Hopping (1857): opposition to acreage duty.

Post date: Apr 17, 2012 8:35:38 PM

Extract from the Kentish Gazette, 2nd June 1857 of which Samuel Lucas, the owner of Wateringbury Place, was the convenor and chairman and at which Leney the Wateringbury farmer and brewer spoke:

OPPOSITION TO THE ACREAGE DUTY BY THE MID-KENT PLANTERS

On Thursday last a very large and influential meeting of hop-planters opposed to the acreage duty was held Maidstone. The chair was occupied by Samuel Lancaster Lucas, Esq., who had convened the meeting; and amongst those present were several planters. The number present altogether were about 180.

The Chairman, in opening the proceedings, said it was not a public meeting in the ordinary sense of the term. It was a meeting called for a specific purpose, and in the advertisement calling it no one was asked to attend who was not opposed to the acreage duty. If there were any such person in the room it would therefore be more courteous and proper for him to withdraw for he could not allow any to speak or vote unless they were opposed to an acreage duty. He should state, however, that Dr. Monckton and a friend had asked permission to come into the room, and he had told them that if they came to listen to what he had to say, and held their tongues and said nothing they would happy to see them. (Laughter.) Dr Monckton had accepted those terms, and he was very happy to see him and his friend. (Loud cheers.)

It might now be that he should say a few words on the subject. The cultivation of hops was of the greatest importance in the district in which it was carried. A million and a half sterling were spent annually in the cultivation of hops, of which by far the larger part was paid away for labour; so that not only did the welfare and prosperity of the hop-grower and proprietor depend on the success of the hop-plantation, but a great number of the labouring class also gained their daily bread by it. Surely then no rash and speculative legislation ought to be encouraged on so important a matter. He should show that that was not the case with the acreage duty scheme, the promoters of which had not well considered all the facts of the case, for an acreage duty was unequal, unfair, and unjust in its operation. (Cheers.) Dr. Monckton had said with reference to the loss which the revenue would sustain by the acreage duty— "We propose a certain plan which will enable you to remit that sum with far less cost than you anticipate. It is true we ask you to sacrifice, say, for the sake of argument, £75,000 per annum, but, we tell you, you would only lose £40,000 or £50,000 in doing so."

He asked the promoters of the acreage duty to tell him how much they really did consider the Government would lose. For some time nobody said anything. At last up got the chairman of the Committee meeting and said that he did not exactly know. He dare say it was easy to ascertain; but, fact, he and the acreage committee did not care how much it was." What a sagacious promoter of legislation! —what a wise propounder of fiscal alterations —not to know or care what effect the change he proposed would have on the revenue of his country. He said on an average 15 years, beginning with 1810 and ending with 1855, the number of acres in plantation was 47,000, and during those years an annual sum of £331,250 was paid into the Exchequer. If the acreage duty had been in operation that time it would only have amounted to £141,000 per annum, and the revenue would thus have lost £190,250 per annum during those years. If 1856 had been included, the average would have been 48,000 acres, and the average paid into the Exchequer about £340,000. It was clear then that a serious loss must accrue to the Exchequer from the acreage duty.

He found not only a difference in different districts as to the amount grown per acre, but each district in itself varied in an extraordinary manner. Parishes side by side, nearly contiguous, varied a way hardly to be believed, if not for the official returns, he held in his hand a Parliamentary return of the number of pounds per acre grown in the Canterbury and Rochester districts in 1856. He found that West Malling and East Malling produced the one 14 cwt., and the other 8 cwt. per acre; Wateringbury 9 cwt. and Nettlestead 15 cwt.; Cranbrook 19 cwt. and Staplehurst 11 cwt.; Stansted 5 cwt. and Wrotham 10 cwt. (Cheers.) From this point of view an acreage duty would seem to most unfair and unjust; but if they compared Stansted with Wateringbury, and Wateringbury with Cranbrook, it seemed still more unfair. If, however, they took the extremes and compared Stansted with Cranbrook. it appeared an unbearable injustice which no man could sustain. (Loud cheers.)

