HC Deb 05 July 1889 vol 337 cc1631-66
* MR. BROOKFIELD (Sussex, Rye)

In introducing to the House the Motion of which I have given Notice, I am painfully conscious of one main difficulty under which I labour—namely, that it may be the opinion of many hon. Members that the hop industry is a matter of only limited importance and only local interest. But I shall endeavour to show that it is really, and in the fullest sense of the term, a national industry, the extinction of which would be no less than a national misfortune, the preservation of which is no more than a national duty. Hon. Members—and I venture to address myself more especially to those who do not represent agricultural constituencies (though I am bound to say I do not see many of them present) must have heard from time to time accounts of agricultural distress and depression, and I think that they must be aware that those accounts are at all events founded on fact, and in putting it that way I make a very moderate statement of the position of affairs, a position that I might describe in much warmer language. Now the reasons why representations as to this agricultural distress do not assume a more vigorous and perhaps more embarrassing form, are in the first place, perhaps, owing to the nature of the case, rural communities being scattered, and agriculturists, moreover, not being great adepts in the art of political agitation. This may partly explain why agriculturalists have been content to bear with so little murmuring a state of things which yet deserves the attention of the House of Commons and the country. But there is another reason, one with which this Motion is more directly concerned, and one which I believe to be highly creditable to the courage, ingenuity, and perseverance of the British farmer, and that is that when he has found by painful experience that the operation of growing corn, and afterwards selling it at 30s. or 35s. a quarter, is only a snare and a delusion, he has boldly turned his attention to other channels of agricultural enterprise, and, in the case of the hop, with results highly beneficial to himself. I lay stress on this phase of the question, because those gentlemen who are good enough from time to time to recommend remedies for agricultural depression are never tired of their stock suggestion that if one crop does not pay we should "try something else." In the subject I am bringing before the House it will be seen how farmers have tried "something else," and I hope the debate will enable the House to judge of the value of such experiments. The counties in which the hop is cultivated are, first and foremost, the county of Kent, which has the largest acreage under hop cultivation, and produces perhaps two-thirds of the entire cultivation of this country. Next to Kent comes Sussex, the county with which I have the honour to be connected, then the counties of Hereford, Hampshire, Worcester, and Surrey. Then to a very much smaller extent Shropshire, and five or six other counties. It will be seen from this that the cultivation is confined to a few counties only. Even they are not all especially adapted for raising this particular crop. Speaking for my own county with which I am more intimately acquainted, I would say that Sussex is particularly adapted by soil and situation for the cultivation of wheat. But notwithstanding this, the farmers of Sussex have for many years past turned their attention to this alternative; they have given special attention to the cultivation of hops with results, until quite lately, highly remunerative to themselves and of almost incalculable advantage to the surrounding community. I use that phrase advisedly, and I would lay particular stress upon the diversity of interests that depend more or less on hop cultivation. I think the House might be surprised to learn how many interests stand or fall by the success or otherwise of this special industry. There are, of course, the planters themselves, with the largest interest, who have to invest a large capital, and with very considerable risk as to the crop. With the growers, the hop factors are closely connected, then come the hop merchants, country bankers, and a long list of other interests, wood merchants who have a very large interest in the industry, manure merchants, implement makers, ironmongers, twine and sacking merchants, and chemical manufacturers. I might trespass on the patience of the House by dealing with each of these interests, but I will confine myself to the terms of my Motion and call more especial attention to the effect of the industry upon agricultural labour. In no branch of agriculture with which I am acquainted in England, and so far as I know throughout the world, is the proportion of labour employed so large as in this exceptional crop. For 100 acres of pasture in this country it is not necessary to find employment for even one man; on 100 acres of arable land employment is found for only four men; but for the same acreage under hop cultivation employment is found all the year round for 35 or 40 labouring men. I venture