The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-06 00:00:00

REPEAL OF THE BOP DUTY.

Yesterday afternoon a large and influential depu-
ta4tion from the bop growers had an interview with
the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Downing-Ftreet.
Among the members of Parliament present were
Lord Holmesdale, Lordyevensey, Sir B. Brydges,
Sir J. Shelley, Mr. Buxton, Mr. Dodson, Mr. Beach,
Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Hennessy, Sir E. Filmer,
Mr. Briscoe, Mr. Cubitt, Mr. L. King, Mr. Bristow,
Mr. Whalley, Mr. Bass, Mr. Onslow, Mr. Papillon,
and Mr. Watlington. There were also present the
Chairman of the Hop-growers' Association, Mr.
Beresford Hope; the Secretary, Mr. Kintra ; and
a numerous body of hop planters from every hep.
growing district in the kingdom.
- Mr. BERESFORD HOPE, in introdircing the depu-
tation, said that on th,lt occaslon the ho• p growers
did not ask for any finkeriiig of existing regulations
but for the aksolute repeal of the tax. The Chan-
cellor of tte Exchequer had himself a year ago
condenthed its principle in the House of Commons
as tending to aggravate distress in a trade in which
the reverses were both sudden and severe. The
whole of the hop planters were now agreed upon
the expediency of remitting the duty, so that argu-
ments founded on their want of unanimity had no
longer any force. To show the effect which the
duty had had upon the cultivation, coupled with
that of the remission of the customs duty upon fo-
reign imported hops, it would suffice to mention
that the breadth of land under hop cultivation was
far less now than it had been in previous years.
In conclusion, he presented a memorial, which set
forth in detail the grievances of the hop planters,
and expressed a confident hope that if the duty were
removed the cultivation of this important product
would not only be increased, but that the revenue
would gain an amount equal to that which was re-
mittrAl in another form.
Mr. DODSON, M.P,, in the absence of Lord H.
Vane, presented a memorial on the same subject
from the hop planters of Sussex.
Mr. BODY, of Sussex, said that unless the relief
asked for was granted, the farmers of Sussex would
not be able to meet their engagements. Many
farmers who but for these duties would have been in
prosperous circumstances had come to him with
tears in their eyes to know what could be done to
meet the difficulties in which they were placed. He
atttibuted the prevailing distress mainly to the fact
that the Customs' duty was reduced upon foreign
hops, while at the same time the Excise duty was
kept up on the English produce, a state of things
altogether contrary to the principles of free trade.
He had himself lost £5OO a-year for a series of years
by hop planting, and it was idle to say that if the
culture was not profitable they would engage in
some other business. An immense capital was em-
bs.rked in the cultivation, which would not be avail-
able for the cultivation of any other plant. He also
complained that, notwithstanding an actual loss, he
had been obliged to pay £2O of income tax on ac-
count of the difficulties thrown in the way by Com-
missioners, surveyors, and collectors, which were
such that it was far better to pay the amount de-
manded than to waste time and money in appealing.
The CHANCELLOR of the ExcuEctuzit said the
Government would adopt severe measures against
any officer who should impose vexatious obstacles
in the way of persons who ought really to be ex-
empt from income tax.

Mr. BODY then proceeded to state that by the
alterations which were made in 1854 he sustained
a loss of £2,000 a year. As he had a very large
quantity of hops of 1859 and 1860 on hand which
Were greatly depreciated in value in consequence of
the remission of the Customs' duty upon foreign
hops, he had not the slightest doubt that the loss
upon them would be equal to at least £2,000 more.
He had not the slightest doubt that had the duty
been removed he should have been able to cultivate
hops at a. profit during the last three or four years.
Mr..KINCI KING presented a petition from the
hop growers of Hereford in favour of a total repeal
of the duty. He stated that a difference of opinion
among hop growers on the subject no longer
existed. At a very large meeting of those connected
with Worcester and Herefordshire, held in Worces-
ter, a resolution was unanimously adopted to join
in the attempt to obtain a repeal of the duties.
Mr. SMITH, of Wick, near Worcester, stated that
the hop planters of that district were quite unani-
Mous upon the point.

Mr. SCLATER:BOOTH, M.P., presented a memorial
agreed to at a meeting of the hop planters of Surrey
and Hampshire, held at Farnham, praying for the
repeal of the duty.
Mr. BRISCOE, M.P., having been present at the
meeting, corroborated the statements in the me-
morial.

Mr. SNELLING, a planter from the same district,
contended that, as a matter of principle, if this tax
were not repealed, other native produce, such as
fruit and game, should be taxed.
Lord HOLMSDALE confirmed the statements of
previous speakers with reference to the distress pre-
vailing in the hop-growing districts, and stated
that in Kent the walls wet., everywhere placarded
with notices of farms to be let, and that many de-
serving men who had been unable to get a living at
hop-growing had come to him and asked him to get
them situations by means of which they could earn
their bread.

Mr. BUXTON, M.P., said that the effect of the re-
duction of the Customs' duty upon foreign hops
was enormously to increase the consumption of
foreign hops by the brewers ; if they could get
English hops at the same price they would gladly
encourage the native producer.

