poor if they gave it through the medium of to a child. As to the Bible, wherever it taxation, because there was no mode of could be read, so as not to have the effect taxation which they could adopt which did of exclusion, he thought it was desirable not ultimately fall on the shoulders of the and useful that it should be read; but he labouring man. There were hundreds and would not consent to its being the means thousands who contributed voluntarily and of exclusion to the children of any class with pleasure to promote the cause of edu- whatever. cation among the people. He himself did not give less than 2001. a year towards voluntary education, and he gave it from the principle of self-love. If they levied a tax for the purposes of education, they Adderley, C. B. would stop the issues of the voluntary sys-Anstey, T. C. tem. He thought the system proposed by the hon. Member for Oldham was a vicious one, and he would vote against it.

MR. W. J. FOX, in reply, said, when he considered the principle on which the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis) avowedly started, viz., that knowledge was an evil unmixed, he ceased to wonder at the astounding apprehensions which the hon. Baronet entertained with regard to the measure which he (Mr. W. J. Fox) wished to introduce. He hoped, however, that the hon. Baronet was singular in that view. From what had passed in the debate, it might have been supposed they were discussing church extension rather than the question of education. He (Mr. W. J. Fox) agreed thus far with the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. A. B. Hope), that they could not separate religious from secular education. He believed that no man engaged in any study whatever without having a religious tendency; but everybody knew the distinction that was made between religious and secular education in the ordinary concerns of life, and he thought it not a little hard that that distinction, which was so common, should have been fixed as an imputation on those who ported the proposition which he had brought before the House. He was brought up with religious views different from those of a majority of that House; but his notion of a Church was that they brought within its fold not only the sheep, but the lambs not only the adults, but the children; and his great object was to extend to all of them the blessings of education. It had been said, that this was a Motion to exclude religion—it might as well have been said it was a Motion to exclude the sun. He did not propose to leave out religion as one of the means of developing the whole of a human being's nature, but he maintained that the minister of religion and the parent could alone give religious education

sup

The House divided :-Ayes 49; Noes 139: Majority 90.

List of the AYES.

Bass, M. T.
Berkeley, hon. H. F.
Blake, M. J.
Blewitt, R. J.
Brotherton, J.
Clay, J.
Cobden, R.
Davie, Sir H. R. F.
Ellis, J.
Ewart, W.
Fergus, J.
Geach, C.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Grace, O. D. J.
Greene, J.
Hastie, A.
Headlam, T. E.
Henry, A.
Heywood, J.
Hindley, C.
Hutt, W.

Lushington, C.
Melgund, Viset.
Mitchell, T. A.

O'Brien, J.

Pechell, Sir G. B.
Power, Dr.
Rawdon, Col.
Russell, F. C. H.
'Salwey, Col.
Scholefield, W.
Smith, J. B.
Spearman, H. J.

Talbot, J. H.
Tancred, H. W.
Thompson, Col.
Thornely, T.

Fox, W. J.
Hume, J.

List of the NOES.

stead.

250,000 lbs. of foreign hops came in. The inevitable ruin which would ensue from the argument which his hon. Friend grounded payment of the duty now due; but he must upon the reduction of the protective duty, warn the House against such representawould not, therefore, stand him in much tions. They had been repeated year If his proposition had been to re- after year. In the autumn of 1848, duce somewhat the duty on both home- a most important deputation waited upon grown and foreign hops in favour of the him. It was composed of noble Lords, consumer, there would have been something Members of Parliament, bankers, landin its favour. But the present proposition owners, country gentlemen, solicitors, clerwas to reduce the duty on home-grown gymen, and a considerable number of hop hops, leaving that on foreign hops as at planters; and his hon. Friend (Mr. Hodges) present-prohibitory; the effect of which acted as the master of the ceremonies. would be simply to put into the pocket of The deputation stated that if the paythe producer the amount of the difference ment of the duty was insisted upon, between the present duty and that which the whole hop-growing interest would be was proposed. Everybody who had con- ruined absolutely and entirely, and that sidered a subject of this kind must admit the whole population would be thrown out that when a party was in possession of a of work. He (the Chancellor of the Exmonopoly, the duty they paid was, one chequer) felt that he was hard-hearted; but year with another, reimbursed to them by he did insist upon the duty, and the consethe consumer. No drug came into com- quence was that the 200,000l. was all paid petition with hops, and the producer there- up within a month, with the exception of fore enjoyed a complete monopoly. He 5,000l., and he could not find that any quite admitted that there were some ex- such consequences as had been anticipated ceptional circumstances in which the pro- did in fact occur. Much the same thing ducer paid the duty; and he would state happened last autumn; and when hon. to the House in what they consisted. Gentlemen represented year after year They had been created by the hop growers that they would be ruined, and, neverthemselves, who had brought into cultiva- theless, went on much as before, they tion a greater quantity of land than former- could not expect that he could place ly, and had by this means, and by improved very implicit reliance on their statecultivation, in fact, increased the produce ments. There was a system of agitation far beyond the demand of the country. Without troubling the House with many figures, he would show them how this was so, and he would in the first place premise that since the year 1830, with the exception of 1847, the duty on hops had been regularly paid. Taking the three years, 1843, 1844, and 1845, the production of hops had been 30,000,000 lbs. In 1843, the price of hops was 120s. per cwt.; and in 1845 it had risen to 150s. per cwt. The hop growers, under these apparently favourable circumstances, thought it advisable to increase the produce, and brought fresh land into cultivation. So in 1846, 1847, and 1848, the production of hops was nearly 47,000,000 lbs.; the consequence was a fall to 758. a cwt. in the year 1847. This depreciation took place before a single bag of foreign hops came in, for the first importation took place in 1849. In 1849, there was a rise again in the price, which led to the experiment of bringing in a very insignificant quantity of foreign hops. In 1850 the produce was 48,000,000 lbs.; the consequence was another great fall in the price. His hon. Friend had spoken of the

upon this subject going on in the counties of Kent and Sussex, which was anything but creditable to the parties themselves. They held out distinct threats to their tenants, to induce them not to pay. He held in his hand a copy of a letter which had been published in a Sussex paper by a gentleman named Neve, who was agent to some gentlemen in that county, and which he would read to the House :