Let them, however, see whether the better quality grown made up for the difference in quantity. He would take a middling good year and first consider the Mid Kent planter Supposing he grow 10 cwt. per acre, and the expense of cultivation to the time of picking was £24; for picking, drying, marking, duty, commission, &c., £2 per cwt., which was £20 —that made a total of £44. Supposing he sold his 10 cwt. at five guineas per cwt., that would be £52 10s., leaving a net profit of £8 10s. Against this he would bring the produce of of a favourable farm in the Weald of Kent and Sussex. He would call the production 20 cwt. per acre. (Laughter and interruption from Mr. Thirkell.) Well, they had seen that the parish of Wateringbury grew 9 cwt. and that of Cranbrook 19. Say that this 20 cwt. produced 75s. per cwt., or £75 per acre. Putting his expenses at the same ratio as those of the Mid Kent planter, £64, it would leave a profit of £11, showing an advantage for quantity over quality of £2 10s. per acre.

The chairman then read a letter from the Hereford planters, opposing an acreage duty, and making known that the majority of the planters of the Worcester and Hereford districts were decidedly opposed to any change in the present duties, but more particularly to the substitution an acreage duty. Another point about the acreage duty to which he called attention was that of ground planted with fruit as well as hops. He entered into some arguments to show that it was not the planter who paid the duty, as the advocates of the acreage system contended. They knew that hops were a most hazardous and precarious crop. Some years everybody had hops. Some years one district failed, while another had plenty, and so it varied until it seemed to come to each district in its turn. (Hear, hear.) But if instead of taking one isolated year they took average one, they would soon see who paid the duty, for it was absurd to say that any who grew hops would continue do so on an average of years if it did not answer.

The thing was whether they would get any benefit by paying no duty at all. Would they get as much for their hops if the Excise duty were taken off ? Did they imagine that the brewer would give them as much for their hops when they paid 20s. less than they then paid? (Hear, hear.) The consumption on the average was about 400,000 cwt. per annum, and if 401,000 cwt. were produced it must be done at loss; but that was their own fault— nobody wanted them do it. If the duty were entirely taken away it would not alter these facts. There would no less risk in the growth itself, and the same results would follow an undue increase in the plantation. He was convinced that acreage duty would be injurious to hop planters generally, not only that district, but in every district.

Mr. Golding proposed a resolution against any alteration in the existing duties. He believed the whole of the arguments in favour of the acreage duty were based on the belief that the grower paid the duty. He, on the contrary, maintained that the consumers paid it; and not only that, but the malt duty and the brewers' profits. (Cheers.) The measure would most injurious to the hop planter, who would never know what was grown, and would never have speculators coming into the market and taking off the glut.

Mr. Leney seconded the resolution. He believed that the whole tendency of this agitation was to produce free trade. He should, as brewer, rejoice in what they did, but as hop planter he condemned it.

Mr. Turner was against an acreage duty, but he did not think matters could rest as they were. The steam had got up - they must have some alteration —and the question was, what that alteration should be. He would appeal to them all whether it was not a scandalous reproach that the planters had not been able to meet upon some common ground of agreement. (Hear, hear.) He moved an amendment for the Excise duty on hops being one penny per pound, and the Customs duty 30s. per cwt. Perhaps that was not the best thing to be done, but was it not better to ask for something that they could get than for something they were sure they would not have? The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them in February that any alteration in the Excise involved corresponding alteration the Customs, and therefore if any change were made they must be prepared for a change in the Customs as well the Excise. The parish which he represented, thirty years ago had,only four or five acres of hops, and the poor-rates were 4s. 6d. in the pound, and the highway-rate Is. 6d. to 2s. Now the hop plantation was 150 acres, and the consequence, were but 2s. 2d.—thc highway-rates but 6d.

Mr. Spencer Cooper seconded the resolution.

Mr. Smith (Worcester) strongly deprecated any agitation of the subject, and read a letter from the Earl Beauchamp, which his lordship stated his belief that the Chancellor of Exchequer would be too happy to sweep away the £2 5s import duty (cheers). He had received a letter to the same effect from Sir John Pakington.

Mr. Elvey asked when a man paid 25 per cent of his produce who could deny that it was oppressive. He maintained that the acreage duty was as fair as the payment of duty per cwt. Neither was fair but one was as fair as the other. He was not for the acreage duty, because he saw it was not possible to get it. They were all in confusion.

