers placed before him with great ability, and with great
fulness of detail, and on no occasion had it been put for-
ward with more efficiency than it had been to .night by the
hon. member for Kent, whom ho hoped to see taking a more
active part in their debates. Ilis hon, friend the member
from Cambridgeshire did not establish a case for the repeal
of the tax when said the tax was a grievance. Whether
a tax were a grievance was a secondary matter. They must
look to the state of the revenue. There was nothing that
was not a grievance and which was not a restrictien to
enterprise. The hon. gentleman and his friends might
justify this motion by the resolution to which the house
agreed on the paper duties ; but really there was no simi-
larity between them. it. was the office of the House of
COD 31110110) if it b,ad a strong opinion in reference to any par-