THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



MEETING OF HOP-PLANTERS FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE DUTY. 



On Friday, March 18, a large and highly iufluential meeting 

 of hop-planters and others was held at the Sussex Hotel, Tnn- 

 bridge Wells, for the purpose ol promotiDg the repeal of the 

 excise duty on hops. Tliere were between 300 and 400 pre- 

 sent. 



On the motion of Mr. Moses Body, chairman of the com- 

 mittee, Mr. Rutley (Wrothara) was called to preside. 



The Chairman said it would be his first duty to inform 

 them that the meeting had been convened by bills drawn up 

 by the committee appointed at the Robertsbridge meeting. As 

 to the object tlie society had in view, he could only repeat the 

 advice which he gave the planters at the Robertsbridge meet- 

 in;.', namely, that if they wished to secure the public attention 

 and interest in their cause, they must proceed boldly upon a 

 broad principle, and persevere consistently in one course. It 

 v.'aa a matter of very great congratulation that so many per- 

 sona had assembled. He took the circumstance as unmis- 

 takable evidence of the wide-spread depression — he might 

 say distress, which they saw around them, and which had 

 aroused them to public action. If he understood the objects 

 of llie meeting aright, it was not, however, merely to assert 

 their distress and proclaim their losses, but to state publicly 

 that they believed themselves to be unjustly subjected to a 

 heavy and burthensome duty, and to devise the best possible 

 means to get lid of it— to assert that the hop duty in its 

 apportionment was unjust and unequal as a tax. There was 

 no other tax like it upon any industrious class whatever in the 

 country. He was well aware, liowever, and he did not wish to 

 if;nore it, that there were even hop-growers who would prefer 

 tliat the duty should remain a^ it was, rather than that it should 

 be repealed. That desire arose from the circumstance that 

 those growers had many peculiar advantages of soil and situa- 

 tion, and did not feel the pressure to the extent that the majority 

 of growers now experjeuced. That was the reason why they 

 found those persons were in a position to pay the duty. But 

 he could not consider the mere fact of one particular set of 

 planters in a certain district desiring to maintain the duty was 

 any argument in its favour ; indeed, he should rather say no 

 further proof was necessary that the duty was unjust and un- 

 eijual, because one set of men were anxious for its continuance, 

 while the majority were oppressed by it, and wished for its 

 repeal. The persona who were anxious that things should 

 remain as they were, asserted that hop-growing always had 

 been, and always would be, a lottery; that it was a great 

 speculation, and that all who entered into its cultivation ought 

 to be prepared to meet its contingencies. They had been told 

 that if they were patient the market would rise again, and 

 they would have more years of profit. He well knew that 

 they had had such years, and that they might occur again, 

 even mider the present system. But upon what circumstances 

 would that improvement arise? It would be the very conse- 

 quei\ce of their present ruin, and the evils which had been 

 already inflicted by the duty. Planters had beeu driven to 

 grub their hops, and cease from their cultivation altogether, 

 and it was at such a cost and sacrifice that any temporary 

 prosperity would be secured. The attendance around him per- 

 Buailed him that they were no longer inclined to submit to this 

 unjust imposition. 



