The Sun.
London, England, 1822-05-11 00:00:00

HOP-GROWERS' PETITION.

.Mr. CURTELS rose to present a Petition from certain Hop-
planters in several parishes in the County of Sussex,_ complain-
ing of distress, and praying for a reduction of the Duty on
Hops. The Hon. Member stated that the distresi which per-
vaded the county of Sussex was of the most extensive and.
heart-rending description. He had recently received a com-
munication ftom a person resident in the county, by which he
was informed that farms were daily being broken up, and tha
.Stock which. was upon them sold off at very low prices. The
number of the poor was consequently increasing, to a most
alarming degree. In one parish (Saleharst, we believe), the
Population of which was 2,000, no fewer than 1,000 were
chargeable as poor. in another parish the number
.of poor
was so large that it was found impossible to afford adequate
relief. This excited an angry feeling in the poor, and the se-
lect vestry were stoned if they ventured out of doors. So dan-
gerous a feeling prevailed among the labouring classes through-
out the county, that he had felt it his duty to make a represen-
tation to the Home Department upon the subject. The yeo-
were not merely quitting their farms, but abandoning the coun-
try.—(Hear !)--The landed gentlemen with their reduced in-
comes were no longer able to reside in their mansions.—(Loud
cries of" Hear, hear!")
Sir E. KNATCBULL said, that the description wdich the
Hon. Member had given of the state of the county of :Fusser;
was equally applicable to the county of Kent, and, he believed,
the country in general.—(Hearl)--It was allowed on all hands
that sonic relief ought to be afforded to the suffering agricul-
turists, and, in his opinion, that relief ought to be immediate.
He thought some relief would be afforded by extending the
operation of the Vestry Act. By that Act, as it at present stood,
a parish was permitted to hold 20 acres of land for the employ-
ment of she poor. Now he would suggest that a parish should
-be empowered to hold between 100 and 200 acres for this pur-
pose. Employment would thus be afforded to those who at
present were unable to procure it, and the miliffs of such persons
would be drawn from the courses to which it appeared they were
at present directtd.
Sir J. SHELLEY observed, that if some measure were not
instantly adopted to lighten the pressure of the poor rates, the
landed interest would be driven from their homes. He believed
that a reduction of taxation to the amount of the Sinking Fund
would benefit the farmer.

Sir T. LETHBRIDGE supported the prayer of the Peti-
tion. He had heard the imposition of restrictions upon foreign
grain objected to on the ground that they would cause a rise in
the price of the produce here ; but this objection he judged to
be unfounded, because there was a Out of hops in market,
and-the price had fallen considerably.
Mr. RICARDO said, that if any argument were needed to
shew the inefficacy of protecting duties, what had fallen from
the Hon. Baronet - would' furnish one. It Appeared t' at there
was a glut' f hops in the market, which reduced the price of
that article below that which would afford the grower a profit.
The argument which he (Mr. Ricardo) had always employed
in opposition to protecting duties was, that an abundant supply
of any commodity would overcome the effect of all.restric-
tions upon importation. Yet, with the proof of this !kering
him hi the face, the Hon. Baronet still continued to call fcir
protecting duties.
The Petition'was ordered.to be printed.
Mr. IL'SUMNER presented a Petition from the Church-
wardens and Inhabitants of the Parish of St. Saviour, South-
wark. The HOn. Member said, that notwithstanding the
meeting at which the Petition was resolved upon had taken
plaCe that day, 'upwards of 500 signatures had been attached
to it.

' The Petition was then read; and ordered to Ile on thz t ible.
The Marriage Act Bill was read a second titne in order to
its'being committed.
CATHOLIC PEERS. •

Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented's' Petition from the Arch-
deacon and Clergy-of Canterbury, against the admission of Ca-
tholic Noblemen to the House of Peers. In the sentiments
expressed by that Petition the.Hon.Baronet entirely concurred.
He objected to the measure of,the Hon. Member for Liver-
pool—first, because he thought that the people were averse to
any farther Catholic concessiona •se ,because it was a par-
tial proceeding, and because it concessions;
with thoie securities
which the general measure would have demanded. The natu-
ral consequence of passing such a Bill would be the admission
of Catholics into the Commons' house of Pgliement ; and the