The Express.
London, England, 1849-02-14 00:00:00

ING, FEililljitßY 14.'1849.

axle; and we Area that, whin the deli& bf the yee.
expsiditure come to Allikumed in the noun of
Commons, this hot will be reelderof auilabie by some
independentrefornern,
TEmax can be no doubt that the cue of the hop-
planters of Seat and Sumo Is at this moment One of
real distress. The Kentish hop-growers have bad a
preliminary meeting at Maidstone, to inithste a move
meat the the repeal of the excise duties on Wipe, at
which both the county members-albeit, of diverse
colours in politics-attended and assisted. Thist looks
well. It is encouraging to the farmers, now about ha
take their own part m public affairs, and to ask for
themselves relief from the real burdens by which they
are oppressed, to find the whig and tory members for
West Kent sinking their party differences, and agree-
ing" touaite in any legitimate course for obtaining for
their constituents relief from this oppressive tax.' This
should provetoour rural capitalists that the traders and
manufacturers have no monopoly of power to help
themselves when wronged by fiscal legislation. What
the commercial classes have done, and are doing for
their own relief, the agriculturists may do if they
please. They may meet and act, and if they are in
earnest, they will soon find county members lees stiff-
necked than formerly. Now, the hop duty is one
about which there can be no mistake. It is uncertain,
capricious, and oppressive. The crop is always a
precarious one, and varies in produce, year by year,
in a greater degree than any other object of cul-
ture in England. It is one of the last articles a
wise financier would attempt to tax, for the
risks attending its cultivation arc alone sufficient
to make hop-growing a hazardous business. Under
any circumstances the hop-growers might fairly de-
mand that the 440,4031. raised by means of the excise
duty on hops should be obtained by same tax not thus
onerous in its incidence on a particular branch of in-
dustry ; but it is now plain that this tax can easily
be repealed without providing any substitute, by
merely reducing our military expenditure.
The peculiarity of hop-culture is its great
expense. The annual produce, both in bine and
hops, is very great, and requires at least an
annual dressing of manure and sometimes two
of each dressings in the year. The hop
being a perennial plant, which continues on the same
ground year after year, many hop-plantations are
more than 100 years old, and on most dry and well-
drained soils the hop-grounds continue in plant from
12 to 20 years, and often as long as 40 years ; conse-
quently the land, receiving none of the advantages
derived from a rotation of crops, requires a large
supply of rich and expensive manure, to be kept up
to the necessary standard of fertility. Some idea
may be formed of the great outlay made in hop-grow-
img, from the following statements, taken from a prize
essay on the " Management of Hope," in the last
umber of the Royal Agricultural Society's .journal.
The first cat of planting an acre of hops on old pasture
lead-the usual method-amounts to 101. 2e. 61. For this
there is, of course, no return until the second year ; and the
additional expenses of the second year before any crop is
gathered swell that sum to 261. 6s. 7d. Up to this time no
manure is commonly need, the old turf being supposed to
furnish sufficient food for the growth of the hop plant. If
manure be used with the first crop it will cost 61. per we
more. The crap of this year may, perhaps, me-
duce a net profit, after the cost of picking, dry-
ing, duty, .rye., of 101. per acre, to set against
the above first cost of 261. 61. 7d. per acre. The
balance of outlay with which the hop grower starteon his
third year will thus be, 131. 124. 7d. ; and this is slur al-
lowing 14s. as the produce of the small poles used for the
young plants the first year and then erld off. The third
year full sised poles are required, the expense of which will
be 361. per acre for the poles and 51. Bs. for carriage. We
have thus an expenditure of 661. Os. 7d per acre before the
planter obtains a second crop. From this time forward the
annual expense of cultivating each acre of hop ground
will 'in 281. Is. 6d., and that is exclusive of the
cost of picking, drying, and packing the produce,
which is deducted from the grass amount of the
sale price. The expenses of gathering and preparing
for sale a tin of hops-half a ton being the average produce
of an acre-inclusive of the duty of 171. 12e. 9i4. per ton,
will amount to 381. 18e. Std. In bad years, when the hops
are blighted, the price paid far picking being greater and the
quantity of produce leis, the cot is more, so that the ave-
rage cost of picking and subsequent expenses ono year with
another is generally estimated at 401. a ton, or 40s. per cwt.
The yearly average cost, therefore, of an acre of hops will
be 20/. added to 281. le. 64.=481. le. 6d. At the price of 41.
or 41. 41. per cwt. it is clear the grower must be a loser.
In the present year the crop has been nearly a
failure and consequently something well nigh ap-
proaching ruin stares a large proportion of the hop-
growers in the face it they cannot obtain relief from
the hop duty. At best hop-growing partakes of the
character of a lottery. From the expensive cultiva-
tion and the precariousness of the crop the culture is
very speculative. Great profits are sometimes
realised, but in years of abundance the price is
so low u scarcely to defray the expense of picking
and drying, and the duty; and the hop-planters cbiet
hope of profit is said to be that his own district may
escape a failure which shall afflict other hop districts.
It is by no means uncommon in Kent to see such ex-
clusive attention paid to the hops-the whole manure
of the farm perhaps bestowed upon them-that the rest
of the farm is in a state of comparative neglect and ex-
haustion. Many reflecting
i sgricaltuEsts have thought
that the soonehop-cultureultus allowed to occupy only
a subordinate place in the husbandry of Kent, the
better it will be for the advancement of its agriculture
and general prosperity. Be this, however, as it
may, it is clear that a more injudicious and oppres-
sive tax than the hop duty cannot be imagined.
The heavy expense of culture, the precariousness of
the crop, the wide variations of price in different
years, from the abundance or deficiency of the crop,
and the generally speculative nature of the business of
hop-growing-all indicate that hops cannot fairly be
made the subject of taxation.
The movement of the hop-growers for the removal
of the duty is, therefore, a just one. But they must
not trust alone to the justice of their canoe. They may
be thankful to Mr. HODOES for his earnest pleadings
on their behalf with the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, and need not lack gratitude to Sir
EDMUND FILMED for his warm approval of
his colleague's exertions • yet they must de-
mand something more If they expect to get
the relief they require. They must call upon their
representatives to do that which alone will enable the
government to remit the hop duty, namely, to vote for
a large reduction of expenditure • to assist alinisters
in resisting the bullying or blandishments of clothing
colonels and supernumerary admirals. About this
there is no mistake ; it is by reduction of expenditure
alone that the means can be provided for repealing
the hop duty. Thus the measure of the earnestness
with which the hop-growers desire such relief will
be the assistance they give to the now great and
growing demand for the reduction of oar warlike ex-