"Benenden, Staplehurst, Nov. 16, 1850. "Sir-As the collection of the hop duty will take place previous to Mr. Moorland's rent audit, I am directed by him to inform his tenants that those of them who pay their hop duty he will expect to pay their rent; therefore those who cannot pay both, I hope will see it right to pay their rent first, and let the Government have the odium of putting in distresses, if they think fit to resort to such extremity. In adopting this course, I have no hesitation in saying that Mr. Moorland, as well as other landlords, is acting under my advice in this matter. "THOMAS NEVE."

Now that was the duty of two years back.
He did not think that such a proposition
was fair. The hon. Gentleman knew, per.
haps, who Mr. Neve was?

MR. HODGES: He is my steward.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE.

duty commenced, and had gone on increasing. Notwithstanding this, however, and the fact that the duty on foreign hops had been since reduced, the double duty on British hops had been maintained. He felt convinced, however, that the farmers would not much longer have the means of meeting the demand; and he hoped that the House would therefore allow him to bring in a Bill to reduce the duty, and at Somerville,rt.hon. SirW. the same time to put an end to the system

1301

Hops.

{MAY 22, 1851}

Hops.

1302

250,000 lbs. of foreign hops came in. The inevitable ruin which would ensue from the argument which his hon. Friend grounded payment of the duty now due; but he must upon the reduction of the protective duty, warn the House against such representawould not, therefore, stand him in much tions. They had been repeated year stead. If his proposition had been to re- after year. In the autumn of 1848, duce somewhat the duty on both home- a most important deputation waited upon grown and foreign hops in favour of the him. It was composed of noble Lords, consumer, there would have been something Members of Parliament, bankers, landin its favour. But the present proposition owners, country gentlemen, solicitors, clerwas to reduce the duty on home-grown gymen, and a considerable number of hop hops, leaving that on foreign hops as at planters; and his hon. Friend (Mr. Hodges) present-prohibitory; the effect of which acted as the master of the ceremonies. would be simply to put into the pocket of The deputation stated that if the paythe producer the amount of the difference ment of the duty was insisted upon, between the present duty and that which the whole hop-growing interest would be was proposed. Everybody who had con- ruined absolutely and entirely, and that sidered a subject of this kind must admit the whole population would be thrown out that when a party was in possession of a of work. He (the Chancellor of the Exmonopoly, the duty they paid was, one chequer) felt that he was hard-hearted; but year with another, reimbursed to them by he did insist upon the duty, and the consethe consumer. No drug came into com- quence was that the 200,000l. was all paid petition with hops, and the producer there- up within a month, with the exception of fore enjoyed a complete monopoly. He 5,000l., and he could not find that any quite admitted that there were some ex- such consequences as had been anticipated ceptional circumstances in which the pro- did in fact occur. Much the same thing ducer paid the duty; and he would state happened last autumn; and when hon. to the House in what they consisted. Gentlemen represented year after year They had been created by the hop growers that they would be ruined, and, neverthemselves, who had brought into cultiva-theless, went on much as before, they tion a greater quantity of land than former- could not expect that he could place ly, and had by this means, and by improved very implicit reliance on their statecultivation, in fact, increased the produce ments. There was a system of agitation far beyond the demand of the country. upon this subject going on in the counties Without troubling the House with many figures, he would show them how this was so, and he would in the first place premise that since the year 1830, with the exception of 1847, the duty on hops had been regularly paid. Taking the three years, 1843, 1844, and 1845, the production of hops had been 30,000,000 lbs. In 1843, the price of hops was 120s. per cwt.; and in 1845 it had risen to 150s. per cwt. The hop growers, under these apparently favourable circumstances, thought it advisable to increase the produce, and brought fresh land into cultivation. So in 1846, 1847, and 1848, the production of hops was nearly 47,000,000 lbs.; the consequence was a fall to 75s. a cwt. in the year 1847. This depreciation took place before a single bag of foreign hops came in, for the first im portation took place in 1849. In 1849, there was a rise again in the price, which led to the experiment of bringing in a very insignificant quantity of foreign hops. In 1850 the produce was 48,000,000 lbs.; the consequence was another great fall in the price. His hon. Friend had spoken of the

of Kent and Sussex, which was anything but creditable to the parties themselves. They held out distinct threats to their tenants, to induce them not to pay. He held in his hand a copy of a letter which had been published in a Sussex paper by a gentleman named Neve, who was agent to some gentlemen in that county, and which he would read to the House :

"Benenden, Staplehurst, Nov. 16, 1850.
"Sir-As the collection of the hop duty will
take place previous to Mr. Moorland's rent audit,
I am directed by him to inform his tenants that
those of them who pay their hop duty he will
expect to pay their rent; therefore those who can-
not pay both, I hope will see it right to pay their
rent first, and let the Government have the odium
of putting in distresses, if they think fit to resort
to such extremity. In adopting this course, I
have no hesitation in saying that Mr. Moorland,
as well as other landlords, is acting under my

advice in this matter.

"THOMAS NEVE."

Now that was the duty of two years back.
He did not think that such a proposition
was fair. The hon. Gentleman knew, per-
haps, who Mr. Neve was?

MR. HODGES: He is my steward.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE