The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-16 00:00:00

THE HOP DUTY.

DEPUTATION TO THE GOVERNMENT.
This morning, according to arrangement, a deputation
from the hop-growers of Sussex, Mid-Kent, and other
places, attonded at the Treasury, for the purpose of having
an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the
purposeof urging the repeal of the hop duty.
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON, in receiving the deputation, said
he had to apologise for the absence of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, but the right hon. gentleman had been corn-
peled to attend at Windsor, and therefore he should have
great pleasure in hearing the observations of the deputa-
tion.

Mr. DonsoN, M.P., said the deputation consisted of gen-
tlemen from Sussex and different parts of the Farnham
district. It would have been much larger—upwards of
500 gentlemen being anxious, by their presence, to testify the
strong feeling that existed on the subject, but the Chan-
cellor, in his communication, requested that the deputation
might be limited. The present attendance represented a
large and increasing body, who felt that the excise duty on
hops was unequal in its operation, and unsound in princi-
ple, and therefore ought to be abolished. They believed that
the hop interest would never prosper until it
was released from the payment of this Excise duty, which
was unfair in its pressure upon articles of most unequal
value, and levied upon the raw material, perfectly imma-
terial whether that raw material was over taken into con-
sumption or not. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. BACON then read the memorial, which stated that
the market price of hops was not regulated by the fact that
a duty of 2d. per lb (or, say 19s. per cwt.) was paid upon
them. The market value of hops was regulated by supply
and demand, and as the demand was, so to speak, mainly
limited to the consumption of beer, it followed
that in a year of abundant hop growth the supply was in
excess, and the market prices naturally fell to a very low
figure, without any reference to the amount paid per cwt.
as Excise duty. The practical effect of this was, that the
duty came out of the pocket, of the planter, instead of being
paid, as was the rule with duty-paid commodities, both in
principle and practice, by the consumer. The state of
things which obtained at present would supply a striking
illustration of the operation of the duty. Sussex hops- were
now selling from 40s. for ordinary to 565. per cwt. .for the
very finest marks. Deducting the amount of duty (say 195.)
and the net price would be 21s. to 375. per cwt. New, as
the prime cost of producing these hops would exceed 48s
per cwt. it followed that, at the highest price just quoted,
the planter was subject to heavy losses. The memorialists
confidently maintained that were there no excise duty on
hops, the market price would be little, if at all,
influenced by that fact, since the price was alone
regulated by supply and demand, except in so far as the
effect of the duty was to disturb the market and drive down
prices. The operation of the tax was also most injurious,
inasmuch as, owing to its collection at stated periods, May
and December, it caused. the market to be glutted at those
times, in order to enable the planter to raise the needful
funds. The hon. gentleman then alluded to other topics, and
concluded by strongly urging the necessity of a repeal of
the unequal and unfair duty levied upon hops.
Several other gentlemen having stated their views,
Mr. HAMILTON said he should have great pleasure in
laying before the Chancellor of the Exchequer the vitws
and opinions of the gentlemen composing the deputation,
and he felt that he need scarcely inform them that the
right hon. gentleman would give the subject his best con-
sideration.

The deputation having thanked Mr. Hamilton for his
attention, then withdrew.

THB WRECK OF THE JANE MARY

SCHOONER.

The adjourned inquiry instituted by the Board
of Trade into the cause of the loss of this vessel took
place yesterday at the Greenwich Police Court
On the former occasion it was alleged that some of
the crew had made a statement before Mr. Terry,
the Receiver-General of Wrecks, that the captain
was intoxicated at the time of the wreck, and had
afterwards made a declaration that such statement
was untrue. They, however, denied that they had
made such declaration, and the inquiry was ad-
journed for the attendance of Mr. Terry to speak.to
the fact.

Mr. Terry now deposed to the first-mentioned
statement having been made and sworn to by the
mate and steward. On the following morning he
was sent for, and they said they wished to with-
draw the statement they had made, as it was quite
false, being made in a moment of irritation on
account of their not receiving compensation for the
loss of their clothes. They, however, refused to
sign a declaration to this effect, as they said they
would be chargeable for perjury if they did so.
Mr. Traill said it was highly improper on the
part of the witness to have sent in such a statement
as that, without mentioning the fact of the parties
refusing to be sworn to its contents, as it led the
court to infer that this had been done.
Captain May was then recalled, and denied the
charge of drunkenness, as also that he had stated
the ship could not strike soon enough for him,
The mate and steward had told him they had made
the charge of drunkenness because he had not offered
to compensate them for the loss of their clothes, and
were willing to withdraw it if he would do so. He
said every one should be paid what was due, and
they then said they were willing to withdraw their
statement.

Mr. W. T. Phillips, shipowner of Tooley-street,
Borough, spoke to the character of Captain May,
who he denied was addicted to habits of intemper-
ance. He also knew him to be an efficient seaman.
Mr. Traill said the evidence was of such a nature
as to cause the delay of a few days in making a
report to the Board of Trade, but this would be done
without lose of time.

RIGHT'S OF RAILWAY EXCUR-
SIONISTS.

-
At the last county court at York, Mr. E. T.
Snowdon, of that city, sued the North-Eastern Rail-
way Company for the sum of £5 125., for an assault
committed upon him by one of their servants, and
for an alleged breach of contract. It appeared from
the evidence adduced, that on 16th August last the
plaintiff obtained at the York booking-office six
first-class tickets for an excursion to Scarborough
and back, for which he paid 245. The plaintiff and
his wife, and a party of friends, rode together in a
compartment of a first-class carriage to Scarborough,
and on returning thence at night they endeavoured
to secure places together in the same way ; but
while the plaintiff's friend, who had taken posses-
sion of a compartment of a first-class carriage, was
in search of the plaintiff and his wife, two other
excursionists deposited themselves in the reserved
places, and refused to give them up to the plaintiff
and his wife. The plaintiff thereupon got into the
carriage and persisted in seating himself upon one
of the arms, in consequence of which he was ulti-
mately pulled out upon the platform by the super-
intendent of the station. The plaintiff alleged that
he could find no other first-class carriage, and that
he and his wife returned to York in a third-class ;
but the assistant station-master deposed that there
was room in a first-class carriage, which went back
empty. The judge said that as the plaintiff's friend
had no authority to reserve the seats claimed by
the former, and as the carriage was fall, the super-
intendent was justified in removing the plaintiff,
which he appeared to have done with no more force
than was necessary. As to the other allegation,
that the defendants did not supply sufficient accom-
modation, it had been proved that they did, and
therefore it seethed fo him there was no breach of
contract. In such excursion trains to such places
as Scarborough there was always considerable con-
fusion, and the same attention could not be expected
as in ordinary trains. He should, therefore, give
a verdict for the defendants, with costs.