- Mr. Smith (interrupting)-of course you are. Why don't you leave well alone?

Mr. Turner , in explanation, said that agitation might be injurious, but that the difficulty was come. It was utterly impossible to ward off a change any longer, and therefore he was anxious that they should be united. Let them go to the Chancellor of Exchequer with a plan based upon even handed justice-let it be seen that they would give as well as take. It was useless to lay the flattering unction to their souls - that they would have a reduction of the Excise Duty without the customs being also reduced. (Hear , hear)

The amendment on being put to a show of hands was lost, there being only 12 for it; and the resolution was carried by a very large majority A vote of thanks to the Chairman closed the proceedings.

Samuel Lucas was interviewed a month later by the House of Commons Hops Duty Committee and then two months later he repeated his evidence for The Hereford Journal of 29th July 1857:

Mr. Lancaster Lucas examined. —Was the owner of about 600 acres of hop land at Wateringbury, near Maidstone. Had been acquainted with the hop cultivation since 1845. In his district it was, he believed, decidedly profitable on an average of years when carried on with sufficient capital. Every cultivator ought to have a capital of £125 per acre. The expense of cultivation was from £25 to £30 per acre before picking. The picking, drying, and duty, amounted to 50s. The landlord could not afford proper accommodation in outhouses and necessary buildings for less than from £20 to £30 per acre. The general acreage of the farms in his district was from 70 to 200 acres. He had three farms of 200 acres, and in the three were about 250 acres of hop land. It would be impossible to let the farms at all but for the hop land. The average population in his district was a man per acre. At least four or five men were employed in the hop cultivation where only one would otherwise be employed; besides, there was the labour of the women and children. To a person possessing sufficient capital the excise duty was a positive benefit. He thought the inferior districts would be ruined by free trade. He had heard a great deal of nonsense talked by witnesses about hop growing being a losing occupation. The question was rather one of soil than of duty. In his opinion the excise duty was paid by the consumer; that is, by the man who drank beer. He had calculated that the hop duty paid by the consumer of a quart of beer a day was 11d. a year. He thought that if the hop duty were taken off, the effect would be, that the brewers, after having pocketed it for a year or two, would be compelled to give the benefit of it to the consumer in the improved quality of his beer.

However, one additional point he had made to the House of Commons Hops Duty Committee (Worcestershire Chronicle 8th July 1857) was about wood:

If the value of hops were materially depreciated by legislation, the value of wood, and the employment it afforded, would of course diminish in proportion. He had sold underwood of ten years' growth, as high as £57 per acre, and as low as £44. The chesnut plantation was on the increase in Kent.

The Wateringbury evidence to the House of Commons Hop Duties Committee was reported in the Worcester Journal of 18th July 1857:

Mr. Evans, of Wateringbury and the Borough: I am a hop merchant. I deal almost wholly in English hops ; but when there is a scarcity I have dealt in foreign ones. In East Kent we buy direct from the grower ; but we do so very seldom in any other part of the country. It has been a custom for many years to buy the best hops of East Kent direct from the grower ; but in other parts of the country we can do business better and more quickly through factors. Our business with factors is a ready money one; but brewers sometimes take credit. The best foreign hops come from Bavaria. I think that if we had a free trade, prices would vary more than they do now, during the season. We send English hops abroad, principally to Australia. We have sent them, however, to Russia and to France I have known them even go to Bavaria. I don't think that if there was free trade, a reciprocal trade would spring up between this country and the Continent. I think all the benefit would be on the side of the foreigners.

By Mr. Brand: Between 1854 and 1855 prices ranged from 35s. to £25. Thirty-five shillings was an extremely low price, but the hops sold for it were fit for the brewer.

By Mr. W. Martin: I think it is conclusively proved that sulphur is injurious to beer. Mr. W. Martin : Mr. Leney has offered to lay a wager of a thousand pounds that no person can tell the difference between beer he can brew from sulphured and unsulphured hops ?

Witness : That is hardly a criterion.

By Sir E. Dering: Sulphur may be applied with advantage to the plant before the flower comes out. The committee then adjourned.