The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-23 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 23, 1851.

him any longer to meet the demand. HA, therefore,
moved for leave to bring in a Bill %birth would nut au
end to that system of credit which even the Commis-
sioners of Excise, in their 16th report, had condemned.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could
not, consistently with his duty to the public, agree to
the motion of the Hon. Gentleman, though he edmitted
it was less objectionable than many proposals en the
same subject which had bEen brought under his notice.
It did not propose to put :Again into the pockets of the
hop-growers the duty they had already received; and he
admitted also that the system of extended credit given
to the hopgrowers at their own request was a most fatal
gifr. But it was eot the way to put an end to that sys-
tem to bring in this Bill. It had been contended that
when the protective duty was reduced, the home duty
was not also reduced; bat the protective duty was in ,
effect a prohibitory duty, as shown by the result; for
last year the consumption of home-grown hops amounted
to 42,000,0001b3., while that of foreign hops was only
250,000ib5. If the proposed measure was to reduce the
foreign as well as the home duty in favour of the con-
sumer, there might be some argument adduced in sup-
port of it; but the Honourable Gentleman proposed to
exclude the foreign competition, and thus throw au
additional burden on the consumer. He admitted there
were exceptions in which the producer paid the duty;
but they had been created by the producers themselves.
They had brought into cultivation for the growth'of hops
land that was not fit for it; but yet, since 1830 (with
the exception of 1547) the duty had been regularly paid
each year. The average produce from 1843 to 1845 was
30,000,000165., and the price was very high-120s. per
cwt.; in 1845 it was 150 s. per cwt.; but in 1846, 1847,
and 1848 they increased the growth to 47,000,0001b5.,
and the average price fell to 755. per cwt. That was
before foreign hops were imported, and it arose from
the excessive production of inferior hops. In the next
year the price rose again, but then the produce in that
year (1849) was but 16,000,0001b5., while last year the
produce was increased to 48,000,0001b5., and the price
again fell. They were thus the cause of the evil them-
selves. In 1848 he had received such representations of
the distress of the growers that he put off the payment
of the duty, and in 1819 a deputation of influential peo-
sons waited on him, and represented that the country,
would be ruined if the payment of the duty was en-
forced; but he was hard-hearted enough to refuse ac-
quiescence in their demand, and the duty, amounting to
200,0001., was paid, with the exception of 8,000/., within
a month or two of the collactiou being made. After such
instances as that, the Hon. Gentleman must not be sur-
prised if he did not place very strong reliance on those
statements of distress. The surplus in the revenue
which ho counted on for next year would only amount
to 250,0001., which would be swallowed up by the re-
duction of the hop duty; and for that reason, as well
as the others ho had adduced, he hoped the House
would support him in rejecting the motion of the Hon.
Gentleman.
Mr. A. B. HOPE said it appeared that the fact of a
certain number of men having paid their hop duty was
treated as a good joke by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. They were taunted with having made a great
many propositions on that subject, but why did not
something of the sort emanate from the Chancellor's
bench? It was also said that the hop-growers uttered
more complaints than any other class; but it should be
remembered that no crop was more subject to vicissitudes
and the unfavourable influences of wind and weather than
that delicate plant.
Mr. BASS said ho had stated on a former occasion,
when that subject was under discussion, that the diffi-
culties under which the hop-grower at times laboured
were neither caused by the duties nor foreign importa-
tion, but the fluctuations in the amount of produce. In
(7005.6, 00I0n,
had again
th e r
efallen
was
lwhileB37, t
ih number
ne
1843
they
f acres
had underdln i
diminished
i ep htand
4t
no article on which the consumer paid so little, in pro-
portion portion to the amount paid by the producer, as in the
10th00;esapnedctinto18t5h0e
yacwreesr.e SWO
case of hops.
Sir E. FILMER felt it to be his duty, as Member
for West Kent, to support the motion of his Hon. Friend.
He would defy the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find
one tenant in the wcald of Kent who had not for the
last two years paid his rent cut of his capital, and not
his profits.
Mr. FULLER also supported the motion.
Colonel SIBTHORP was always an humble but per-
severing supporter of any proposition for the relief of
the agricultural interests; but when he saw Hon. Mem-
bers giving their votes in favour of a Government which
opposed every suggestion for that purpose, he could not
reconcile himself to vote in favour of a partial measure
introduced by such Hon. Members. If his Hon.
Friend opposite was to disengage himself from his pre-
sent company noscitur a sociis—(Laughter) and
bring forward a general measure for the relief of all
classes, he should have his support, but not otherwise.
Mr. FREWEN expressed his regret that his Hon.
