The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-06 00:00:00

the guidance of the Government is already in our hands.
But nevertheless, as it seems to be the wish of the house
that the motion should be agreed to, I do not oppose it,
and will not put the house to the trouble of a division.
The motion was then agreed to without a division, algid
some laughter.
THE HOP DUTIES.

Mr. DODSON and Mr. MILDMAY presented petitions in
favour of the abolition of the tax upon hops.
Mr. DODSON then rose, pursuant to notice, to move
that the maintenance of any duties upon hops is impolitic,
and that in any remission of taxation or adjustment of
financial burdens provision should be made for the removal
of such duties. He said that the hop duties immediately
interested only a few English counties, otherwise they would
long ago have been abolished. The tax operated as an ex-
cise duty which was ultimately borne by the consumer, who
bad to pay not only the amount of the tax, but the
successive accumulations of interest which it bore. Tboen,
however, whose attention had been directed to this subject
were aware that its consequences were much more compli-
cated. The hop grower expended from £22 to £3O an acre
in order to raise a crop, and then had to pay from 20s. to
30s. a cwt. more for the expense of packing and bagging the
hops. In the year 1849, over an as ea of 42,000 acres, there
was a production of 14.5,000 cwt. In 1850 the same num-
ber of acres produced 420,000 cwt. In 1851 the yield on
the same average was 236,000 cwt. ; in 1852 it was
447,000 cwt. In 1854 the extent of hop-growing laud hav-
ing increased by one-seventh, the number of cwts. fell to
86,000. In the next year the same number of acres yielded
728,000 cwt.; and in 1856, 1857, and 1868, the crops fell by
300,00 0 cwt. In the year 1859, the acreage having dimi-
nished to the extent of one-fifth, the crop rose to 599,000
cwt. ; and in 1860, upon the same extent of land, it fell to
D 7,000 twt. Accordingly, it seemed the hop plant was the
very symbol of uncertainty. No man could say when there
would be a glut, scarcity, or absolute dearth. But whilst
the supply was thus irregular and baffling all calculation,
the demand was strictly limited. It was not like a manu-
factured article, where the supply could be regulated by the
demand. The duty also was a duty which occasionally fell
not upon consumption but upon production. It sometimes
happened that the supply exceeded the demand, and the
grower in such cases had to pay the excess of duty, which
was highest when these was least demand, and when, con-
sequently, the price was at, its lowest. In the year 1855
the average duty per acre on the Sussex collection was
£l4 2s. Bd.; in 1856 it was Sll 7s. Id. ; in 1857 it fell
to £6 7s. 7d. ; in 1858 the average was £l2 16s. 7d. ;
in 1859 it rose to £l4. In five years the average
amount of duty was £ll 15s. per acre. In point of fact
the duty every year exceeded the sent, the tithe, the
land tax, church rate, poor rate, and highway rate, all
together, two or three times over. This occurred in
years of abundance, and in those years the loss did not
come out of the pocket of the consumer, but was paid by
the grower. Looking at the expense of the cultivation and
the irregular and uncertain supply, he was satisfied that
this was not a commodity which ought to be subjected to
an excise duty. The article was one which required the
investment of a large amount of capital in its production,
and yet the Government selected such an article in order
that they mighLartificially multiply the losses and risks
attending. it, until the growth of the article became as it
were a lottery in which there were a few prizes against an
enormous number of blanks. It. might be asked what
was the value of this duty to the Government. The ex
else duty, as it stood last year at 20a., taken upon an
average of twenty years, :had only yielded to the revenue
£300,000 a year. The excise duty last year was reduced
to 14s. per cwt., and that duty would now, in a succession
of years, judging from past averages, produce about
£200,000 a year. But owing to the uneertain and irregu-
lar nature of the commodity itself, the duty would yield
in one year £lOO,OOO, while in another it would scarcely
produce £lO,OOO. It was impossible for the Chan-
cellor' of the Exchequer at any time to give the
widest guess as to the amount which would be de-
rived from the duty. Last year the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer estimated the growing crop of 1860 at £300,000,
but instead of receiving £300,000 the amount charged to
duty had only been £69,000, and of that £69,000 the right
hon. gentleman would collect but a very small portion due.,
ing the financial year, having been obliged to postpone the
collection. until 1861-62, in consequence of the distressed
condition of the planters. This distress arose from over
production. No farmer ever complained of having too much
corn, or too many cattle, yet the hop grower was ruined by
the success of his crops. The smaller the crop the greater
the profit accruing to the grower; and this he contended
was an unnatural state of things, which ought not to be
allowed to continue longer. He urged that the system of
long credits and postponements was unsound in principle
and vicious in its operation, and that it was equally as bad
for the Exchequer as for the hop grower. Last year the
right hon. gentleman proposed to collect the tax in the year
in which it was charged, but he found that impossible, and
had to yield to the representations which were made to him
and postpone the payment. (Hear.) He was surprised-
that the right hon. gentleman should adhere to such an
unreliable duty. Ile certainly could not be afraid of deal-
ing with such a small amount, because he had no hesitii..-
tion in dealing with taxes amounting to millions. It could
not be said that the tax was absolutely necessary to revenue.
Last year the right hon. gentleman boasted that he had
swept 371 articles from the tariff. Surely if it was good
policy to abolish small customs duties, it must be equally
good policy to get rid of small excise duties, which were
attended with penalties, restrictions, and annoyances which
were most disagreeable. The right hon. gentleman could
scarcely say, with respect to this tax, that the removal of
one man's tax implied the imposition of that tax on another
man. It was nut pretended that the loss of this tax would
be attended with loss of revenue. Since the year 1844 the
excise duties on bricks, soap, and various other articles had
been reduced by £2,500,000. The additional duties im-
posed on spirits had been estimated at £2,000,000. And
what had been the result ? Why, that whilst, in 1841, the
excise yielded £17,500,000, it now yielded £22,500,000, thus
showing that remission of duty was not necessarily fol-
lowed by a loss of revenue. (Hear.) The total abolition of
the hop duty would not have any effect beyond the reduc-
Von of that duty, because it was a mere accessary to the
malt duty, and if the hop duty should be cut off the in-
creased revenue derived from malt would make up for the
loss of the hop duty. In the year 1825 the beer, malt, and-
hop duties produced £7,000,000, of which beer yielded
£3,000,000. The beer duty was abolished, and since that
time malt and hops had yielded as much as all the three
duties put together had formerly done. (Hear, hear.) The
removal of the hop duty would be a great benefit to the
consumer, fur then quassia, coculua indicus, and many
other doloteri .us ingredients which were now substituted
fur hops, would no longer be used. (Hear, hear.) The
remo'ly for all defects was to set the trade entirely flee,
and then short crops and full crops would be equalised.
Then as to.the excise duty. It was small in amount, vexa-
tious in collection, unfair in its incidence; a blundering
duty, and levied on a cornrao:lity so unsuited that it would
be impossible to maintain it on a satisfactory footing. He
114,1 high authority for a strong condemnation of this duty.
The right hon. hart. the member for Carlisle condemned it
in 1852 as injurious both to the producer and the consumer,
whilst the cost of collection was exci,,ive. It was collected
by a special stuff, so that if the ditty wcrc repealed the whole
staff might be abolished., (Hear.) his next authority was
the hon. member for Rochdale, who stigmatised it as a tax
which was fitter for the atmosphere of Turkey than that of
44 free trade England. In 1853 Lard Aberdeen said to a de-
putation that so great were the objections to the tax, that if
it did not exist already nobody would think of putting it
on. Other Chancellors of the Exchequer had condemned
it, and only one had attempted to praise it, namely, the
right hon. Bart, the Secretary for India. He (Mr. Dodson)
bad waited on the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and
the right hon. gentleman had .not advanced a single argu •
went in favour of the; tax. Indeed, it would be hard to de-
fend this excise duty. True, our expenses were great and
oar financial burthens heavy ; but if the latter must be
heavy, surely they ought to be made as equal and as little
oppressive as possible. (Hear, hear) All he asked was
that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer took the finances
of the country info consideration he would see whether this
small but unfair and unequal pressure might not be re-
moved. (Hear.) He knew how powerful the right hon.
gentleman was to make the worse appear the better reason,
but he implored the house not to be led away by the right
hon. gentleman's eloquence, but to consider the question on
its own merits. The hon. member in conclusion repeated