to say, these are important facts to lay before the House. This employment does not cease with the work given to men on the spot. Work is provided for the wives and children of the men, and even the small children can contribute to the family earnings. Besides the regular work provided for the people on the spot, during the picking season, work is found for ten times the number of people who migrate from tie East End of London, and elsewhere, to the hop districts with results highly beneficial to themselves, from a social, sanitary, and pecuniary point of view. An ordi- nary single labouring man employed on the spot by ordinary day work can earn from £30 to £40 a year. The same man with piece work, which is nearly always open to him, will earn from £40 to £50. An able-bodied man employed as a "dryer," as he is termed, can make up his earnings to £50 or £60, and probably more, and the dryers employed in "pocketting" or packing can earn £5 or £6 a year in addition. The wife and family can earn from £5 to £10 more, and a woman who can move about and is disposed to work can, I estimate, get from 12 to 16 weeks' work in the hop districts, and add this to the earnings of the family. These facts, of course, have an important effect on the earnings of the agricultural labouring classes. As to the earnings of the hop-pickers who migrate annually from the Metropolis, and elsewhere, they are paid in our county by the dozen—that is the dozen bushels—at fifteen pence and upwards according to circumstances. Under exceptional circumstances payment has risen as high as 6s. per dozen, but taking the average rate 2s. the dozen bushels is the payment, and at this rate a labouring man can earn 2s. 6d. a day at picking time. A woman with two or three children may be reckoned I as two pickers, or with a larger family as four pickers. Au average small family can usually earn 6s. a day at picking time, besides which they are provided with lodging and firing. I might dilate on this aspect of the question, upon which I have touched to show the importance of hop cultivation as a means of employing labour. I spoke just now of 100 acres, and I take that as a convenient unit of comparison. I take the specific case of a farm with which I am acquainted, growing exactly 100 acres of hops. On that farm 40 men are employed all the year round in attending to the hops, and no less than 450 are employed at picking time, with the earnings I have mentioned. If there is any hon. Member present who is what is called a philanthropist, and has turned his attention to the subject of the social and sanitary condition of the poor in the East End of London, he will admit the usefulness of these annual outings for hop-picking. They are looked forward to with as much zest by the poor as that with which hon. Members look forward to their annual expedition to the moors of Scotland or elsewhere. And now I come to the second important branch of my subject, the extent to which this exceptionally profitable and labour-giving industry prevails in the country, and what is befalling it. If I were speaking like a counsel who held a brief in this case, I might make out a much more deplorable case than I am prepared to prove; but the only figures I will submit are those from the Agricultural Returns, though it is worthy of notice, in passing, that when these Returns were first compiled, and down to 1867, no Returns were published of hop gardens under five acres in extent; hence it is that some acreage is omitted which might otherwise raise the total acreage of cultivation to 75 000. But as regards the Agricultural Returns, and only to these do I draw attention, and taking the year 1885—not because it shows the highest return; a much larger acreage is shown in 1878—but taking 1885 as the period when the descending scale of acreage and prices, and the general misfortunes which have overtaken the industry commenced, I find that in that year there were 71,327 acres under cultivation, in the following year the acreage was 70,127, in 1887, 63,506, in 1888, 58,500; and this year it is estimated the crop will be little over 52,000 acres, or, to put myself quite within the mark, I will take it as 53,000 acres. Well, these figures are—to use a common expression—very significant, significant of a great deal of wasted capital and disappointed energy, and significant of a great deal of employment of which the working classes have been deprived. To be literal, I will attempt to calculate what the loss to the labouring classes is. In 1885, when there was 71,327 acres under hop cultivation, there must have been regular employment for 28,000 labouring men all the year round, and casual annual employment for 320,000 more. At the present time, with the cultivation fallen to 53,000 acres, there is regular employment for 21,200 men, and casual employment for a little over 230,000 men. In other words, 7,000 men in the villages in the hop-growing districts have been deprived of work, or have to avail themselves of whatever other means of employment the districts afford, and no less than 90,000 of