The Express.
London, England, 1853-02-18 00:00:00

HOP DUTY.

Mr. FREWEN rose to move the following resolution :
"That the excise duty on hops is impolitic and unjust, and
ought to he repealed." He had brought forward a similar
motion last year, but in consequence of the Earl of Derby
and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer having stated to
• deputation which waited upon them on this subject that
it would receive the coosideration of the government, he
did not press the motion on that occasion. About ten days
aio • deputation having • similar object in view waited on
the present government, and not having received any as-
surance that the government would consider the subject,
he was urged by the hop-growers to take the earliest op-
portunity of stating their case to the House of Commons.
The first point he had to urge was that the amount of the
hop duty was very small. The duty in 1849 was only
145,8934 ; in 1850, 424,7024. ; in 1851, 238,6234 ; making •
total for the three years of 807,0181., or an average
of near 270,0001. per year. But even this sum,
aural as it was, the government could not
reckon upon; for it entirely depended on the
writer and the state of the crop whether the duty would
be 40,00 W. or 400,0001. It was, however. a severe and
oppressive tax on a small portion of the community, for it
amounted to no less than 101. or 124 an acre on every sere
grown it the eastern part of Sussex. It was first imposed
in 1711 to support the burden of the wars carried on by the
Duke of Marlborough. In 1802 it was increased, and in
1806 it was reduced to its present amount. It was the
only tax that had not been mitigated since the war. The
cultivation of hope required a great deal of capital. The
expenditure on manual labour amounted to 141. per acre,
which upon ten thousand acres—that being the average
acreage under hops in the division whien he represented—
amounted to 140,0001. If the crop failed, a great number
of persons were thrown out of employment, and a
heavy burden was thrown on the poor rates. It
was • peculiarity also of the growth of hops that
an abundant crop was considered a curse. In 1848
when there was a productive season, and the price of hope
was consequently low, the duty amounted to 444,0001., or
20 per cent. of the value; in 1847 the duty amounted to
390,0004, or 30 per cant of the value; to 1848 it was
388,0001., or 60 per cent. of the value. This duty was
sometimes so oppressive that the government, on being ap-
pealed to, sometimes postponed the collection, and even
occasionally remitted a moiety of the amount. In 1849 •
moiety of the duty was returned in consequence of the clis-
trees amongst the hopp growers and their inability to meet
three ezesesive exastisns Hee knew one ease in which a
peer hat respectable miaow was confined for three menthe
la MaMaree ChM horses she was not able to pay the duty
whisk was ilamsafial of her, and there were several other
cases Ma similar mature. Another great evil of the hop duty
was tNy that** being levied by weight it was felt
slightest, emmiuse districts than on others,where
the hope were of a fast quality and brought a larger price.
TM avenge sti ealerese duty for the four years, 1847-60,
was If pm cent. is dm Canterbury district, 241 per cent. in
the Maidstone district, and 31 per cent. in his unfortunate
district of Sussex. (Hear, hear.) In the majority of cases
the amount paid for duty woe merethan double the rent of
the farm, although only 6or 7 acres out of 100 were under
the cultivation of crops. He knew one case where 26 acres
on a farm of 503 acne were ander hop cultivation, the
average amount of the duty on which was 2584 lbs. Bd.,
whereas the average rent of the whole farm was but 289/.
(Hear, hear.) He had been told that a deputation waited
on the government, and stated that the hop planters were
tot is Leone of • total repeal of the duty. He was prepared
to show that four-Ilths of the hop pleaders of Sussex had pe
titioned for the abolition of the tax. It might be that
some of the planters in Kent and Worcestershire were not
in favour of the total npoal of the tax ; but that was be-
cause they wished to have a monopoly of the growth of
hops is their own heads; just as the large brewers and the
large tea dealers were opposed to • repeal of the duties oa
malt and tea. (Hear, hear.) He did not ask to have the
tax repealed now or in a year hence. All he desired was
that the house should affirm that the tax was impolitic and
unjust, sad one of the first which ought to be repealed.
He thought he had said enough to show the oppressive-
ness and injustice of the tax, sad he called on the house to
affirm the resolutioa ha had placed on the paper. (Hear.)
Mr. FULLER seconded the motion.
The question having been put,

ill of the EXCHEQUER said be
-
house

ventured to a thallient hope that the would
not be " at the swat time, te enter into a discus-
-1144/11 on Brie 1&=; and he trusted that the hon. gen-
tlemen who and sesended the motion would not
think it slightest disrespect towards them, or
any want nineteenth of the importance of the subject, if
be declined to pyres, it into all the details into which le
bad been earned, and into whisk it ought to be carried,
with • view of full corn it. (Hear, hear.) Oss
admission he would make to the hoe gentleman, and it
was the only one he was called on to make on the present
occasion ; for he would ask the house to reject the motion
rather on the ground of the time and manner in which it
was brought forward than on any opinion he entertained
one way or other on the subject. The admission he would
make was, that the case of the Busse: hop growers was a
hard one—(hthr, heat),—and that with regard to others the
duty upon them was oppressive ; for the duty being levied
by weight an undue and disproportionate amount of duty
was thrown on the bop power on lands of an inferior de-
ecription, as compared with the growth of more favoured dis-
tricts, which obtained a higher prime, whilst it was produced
in less quantity relatively to the ground under cultivation.
let having admitted this, Its was not prepared to go further
with the hon. gentleman, because it appeared to him, that
hawing shown this inequality to exist between the growth
of the district and another, this ought to lead the hon.
glesilieman rather to suggest some mode of remedying the
moms injurious arrangement of the tax, and establishing
=Mifairness in the mode by which it was to be paid,
nt such a branch of the public revenue ought to be
Iththithed altogether. The hon. gentleman asked them
tas Othissan this tax, and yet he (the Chancellor of the
Ithiserpser) did not know whether he elided on them
to repeal it. If the hon. gentleman proposed to repeal the
tax, be met him with the objection that the House of Com-
mons ought not to repeal any tax unless they kney the ex-
penditure for which it would be necessary to provide.
(Hear.) If, on the other hard, the hon. gentleman did net
call upon them to repeal the tax, but only pass a condemna-
tion upon it, be would reply that this would be • practice
highly dangerous to the honour, the character, and the
interests of the country, for he could conceive
nothing which would lead more directly to demsgogism
than that this home should indulge itself with the ventila-
tion of abstract opinions on the subject of taxation, and
announce the condemnation of them without giving the pub-
lic the benefit of the repeal of those taxes which they had un-
dertaken to condi ma. He did not ask the house to prejudge
the question now, but ho edited on the house not to esta-
blish No dangerous a precedent as to destroy a portion of
the public revenue before they knew what the wants of the
esentry would be. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BALL said he would support the motion of his ton.
Mend, for he thought the tax on hops was both impolitic
and unjust. The farmers of England were expected to

isopepoiteldth tai dm producers of the world. and it wasthe
duty of the govelument to put them in •eandltion to do so.
Mr. DEEDES said that the present was not the first time
he had felt bound to oppose his honourable friend the mem-
ber for Sum:, who seemed desirous to have a match come
off in the hones, which was often announced in the cricket
ground, namely, Sussex against all England. (A laugh.)
But his boo. friend, he trusted, would find that the odds
were all against bim,this time. (Hear.) He should net go
into the details of the question at any length, but content
' himself with simply opposing this motion.
Mr. HARCOUItT believed that the repeal of the duty
would be most injurious to the growers of hops, and,
therefore, should oppose it The plan of his hon. friend
might serve one county, but it would injure all the other
hop-growing counties in England. Besides, although ha
had not any great confidence in the present government,
seeing the discordant materials of which it was composed,
he could not, until they had produced their budget, ask
them to disturb the fiscal arrangements of the country.
Mr. BRIGHT said it might appear odd to seek the re-
moval of a duty of which the persons principally liable did
not complain ; but at the same time he could not concur in
the theory of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the
hon. member for &aux had set an indifferent example to
the house in bringing forward a motion in which his con-
stituents were deeply interested. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer had in tact said what all his predecessors had
been in the habit of saying, namely—Don't discuss any tax
until they all come before the house together; while if hon.
members waited until the government proposition had ap-
peared, the response then was—Are you prepared to disturb
a scheme of finance which the government have fully con-
sidered, and upon which they have come to a final conclu-
sion? (Hear, hear.) Now he (Mr. Bright) thought that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer bad a great advantage in
framing his budget, if be came to it prepared with a know-
ledge of the wishes of the house on the various points of
taxation. (Hear, hear.) Did they suppose that the
late Chancellor of the Examiner would have
shipwrecked the government by his budget, had he
previously known the feeling of the house respecting the
doubled house duty and the repeal of half the malt tax ?
(Hear, hear.) For these reasons friendly propositions like
those of the hon. member fur Sussex should be received
with attention, as giving useful information towards the
preparation of the budget. (Hear, hear.) The motion was
merely declaratory as to the folly and iginstice of.the hop
duty, and went no further than motions made by his (Mr.
Bright's) colleague last year respecting the paper duties.
Supposing such a motion carried, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer would be fres to say that the wishes of the house
should be considered at the earliest possible period, and
would not be considered unreseoaable if he at the same
time declared the impossibility of repealing them during the
present year. (Hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer
would have a surplus of about two millions to deal with,
and now was the time for the several interests of the coun-
try to put in their claims for relief. The right hon. gentle-
man had spoken of 300,0001. as a large sum which
was much looked for in his office, and he would
be willing to concede its importance did not he see on
the other hand the facility with which three. six, and
sometimes 910,0001. were constantly disposed of in more
than one of the great departments of the state. (Hear,
bear.) This hop duty was one of the most disgraceful
taxes that could be conceived, setting one county against
another, and engendering hostility when there ought to be
nothing but friendly feeling. Why, if the hon members.aho
had spoken on the opposite side were only to change coun-
ties they would make speeches seemly contrary to those
they had made that evening. (A laugh.) For hie part, no
matter what constituency he might represent, be could not
consent to say a single word in favour of a tax of so scan•
dalous a character. (Hear, hear.) It was one unequal in
operation, and uncertain in amount, and involved a system
of collection as rude and barbarous as any that had ever
been devised in Turkey, or any other semi-barbarous
country. For these reasons, he thought the hon. member
was fully justified in bringing forward his motion. Free
trade and competition were now conceded principles on
both sides of the house, and therefore he should support
the motion of the hon. member.
Mr. HUME warned the hon. member that no good was
ever to be done by attempting to please the Chancellor of
the Exchequer. (A. laugh.) He had been sorry to hear
!the speech of his right boo. friend who at present filled that
office—a speech which ill became the friend and pupil of
Sir R. Feel. This was a case in which one county war
ranged against another—a proof in itself that something
was radically wrong in the system. (Hear, hear.) That
wrong was a combination against the public at large, which
the present motion would go far to break up, and it there-
fore should have his support. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. ALCOCK supported the mo'ion, but thought there
was one point in regard to hops which might be well fol-
lowed in reference to all other articles of agricultural pro-
duce—that was that there was an annual statistical return
of the quantity produced.
Mr. F'REWEN—In reply, observed that if the house
decided in favour of the motion, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer would find the Ways and Means to meet the de-
ficiency it would occasion in the , as bad been done
in the case of the window duty.
The house then divided,
For the motion 9l
Against it