SECOND READING. (Hansard, 28 May 1866)

LORD HARRIS

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that the object of the measure was to check certain frauds which existed to a very considerable extent in the traffic in hops. These frauds consisted in the substitution of hops of inferior quality for hops of a superior quality, whereby the brewer and the purchaser was imposed upon; and this practice was greatly facilitated by the manner in which hops were packed, which rendered it difficult to test the quality of hops in the pocket. The method for checking this fraud proposed in the Bill was not at all novel. The trade in hops had formed the subject of legislation since 1710; but in the last century the legislation was principally directed for the purposes of the Excise. In 1710 the Excise officers were obliged to put the year and the weight of the hops upon each bag or pocket. In 1800 the grower was called upon to place his name outside the bag or pocket, in order that the buyer might know whence the hops came. In 1810 further alterations were made, imposing greater obligations upon the grower; and in 1814 regulations were made fixing the size of the letters of the name and place of abode, but the weight and the year were still directed to be affixed by the Excise. In 1862, when the hop duty was done away with, there was no provision made for the year or weight being marked upon the pocket, although the trade attached great importance to this information, because hops were very much diminished in value after twelve months, and the weight enabled the dealers to detect any tricks that might be attempted with the pocket. Under the Bill, the obligation was thrown upon the owner or grower to affix his name, the parish where the hops were grown, and the county in which the parish was situated; also the number of the pockets he turned out, the weight of each pocket, and the year in which they were grown. A penalty was imposed for false marks, for packing the pockets with different qualities of hops, and for putting foreign hops in British hags. The provisions of the Bill were, in fact, very similar to those of the Merchandise Marks Act. The obligations thus im- 1310 posed were to be enforced by penalties. Hops were a delicate production, and could not be exposed like other articles to the outward air, and the only real test was after the hops were in the copper and became beer. Every interest—the grower's, the factor's, and the brewer's—agreed that this was a valuable measure.

§ THE EARL OF ROMNEY

was of opinion that it would have been better if, instead of requiring marks to be put upon the bags, the hop trade had been thrown completely open, and treated in the same way as tea, sugar, corn, or any other article. No real protection was given by requiring the weight to be marked on the pocket within a month, for if carried by water they increased in weight, while if kept in a dry place they became lighter. The mark afforded no real protection as to the quality of the hop, for in one parish of 6,000 acres two qualities might be produced—one very good, and the other very bad; and persons, instead of being secured, might be deceived by the name upon the pocket. So far from admitting that the quality of hops could not be tested by examination, he believed that persons who understood the trade could distinguish, blindfold, between first and second qualities. The Bill would lead the dealers to trust in a system of marks, and it would be wiser to get rid of that system altogether. He hoped that the noble Lord would consider, before they went into Committee, whether he would insist on that provision which required that the weight should be affixed on the bag within a month.