Jiis motion.
Sir B. BRIDGES seconded the motion. He asked the
right hon. gentleman opposite whether the hop duty was
not the most, troublesome, and hop growers the greatest
bores he had ever met with in his official capacity ? (The
Chancellor of the Hichequer nodded assent. Laughter.)
Well, the right hon. gentleman norlded assent, but it was
the galled jide that winced ; the hop grower was the most
persecuted tax payer in the country. (Hear, hear.) The
cost of collection was the same no matter what the product
snd last year the duty of the collector was nearly a sine-
cure. The hop growers were subject to many vicissitudee.
Even the hops themselves' suffered from many causes—
" First the flea, then the fly,
Then the bug, and then they die."

And be would.add—'then- the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Sir J SHELLEY; as a hop grower, felt bound to support
the tootles.
Itlr. BRIGHT said that whatever difference of opinion
might be shown when the Speaker invited hon. members
to proceed into- the lobby, there could be no difference of
opinion as to the manner in which this question had been
brought before the house by the honourable mover, and dis-
cussed by the IOU: gentleman who followed him. (Hear.) It
was very agreeable fo him to find that when agriculturists
had a good cause they could support their interests and talk
nearly as well its gentreTlyon who were connected with other
branches of industry. lie had not heard a single sentence
or a single argument"with which he should be disposed to
find fault. • His hon. friend had said this was a tax of the
very worst character. He was afraid a good many taxes
might have the same character' given to them ; but the
question in the•presenfinstauce was not whether the tax
was good or bad—'-they all believed it to be bad—orwhether
it should be- made,a: permanent source of revenue. The
house, he was surey-naust feel by this time that it never
Gould be continned.as a permanent source of revenue; but
thaltiaaaou sub rtititWd, to them by the hon. gentleman was,
001:11.t
bin, or the deopriptiou of a plOge, for he wished num
sa

akszAll gotta.,