the dwellers in town have been deprived of their annual migration, and the means of earning in a few weeks as much as ordinarily their class would earn in the same number of months. I think I may claim to have described a serious condition of affairs, and to have established my point, that the steady decline which has taken place in the non-cultivation means serious displacement of labour, and is a matter of national concern. Now, the next point I have to discuss is far more difficult, the causes that have led to the decrease of cultivation. Of course there are natural causes which we recognise in every agricultural industry; blight, which may affect the crop at a moment's notice, and bring loss and sometimes ruin to the capitalist, though even this danger has been mitigated by the practice of washing, sulphuring, and other mechanical means. But I need not discuss these natural causes, what I have to represent to the House are the causes with which we believe legislation may deal. The primary cause of this steady fall in cultivation and consequent displacement of labour is to be found in the fact that prices have become unremunerative and the conditions of carrying on the industry too onerous and one-sided. Well, as to prices, we certainly can tell a most melancholy tale, and though I do not deny that many other industries can do the same, I doubt whether many of them could show such a persistent and steady fall in profits as the hop growing industry can report. I take the year which may represent the real piping time for successful hop-growers—1882—when the price of Kentish hops was no less than 345s. a cwt., and Sussex hops were at the same time 305s. a cwt.; the next year Kents' had fallen to 124s., and Sussex to 110s.; in 1884 Kents were 115s., and Sussex 101s. Then we have to take into consideration the price of foreign hops in the same period. In the year first mentioned—1882—foreign hops were 294s. a cwt.—that is considerably cheaper than the English hops. In 1883, they were 120s.; in 1884, 100s. Then came the most serious drop in prices. It is notorious that, below a certain point, the price is unremunerative; they are simply pro- duced at a loss; there is nothing to compensate for this. Hon. Members having special knowledge of different parts of the country may form a somewhat different estimate; but my calculation is that anything below £3 cwt. is unremunerative. Well, in 1885, Kent hops sank from 115s. in the previous year to 56s., and Sussex hops from 101s. to 41s. In the following year (1886) Kents fell to 44s., and Sussex to 33s.; and, in the same years, foreign hops were 50s. and 30s. The next two years—1887 and 1888—have certainly shown a slight improvement in prices; but side by side with that is the very significant fact that the acreage has diminished to the large extent I have mentioned, from 71,000 odd to 53,000, and the importation of foreign hops which, since 1882, from 319,620 cwts. had fallen to 145,122 cwts. in 1887. Again I do not think it is a matter for congratulation when prices are slightly improved if there is no prospect of this improvement continuing, and the increased prices of foreign imports are at the expense of our own cultivation. In former times, when the acreage in Kent and Sussex, Worcester and Hereford diminished, those growers who had capital and resources at all events reaped some benefit for themselves, but now, when there is less cultivation in England there is more cultivation abroad in countries which, for all practical purposes, are as near our doors as the two counties with which I have been principally dealing. There is much more which might be said on the subject of foreign imports, but I ask hon. Members to note that I do not wish to exaggerate and lay too much stress on that particular evil. I have my own opinion on the subject with which I need not trouble the House unnecessarily. Now, it is not only the danger and the loss to us that foreign hops cause by their presence in the market, from which our growers suffer. They also suffer largely from the knowledge that at any moment these hops can be poured in any quantity into the market. Formerly, when we had a great glut of English hops in the market, a grower was able to hold them until the next year, when the scarcity for which he devoutly prayed from his point of view might come, and then he realized his price as people do in other speculations. But speculation of that kind is completely paralyzed, because the holder of hops knows that when the scarcity for which in his commercial spirit he is hoping comes, it will at once be met by the market being flooded with foreign hops. On this subject, that is if I consulted my own feelings, I should certainly like to make some observations which it would be more for the good of the hop industry and of my present purpose if I did not make. I have long held the opinion that the unrestricted importation of foreign articles into our markets is not an universal benefit, and I would even go the length of saying it is a great evil. I am not so impractical as to ask the