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

pert with it. Ite thought his hon. friend near him (Mr. 1
Dodson) was much too sanguine in his anticipations of the 1
public and general results which were to follow the abolis i
tion of this ditty, And he notripated the repeal in this case 1
to 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 to 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 irapetus 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with ; and in this case it was clear that if they repealed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 house, 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 would be required to be filled up. (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 one pound rent. But in the case
of barley for distillation, he would venture to assert that it
paid £4O to £5O, and even £6O an 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 free trade accepted in such
a quarter. There were important questions now as to what
constituted free trade. They were now happily all agreed
upon being lee traders, but he believed the original
holders of the idea contended that the essence of free trade
consisted in the abolition of protective duties ; but there
was another school of free traders, who thought that all
articles subject to an indirect tax should be aoolished, and
it was in that sense that the noble lord asked for this
simple boon at their hands. The hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) had complained of
the extra duty of Is. per cwt. for bonding foreign hops
as not being an adequate counterpoise for the benefits
arising from bonding; but the Is. du4 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•mid be
justified in accepting this resolution; but it should be re-
membered that there was already one resolution of the ,
kind in existence, viz., 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 1
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 ono 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 he 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 former times to endeavour to
meet a cry out of doors, and to satisfy the permanent wishes
of any class of the 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 were 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
I ay a fine of £300,000 or £400,000 a year to the hop grow-
ers in order that they might a idress 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 en 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 tenpence in the pound. lie might go on enumerating
more cases of the same kind. 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 ho
could take. lie (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
did not ask 'the house to allirm 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 declare that there
were more serious claims upon it; but he entreated the
house not to prejudge those questions that would come be-
fore tncm 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 revende 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 tho 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. lie asked
his hon. friend to be content with equality of dealing, and by
equality of dealing he would be 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 nld
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 refittest of the hon. gentle-
man. It would be the grossest dereliction of duty it; 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-
tomed to give pledges with regard to the repeal of taxes,
which pledges they could not always fulfil.

Lord HARRY VANE said the Chancellor of 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. DISRA.ELI 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 occasiens 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 he hoped to see taking amore
active part in their debates. His hon.. friend the member
from Cambridgeshire did not establish a case for the repeal
of the tax when he 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 restriction to
enterprise. The hon. gentleman and his friends might
justify this motion by. the resolution to which the house
agreed
paper ctuticy; ; but really there was no simi-
larity It was the, office of the House of
between o n the
thew.
C tamps, if it bad A otr9pg opiAion in reforeace tvOily par- ,