The Sun.
London, England, 1857-01-28 00:00:00

THE _REPEAL OF THE HOP DUTY.

We understand that in compliance with the
resolutions passed at the last hop duty meeting,
held at Robertebridge, the committee appointed at
that meeting have applied to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, soliciting an interview on the subject
of the hop duty, and that an answer has been re-
ceived from the right hon. gentleman fixing an
early day next week to receive a deputation. While
on this subject we cannot refrain from alluding to a
letter recently addressed by Mr. C. IL Frewen,
M.P., to the hop planters of West Kent, in which,
in referring to the coming election in that county,
he says he considers this to be " the most fitting
time for the electors to return a representative to
Parliament who will advocate the removal of that
unjust impost, the hop duty." We regret to find the
hon. member adding his impression, that "if West
Kent declares in favour of retaining this tax it is
quite useless for any Sussex member to move for its
repeal, as we are sure to be told by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer that, as the Kent planters do not wish
for the removal of the tax, he cannot consent to
give it up when there is so much difference of
opinion among the planters themselves." Now,
we do not dispute the probability of the Chancel-
lor seeking to take advantage of the differences
among the planters. But we do emphatically deny
the proposition of Mr. Frewen that because of
those differences it is useless for a Sassex member
to move for the repeal of the duty. Se far from
the opposition of the West Kent planters being
fatal, we maintain that there need scarcely be a
stronger argument with the House in favour of re-
peal than the fact that the West Kent planters are
opposed to it. Let Mr. Frewen explain clearly to
the House " the reason why " the Kent planters
oppose the abolition of the hop duty, and we are
bold to think it will supply one of the very
best " reasons why" the prayer of the Sussex plan-
ters should be granted. We look to the principle—
the broad fact of the injurious and severe pressure
of that which Mr. Frewen himself calls that " un-
just impost"—we look, we repeat to the intrinsic
merits of the particular case, and although it would
of course, be highly desirable to have the support
of the members for West Kent, we by no means
consider their opposition of very grave importance.
The day has gone by when petty personal or
private interests can be allowed to stand in the way
of right principles and sound policy. The reasons
urged by the advocates for retaining the duty are
just those which are the last to find favour at the
present time of day. The argument of the oppo-
nents of repeal are founded—expressly founded—
on the mischievous and exploded principles of
" class protection," and on nothing else. When
even the member for East Sussex gives up that
principle and advocates freedom for the hop plan-
ters, we cannot think that the repealers have much
to fear from the opposition of those who resort to
the sword and buckler discarded by Mr. Frewen.
—Sussex Advertiser.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FACTORY OCCUPIERS.
The second annual meeting of this association was hold
yesterday afternoon at the Manchester Town-ball, Mr.
E. Ashworth presiding. Mr. Whitworth, the seers.
tary, read the annual report, which referred chiefly
to the passing of the bill introduced by the associa-
tion in the last session of Parliament, to effect a reason-
able modification of the imperative provisions of the
21st clause of the Factory Act, 7th and Bth of Vic-
toria, cap. 15, which required all mill-paring to be
"securely fenced." The committee state that they are
not aware of any case of arbitration having arisen since
the statute was passed, but they feel confident that its
provisions will be found an ample protection to the
operatives and will prove satisfactory to the employers.
Notwithstanding the heavy expenditure of prosecuting
the bill, a balance of 2,6751. remains available for the
purposes of the association. Mr. Lewis, of Derby,
moved the adoption of the report. He congratulated the
association on the success of their proceedings, and con-
sidered it was the first time the factory interest had
received anything like jestice at the hands of the Legis-
lature. He was glad that there was no proposition to
dissolve the association, which it was most desirable to
retain in operatton, not for purposes of aggression, but
as a means of protection to the trade. Mr. Clapham,
of Airedale, seconded the motion, which was carried
unanimously. Mr. Wright, of Oldham, moved a vote
of thanks to the executive commitee, which was seconded
by Mr. H. Mason, of Ashton, who recommended extreme
caution en the part of the members individually in not
laying themselves open to attacks such as had been made
upon the trade, as they would always be losers if they
had to fight public opinion. The motion was carried
unanimously. Mr. T. Cooke, of Manchester, remarked
that the factory occupiers could not better secure public
support than by strictly obeying the law as it now stood.
Mr. N. Buckley, Mayor of Ashton ; Mr. Rowland, of
Oldham ; Mr. J. Simpson, of Manchester, and other
gentlemen took part in the remainder of the proceedings
which were merely of a formal character,