Government and the House of Commons to adopt, at a moment's notice, what may be called my extreme views, which, however, I am prepared to justify when the proper time comes. I would only observe that the objections which ordinarily exist as to the imposition of duties on imported articles do not apply to the case of hops. What is the spirit of Free Trade—the spirit which I hope we shall observe in this discussion? I believe the spirit of Free Trade to be that you should not on any account seek to benefit the producer at the expense of the poor consumer. That is a very plausible maxim, and is found especially applicable at election times. But let me ask, who is the poor consumer in the case of hops? Ho is the poor man who drinks a glass of beer. Does he ever pay one farthing more for his beer when the price of hops is raised? or does he ever pay a farthing less when the price of hops is lowered? Why, Sir, the price of hops has risen as high as £30 per cwt. and has gone as low as 21s., and yet the price of the poor man's glass of beer has never varied a single fraction. The case we are arguing is not like that of wheat, or bread, as to which it might be said the consumer would be called on to pay a higher price because of the duty imposed, even if at the same time he was deriving advantage from it. In this case we are able to say that supposing the House of Commons were wise enough to impose an import duty on hops, that duty would not make a fraction of a farthing's difference in the price of the beer consumed, while, on the other hand, it would be the means of giving extra employment by putting into cultivation extensive fields, which are now going to waste, and upon which an exceptionally large amount of agricultural labour might be usefully engaged. It will, I think, be seen that this argument is, at all events, a strong one, and that a good deal is to be said in justification of it. Now the history of Hop Duties is an instructive one, and leads us into another branch of the subject. The old system was to impose duties on foreign hops, simultaneously with an Excise Duty on English hops. The Customs Duties on foreign hops was, with some variations, about 45s. per cwt., and upon native hops, also with some variations, about 20s. per cwt., or 19s. 16–20ths. That was for the usual purposes of Imperial taxation. The hop growers naturally wanted to get rid of the Excise Duty, just as in recent years they-have been wanting to get rid of the extraordinary tithe. This, of course, is only human nature. They wished to pay as little and get as much as possible, and they got up an agitation for the purpose of getting rid of the Excise Duty, an agitation which had the effect of floating some hon. Members to their seats in this House. But, Sir, the farmers and hop growers got a great deal more than they bargained for, because when the Excise Duty of 20s. was taken off—and I am aware of the operation which took place in the interim, by which the duties were equalized—the Customs Duty of 45s. was also taken off foreign hops. That inflicted a very serious blow on the farmers of this country. A Select Committee was appointed and sat to consider the subject as far hack as 1857, and I should not refer to such a remote authority as that, were it not for the very remarkable prophecy they made which events, as they have happened, have proved to have been true. That Committee, which was called a "Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the excise and Customs Duties on hops," had for its chairman Lord Monk Bretton, who was then Mr. Dodson, sitting in this House as Member for East Sussex, and amongst other Member of the Committee were Mr. Bass, the celebrated brewer, Sir Edmund Daring, Mr. Wykeham Martin, and others, the majority of them being decided free-traders, and I would remind the House that this was some time after the repeal of the Corn Laws, and a general change of fiscal policy. That Committee, in the Report they presented, made two very remarkable statements. One statement was that in their opinion "it was impossible to look on the equalisation or repeal of the Customs' Duty on hops as a question of free trade." The other statement was, "That if the Customs and Excise Duties were equalized and abolished, the consequences must before long be fatal to the cultivation of hops in England." Well, the duties were equalized, temporarily, and then were finally abolished, and I believe that this latter step, among others, is leading to and will eventually result in the final collapse of the cultivation of hops in this country. Therefore, Sir, I think we have some justification for arguing that this matter might be looked on by Her Majesty's Government with a more lenient eye, than as a mere proposal for an import duty on foreign hops. We believe that the proposal for an Import Duty, accompanied by something in the nature of an Excise Duty, would be perfectly in consonance with the policy which has been recently pursued.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,) St. George's, Hanover Square

In what proportion?