Friend the Member for West Kent did not support the
motion relating to agricultural distress which had been
before the House. He thought there was no part of
the kingdom in which so much distress existed as in the
hop districts. There was no tax so unjust as that, and
it was the only one which remained unrepetled since the
war. He had his doubts as to the accuracy of the prices
stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of hops du-
ring former years. He did not know upon what au-
thority the Right Hon. Gentleman had made his state-
ment. One house in the borough might tell one thing,
and another another thing; but a good deal depended
upon the quality of the hops taken. Even in one year
the hops grown in one part of the country brought a
much higher price than those grown in another. He
had heard of so much as 6/. 10s. being paid in Sussex,
but the average price was only 31. 7s. The planters in
the weald of Kent must have lost at least 1/, per acre on
an average. One great claim which the hop planters
had on Government for a reduction of duty was founded
upon the precarious nature of the crop. When the hop
growers got the lowest price for their hops, they had the
highest amount of duty to pay; and he therefore hoped
that the Government would take the case into their ear-
liest consideration. He (Mr. Frewen) doubted if a
single landowner received, in the rape of Hastings, one
quarter of his rental for 1850.
Mr. COBDEN could not understand the tactics of
the hop-growers and their advisers in this matter. They
called for a reduction of taxes, and they opposed a revi-
sion of taxation. The hop duty brought in only
300.000/. a year, and yet a little army of tax-gatherers
were employed to collect it. Such a thing was not
know except:in Turkey. The fact was, that come great
brewers did not wish to have the tax repealed. If the
hop-growers of Kent and Sussex were resolved to get
rid of it, they should demand its total abolition, and not
make two bites of a cherry.
Mr. PLUMPTRE said the penny a pound reduction
would be a great relief to the growers ; as an East Ken
grower he was prepared to accept it.
Mr. HODGES replied.
The House then divided, when there appeareq—
For the motion...
•• •• e. „
Against it

CFaat
ol BrookeotctiMeutorshraprtrae y. et alterations
Lords
extractmdsi latelysoB fi °t
i eeon:fTreasuryoeany
ny
p° memorialpermission rEatist sh i n 1 forpp
Majority
o
e
postponed his .o r notice
copy roefsite:hc,ti:O.ngr6dler Bajain
illlll:U'U'ojsl:luEEnleottse'r from the Treasury,t sanctioning the
°theft Woodsn KSi
'land Tgardens by the
oraeorelrs;.and also
application made
Commissionershrsem on to
f
therido \i‘rnokdesnasinndg
tlo'no;sirtsd.efnosr.
Lord SEYMOUR said there was no Order in Coun-
cil on the subjecn therefore the Government enlcln
produce it. The pleasure of her Majesty was ed°
known, and the gardens. were thrreo:nitohpaead.
Id ho no more enjoyment
Mr. HUME said it required an order from the Trea-
been known
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
siHon.xxi months
.Go
cnetnohtsßl eaDmgEno nst
hwaa wast mh eigsroteai mistaken.
Mr.
t
for equestrians in the Park than now existed, he did not,
think any inroad would be made upon Kensington-gar-
dens. The Exhibition had realised the expectations of
every one.
Colonel SIBTHORP denied that it had. Oa the
contrary, the tradesmen of the metropolis had been
grossly insulted, and a gross wrong practised on them.
In these days everything was sacrificed to new notions.
The Honourable Member for the West Riding was the
poor man's friend. Thera Lord deliver tLe poor from
such friends. Liberty, pperty, and. everything was
trampled under foot for the purpose of obtaining popu-
larity. He (Colonel Sibthore) had never looked upon
that building, the Exhibition, and never would do.
England had patronised the foreigner, and condemned
her own people. The fools stepped in and stepped out
of the building to see trumpery and trash, and omitted
to pay their tradesmen's bills. It was a desecration of
their religion. Nobody had a higher respect than he had
for the most Reverend Prelate at the head of the Church
of England; but he must say that ho regretted to see the
part which that most Reverend Prolate had taken in the
opening of the Exhibition. lie was not ashamed to say
that he (Colonel Sibthorp) had done everything in his
power to check the Exhibition, which he believed would
prove a great curse to this country i . n a moral, social,
and, what was of more importance, In a religious point
of view.
Lord C. HAMILTON differed from the Hon. Mem-
ber for the West Riding when he said that the Exhibi-
tion had realised al the expectations entertained of it,
for he felt that the great object they all had in view
was still to be attained—he meant such arrangements as
should facilitate the admission of the multitudes who had
hitherto been debarred visiting it by the high prizes of
admission.
Mr. L ABOUCHERE assured the Noble Lord that the
point to which he referred had not escaped the attention
of the Commissioners. That very morning the Com-
missioners, in conjuction with representatives from the
different railway companies, had been engaged in con-
sidering the best means of affording .to the multitudes
the opportunity of visiting the©r Exhibttion without in-
convenience and without danger.to the public peace. He
would not enter into a contest with the Hon. and Gallant
Member for Lincoln as to the. merits of the Exhibition.
For his own part ho believed it would prove not only a
source of national pleasure to the people of this country,
but of great benefit throughout the civilized world.
Mr. LUSHINGTON said that he had been requested
by some of his constituents at Kensington to state their
dissatisfaction and disgust at the admission of equestrians
into Kensington-gardens.
The motion was then withdrawn.
THE KAFIR WAR.
In answer to Mr. lIUME, who had a motion for a
copy of the dispatch stating the estimate of the expenses
of the Kafir war.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, as
a matter of course, some uncertainty attended any pre-
sent estimate. The report of commissariat officers esti-
mated the expense at 400,000/. if the war continued for
six months; but as he hoped it would not last so long,