_ Mr. Mo.SEs Body then rose to propose the first resolu- 

 tion, which was, " That the excise duty on hops is most op- 

 pressive to the grower, unequal in its jjressure, most uncer- 

 tain in the amount of revenue derived from it, and most un- 

 just, hops being the only .agricultural produce subject to 

 taxation in the hands of the grower, upon which the duty 

 is k-vied irrespective both of the value of the article and the 

 cost of production." He did not stand before them as an 

 advocate of free trade in hops, for he did not know that they 

 could grow hops imder that principle. Some told them 

 that the duty was a tax upon the consumer, and that it did 

 not pross much upon the grower; but they well knew that 

 thi-y had very recently been selling hops at 17s., 18s., and 

 jOs. per cwt., and he should like to know who had paid the 

 duty on those, if the grower had not. It was very clear it 



was not paid by the consumer (Hear, hear). It was also 

 said that they could grub their hops if they found the culti- 

 vation of them did not pay, and thus relieve themselves of 

 the burden. He had no doubt they all knew, being practi- 

 cal men, that there was some difficulty in that matter; they 

 were aware that they had a large amount of labour upon 

 their hands. He, for one, had lateljs and perhaps most ot 

 the large planters had, grubbed a portion of their hops ; but 

 they could not get rid of the labouring population. That 

 hung upon them in some way or other, and they must be 

 maintained ; and he had himself set on many extra hands, 

 because many were literally starving. In fact, he had more 

 hands than he knew how to employ ; but in the country 

 districts it was not so easy to be disengaged from them, and 

 that was one reason why it was so difficult to get rid of their 

 plantations. If a man took a farm of some 200 or 300 acres, 

 of which 20 were planted with hops, a large proportion of 

 the valuation was taken upon the hop ground, perhaps £20 

 or £30 an acre. Therefore a man's capital became locked 

 up in that way ; and if he grubbed his hops, he by that 

 means destroyed his property. Another reason why they 

 could not grub their hops so easily as was supposed was that 

 it was always after a heavy crop that they wanted to grub, 

 because there was a larger produce than they required ; in 

 fact, they could not regulate the supply. With malt it was 

 just the reverse — they made as much as was wanted. But 

 they could not manage the hops in that way, as they did 

 not know what produce there would be ; but, after all, so 

 far as grubbing was'concerned, the greatest drawback was 

 the duty itself. A man had got perhaps ten or twenty 

 acres, prices were very low, and the tax something like £20 

 per acre, if he grew a ton an acre. He grubbed his hops and 

 covered the land with corn, and probably got a profit of £3 

 or £4 an acre, but the succeeding crop had to pay the tax 

 upon the previous year's produce (Hear, hear); therefore, 

 if a man had £300 or £400 duty to pay upon twenty acres 

 of hops, it ruined him. He must not, therefore, grub. 

 Those were strong reasons, he thought, why they should 

 get rid of the duty ; but he had no doubt they all knew the 

 matter as well as himself. He had been a grower for the 

 last twenty-five years, and during late years at a consider- 

 able expense. He had found it a most unprofitable specula- 

 tion ; and he was persuaded that, unless they got rid of the 

 excise duty, they could not continue to grow hops in these 

 counties. If that were so, he would ask, " What would be- 

 come of the labouring population in the hop districts .*" He 

 was himselfat a loss to know. 



Mr. Parker (Tuabridge) seconded the resolution, which 

 was carried unanimously. 



Mr. John Simes rose to propose the second resolution, 

 which was as follows : " That it is the duty as well as the 

 interest of all hop growers and others resident in or connected 

 with the hop districts to take all the means in their power to 

 procure the immediate abolition of this unjust tax." He was 

 in the habit of making valuations, and he had been struck at 

 the number of farms that had lately beeu stripped for payment 

 of the hop duty. He was also in the habit of receiving rents, 

 and had therefore had opportunities of noticing the difKcultiea 

 with which those payments were met. and in many cases could 

 not be met in consequence of the tenants having had to meet 

 the hop duty. He was well aware that there was a difference 

 of opinion upon the subject, and he was very sorry that it was 

 so. It was only a few, however, who objected to the present 

 movement, and they were only those who were seeking to re- 

 tain a monopoly : they were trying to drive the industrious 

 classes out of the market. If they made a fair calculation 

 they would find that in the Weald of Kent and Sussex they 

 had been paying sooiething like 35 or 40 per cent, more than 

 the Mid-Kent people. There lay the question. Let the Kent 

 people, who were so bigotted in their opinions, and who tried 

 all they could to drive others out of the market, have 40 per 

 cent, put, upon them. How would the question appear then, 

 he should like to know ; he was sure that they would soon be 