Mr. BROOK BRIDOICS presented a memorial from
the hop growers of East Kent.
Mr. BASS, M.P., condemned the duty as one that
was paid entirely by the producer, and that its re-
moval would benefit the consumer to some extent
by increasing competition.

After a few remarks by Sir J. Shelley,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the
purpose for which they had met was not to enter into
an argumentative discussion between the person
who was so unfortunate as to be the organ of the
Government respecting the hop duty, and those other
unfortunate persons who as hop-growers bore the
burden of that duty. He was there to receive the
statement of their views and to gain all the infor-
mation which he could on the subject. In some things
Which they had said he entirely agreed, but there
were others which were fair matter of argument ;
and although he might differ in opinion respecting
those statements that was not the place to argue
the question. There ware, however, one or two mat-
ters in respect of which he wished to increase his
information. First, with respect to the amount
of duty which the revenue would gain from foreign
hops, it was more considerable than was imagined,
and, indeed, was relatively a very large sum, but it
vast worth dwelling upon at present. In respect
to thnee distress which had been so feelingly alluded
sent t
xr
.a Body, if he did not dwell upon it at
pre-
those wilwos4ot because he did not sympathise with
would be ainall,rienced it, but, in point of fact, it
it unless as aPivileimoekery on his part to dilate upon
he was able ta
ois!er he was prepared to say that
stood to be the aaamlraerlattl ister relief. What he under-
wits that there had
of the statements
made to day
er.? had been some diminu-
tion in the acreage set
ali(te for hop cultivation in
this country recently, and
that the probability was
that if the duty were removed
the cultivation would
understood increase. (Hear.) That he toeod to be the pre-
vailing opinion ; and, at the satu
influence of the competition, if the d‘lt time; that the
pealed; would be to the advautegeorY were re-
He wanted to know, then, what Sort
of case
buyer.
they
would present to those members of Parliament
whowere not hop growers if they came before them
the plea that the effect of the repeal of the (ha;
would not be the general advantage of the eon'.
sumer, but the more limited advantage of the pro-
ducer ? Did they intend to ask Parliament to
make a present of a certain sum of money to those
who grew hops ?
Mr. BASS—Our plea is that so disastrous is cul-
tivation under the present restrictions to the pro-
ducer that unless the duty removed the cultiva-
tion will be entirely lost to the country.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER only wished
to know whether those who came forward to urge
the total repeal of the hop duty would be prepared
to base their
arguments on the ground that such re-1

peal would benefit the consuther. (Mr. Bass—Cer-
tainly.) The other question he wished to put was
this—Was he correct in assuming that the case
they now put Ras that the position of the hop-
grower was very much worse than it was in former
years—(cries of "Yes," and " Hear, hear")--and
that was in consequence of measures for which he,
as Chancellor of the Exchequer, was primarily re-
sponsible—namely, by the reduction of the duty on
foreign hops ? (Hear, hear.) He understood the
meeting to intimate that the great reduction of the
Customs duty on foreign hops had been a main
agent in bringing about the unfavourable change in
ttb position of the native hopgrowers. (Hear.) He
wished to know in what way that had been done.
Was he to understand the opinion of the meeting
to be that the effect of the reduction of the duty on
foreign hops was that in years of plenty they
merely came into the market on equivalent terms
with English hops, but that in years of scarcity
they came into competition with British hops and
reduced the profits of the growers at the very time
that they looked for such a return as would pay
them for cultivation ? (Hear, and an exclamation
of " Precisely so.") He understood it, then, to be
the opinion of the meeting that by the partial re-
duction of the duty the buyers had largely benefit-
ted. All that he had to ay upon the subject was
that they had not yet reached the end of the finan-
cial year, and that it was not for him to state what
the prospects of the country were likely to be for the
next financial year, or what was the relative pres-
sure of competing claims for the remission of taxa-
tion. In urging the repeal of a tax they might state
the case in two ways. They might either ask for the
absolute and total repeal of a tax on its own merits,
or propose a substitute, and they had adopted the
former mode on the present occasion. He was afraid
that he must ask them to judge for themselves the
state of the country, the demand upon it at the pre-
sent moment, and what likelihood there was of the
probability of the surrender of any revenue. With
regard to the question of substitution, he had not
gathered that the meeting had proposed any other
duty, and, indeed, it was not their duty to do so.
Hewas not findingfault with them. He only pointed
out the difficulties that beset the path of a Finance
Minister when the expenditure of the country was
exceedingly high, and pressed very closely upon the
resources of the country. At the same time, he was
quite sure that if at any time his colleagues and
himself should find themselves in a position to re-
linquish this or any duty, they would gladly give
it a full and fair consideration. It Ns as clearly out
of his power upon the present occasion to offer any
pledge upon that subject, because, as he had frankly
stated, his measures would depend upon the gene-
ral condition of the national finances. Of course,
taking a Parliamentary view of the question, nothing
would be more gratifying to the Government than
to be able to remit this or any other tax which
might be thought generally objectionable.
The deputation then thanked the Chancellor of
the Exchequer for the courteous manner in which
he had received them.