The Sun.
London, England, 1849-10-06 00:00:00

et( t"- Ring :'-7;1111,

LONDON, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1849,

The answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
the numerous and influential deputation of hop-
planters, which waited upon him on the 28th ult.,
praying for a postponement of the collection of the
instalment of the hop :duties payable within the
present month, is now before the public. It contains
a peremptory refusal to accede to their reasonable
request, and states, that " the necessary orders will
be given for its collection at the appointed time," but
intimates that " further time may be allowed for
payment of the duty payable in November." We
confess that we are by no means astonished at this
result. The Right Hon. Baronet has exhibited on
many occasions too great an indifference to the state-
ments of distress and difficulty that have been placed
before him, to induce him to listen favourably to any
representations having for their object the relief
of any class or body of her MAJESTY'S subjects from
the embarrassments and ruin to which they may be
subjected by a strict enforcement of existing imposts,
however onerous and inequitable. He has too se-
e erely reproved the " ignorant impatience of taxa-
tion," that has occasioned so many pressing remon-
strances on the subject of fiscal reform. " Jour
BULL is a tax-paying animal," and he must submit to
all the burdens which the wisdom-of Parliament may
have placed upon his shoulders. He may grumble,
for that privilege is still allowed, but he must pay to
the uttermost farthing, although his own ruin and
that of his numerous dependents be the inevitable
consequence. His lands may be thrown out of cul-
tivation—his labourers driven to the union workhouses
—his family may be compelled to forego all the
corn forte that, from long habit, have become almost
the necessaries of life, but so long as he is reduced
to beggary, in due form of law, for debts due to the
Exchequer, he can hope for neither sympathy nor
assistance from Sir CHARLES WooD. There may
possibly be some common-place expression of regret
at the unfortunate state of his affairs, but that excellent
Minister will most probably express himself unable to
comprehend how these untoward circumstances have
arisen after the great blessings experienced under
Whig government; and some pompous platitudes
will be uttered to the effect that relief to him would
increase the burden upon other tax-payers. Such is
the usual character of the replies to all similar
memorials, and that to the deputation of hop-planters
does not in any degree vary from the ordinary routine.
There is, perhaps, no impost more unfair or un-
equal in its operation than the hop duty, so justly
complained of by the parties liable thereto. One of the
first and best recognised principles of finance declares
the injustice and inexpediency of subjecting native
produce to any charge or tax. It is the duty of a
paternal Government to encourage production to the
utmost extent, and not to interpose any difficulties or
impediments to the growth of the crops. The fields
of the farmer should not be exposed to the constant
surveillance of the exciseman, or his agricultural
operations checked or restrained by fiscal regulations.
If through the bounty of PROVIDENCE his soil i 3 of
extraordinary fertility, he should be permitted to
enjoy the fruits thereof without let or hindrance, and
without being restricted as to the nature of the crops
that he may choose to sow upon it. There can be no
reason why one description of produce should be
heavily taxes while others escape scot free. Why
should hops he subjected to an enormous duty when
wheat or oats, fruit or vegetables are exempted ?
Why should the farmers of Kent or Sussex,
of Hereford or Worcester, be rendered liable
to burdens from which their brethren of Yorkshire,
Lincoln, Derbyshire, or Nottingham are wholly
exonerated ? There is no such extraordinary
prosperity in the hop-growing districts as to
justify peculiar imposts. The poor-rates are as high