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

BEREAL OF THE 110 P DUTY.

Yesterday afternoon a large and influential depu-
tation from the hop growers had an interview with
the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Downing-etreet.
Among the members of Parliament present wore
Lord Holmesdale, Lord,Pevensey, 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
numerous body of hop planters from every hop.
growing district in the kingdom.

Mr. BERESFORD HOPE, in introducing the depu-
tation, said that on that occasion the hop growers
did not ask for any tinkering of existing regulations
but for the absolute repeal of the tax. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had himself a year ago
condemned 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-
mitted 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 ias. }heir eyes to know what could be done to
• meet the difficulties in which they were placed. He
attributed 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-
barked 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
bad 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 EXCHEQUER 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. KING 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 repeat 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
bop-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 BRIDGES 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 ex tent
by increasing'competition.
After a few remarks by Sir J. Shelley,
The CriaticELLon of the ExCIIEQUER 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 were, 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
n_.7lA, it was more considtrable than was imagined,
and, indeed, was relatively a very large sum, but it
to th"tworth dwelling upon at present. In respect
to bye:tirst.rtessdwh.ich had been so feelingly alluded
Body, if he did not dwell upon it at pre-
sent it Was °
who
experienced
because he did not.sympathise with
those
-would he simple mockery
it, but, in point of fact, it
it unless as a Minister
on his part to dilate upon
he was prepared to say that
Jae was able to atieriister relief. What he under-
stood to be the general
was that there of the statements
made today
had_ been some diminu-
tion in the acreage set as;
this country recently, anda ee I
that the probability was
" hop
cultivation in
that if the duty were removed the
cultivation
itiVation Nrould
increase. (Henn) That he understood
to be the pre-
sr, that the
vailing opinion ; and, at the same
were The
pealed; of the competition, if the a
th
pealed; would be to the advantage of the buyer.
He wanted to know, then, what sort of case
would present to those members of Parliament who
were not hop growers if they came before them on
the plea that the effect of the repeal of the duty
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 is removed the cultiva-
tion will be entirely lost to the country.
:Mie-gtiANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER only wished
to know whether those who came forward to urge
the total repealog
to base their arguments 1:1
duty would prepared
guments on the ground that such re-