218 
Tobacco as a Farm Crop for England. 
quality — good, bad or indifferent. If, however, an ad valorem 
duty were imposed, a much larger staff of analysts would be 
required for the purpose of grading the imported tobaccos. At 
the present moment, the best and richest leaf, viz., that which 
contains the most natural gum, pays no more duty than a poor 
leaf adulterated with gum and gelatine. 
The adulterants in tobacco are endless ; dock-leaves, paper, 
lampblack, saltpetre, alum, sand, sulphate of iron, wheat-flour, 
glycerine, logwood, thorn-apple-leaves, plane-leaves, and rhubarb, 
being all freely used for purposes of adulteration. Cabbage- 
leaves were formerly used, but are not now so generally used. 
Whatever alterations in the imposition of the revenue may 
eventually be made, it is obvious that they ought to be made 
only after very mature considerations on the part of the 
Government. 
Q. — What then, after due consideration, do you think the 
Government should do ? 
A. — After frequent conversations with the Revenue officials 
who have visited my tobacco crop, and after reviewing the sugges- 
tions that have been made to me, I am led to believe that the 
easiest course for both the cultivator and the Government 
is that the Government should — 
(i.) Absolutely forbid the growth of tobacco without a 
license, even to the extent of a single plant in a garden. 
(ii.) Grant licenses to grow tobacco on not less than half an 
acre and on not more than five acres, on payment of a fixed sum, 
in lieu of duty, per acre, for a period of five or seven years ; 
the period for application for licenses to be limited, so that 
only those who seriously intend to undertake this culture should 
have an inducement to apply for them. ^ 
By these restrictions the trouble and expense to the Revenue 
Department in making the necessary observations and collecting 
details regarding the growth of this plant in the counties 
where the experiments were carried on would be minimised, 
and experimenters would have some chance of not being 
altogether losers. 
Q. — Why do you prefer to exact the duty by the acre rather 
than by the pound, as in the case of imported tobacco? fin- 
any interference with a department of the Revenue that brings 
in no less than 9,000,000/. per annum must be backed by 
very weighty reasons. 
A. — Of this I am fully aware ; but I must explain that I 
am in no way suggesting a permanent alteration in the collection 
of the tobacco duty, but only concessions which the Government 
should make to facilitate the experimental cultivation of tobacco. 
It would be for the Government to report on these experiments 