* MR. BROOKFIELD

Well, Sir, I shall leave details of that description to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If I had to arrange them myself I should make the Excise Duty as small as possible, and, if possible, would dispense with it altogether, while I would make the Customs Duty as large as I could. I look, however, on that matter as a detail of finance which a responsible Government is better capable of deciding than I. Well, Sir, it has been the custom to make beer, for some purpose or upon some high moral principle, the victim of all sorts of experiments in revenue taxation. When the Hop Duty was said to be repealed, it was not altogether taken off, because it was added on to the duty on malt. Then the agricultural Members interested in the removal of this burden agitated for the repeal of the Malt Tax, and after a great deal of trouble, succeeded amid great jubilation, in getting that duty taken off; but at the present moment the duty so removed is included in the Beer Duty, which now embraces both the old Malt Tax and the old Hop Duty. Surely a fit subject for inquiry would be the possibility of the readjustment of these duties so as to bring them more into harmony with the wants and desires of the English hop-growers. In hop-growing circles an impression prevails that this view has not been entirely scouted by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been credited with maintaining a benevolent attitude in this matter, but I am bound to say of my right hon. Friend that I have his own authority for stating that this is not really the case, but that his attitude on the subject has been misunderstood. But at least we may refer to certain words that were uttered by the Primo Minister on the occasion of our bringing the matter before him in May, 1888, when the noble Marquess said— I should not be representing to you fairly my own impressions as to the balance of opinion, or as to the state of things in the constituencies, in the community, and in the House of Commons, if I represented any hope that a duty on foreign hops, unaccompanied by a duty on native hops, was likely to be adopted in Parliament. Now, words used on occasions of that sort are generally well weighed. Their import is widely scanned, and the natural interpretation of this language would be that if a duty on foreign hops were accompanied by a duty on native hops, it would have a better chance of receiving the sanction of Parliament. At all events, it was so interpreted by those who heard the words uttered. But I am anxious to leave this thorny part of the subject, and to refer to other matters, as to which I desire that there should be an inquiry or investigation on the part of the House. Now, there are various disadvantages to which we find ourselves exposed in comparison with foreign nations which have nothing to do with the fiscal policy of this country. Let us take the case of branding, as it is observed at the present time. Every English hop-planter who produces and sells hops is obliged to brand upon his goods the name of the parish and county in which the hops have been grown. Like all hard-and-fast rules, this is fraught with occasional disadvantages and hardships. For example, I know of a case in which a hop-grower, whose farm is on the borders of two counties, has his hop gardens intersected by the "Kent Ditch." The result is that he derives as much as a pound per cwt. less from the hops grown on one side of the ditch than he receives for those grown on the other side; but, of course, it might be put the other way—namely, that he derives a pound more from the hops on one side than from those grown on the other, and this is a law of which we do not complain. But contrast the law with regard to the English hop-growers with the law as it affects the foreign hop-grower. I suppose the effect of the Merchandise Act is that the foreign grower must state that the hops he sends here are of foreign growth, but that is a very broad kind of announcement, and as a matter of fact it does not prevent the foreigner from practising many frauds; marking—for example—inferior altmarks as Hallertans or Wohnzachs. The "Spalt" hops are specially distinguished, but unfortunately these are of really high quality. As it is, I have known of a German merchant pointing to some bales of hops which were awaiting exportation, and saying, when asked what they were, that he had not yet decided what to label them. Foreign growers, and the Jews who go about collecting their samples, do not find it profitable to label their goods truly, but they find it more profitable to give their bales of hops the designation which will best suit the condition of the market at the time. Then there is the system of returning hops. I refer to foreign hops which are kept in this country for some time, and after they have kept down prices and checked speculation, are returned to their own country. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that some of the tariffs on the exportation of English hops are almost prohibitive. In the case of France the duty is 5s. 6d.; of Germany and Austria 10s. 2d.; and in the United States, to which we export British hops, because there is a demand there for the stronger kind of ales, the Import Duty is 37s. 4d. per cwt. I think it unreasonable that American hops should lie in our warehouses, and go back in the same ships with the English hops and be admitted free, while ours are subjected to this almost prohibitive duty of 37s. 4d. I do not think it is reasonable that foreign hops, after doing mischief in this country, should be permitted to leave our shores without contributing their share to the various expenses which we have to contribute. The question of railway rates perhaps I should not touch upon, as an Act has lately been passed from which it is hoped that home-growers will derive some benefit in company with other trades. But I am bound to say that there is a deeply-rooted suspicion among hop-planters that preferential rates exist at the present moment as much as ever. A hop-factor the other day told me that he knew of hops coming from Burgundy to this country by through rate of which the proportion paid from Dover to London was so small that it was obvious that there was a preference in favour of the foreigner. I hope, if that is the case, the law will be so amended as to do away with a great injustice. The hop growers again used to suffer great loss by the method of classification. Hops came under the heading "all other things." But if they are to be specially classified, no doubt considerable relief will be experienced. The national beverage, as we call beer, is supposed to be brewed from malt and hops. Of course, if this House of Commons was composed of hop-growers, we should not be long in requiring the brewers to use as many hops as possible. In former years there was a law on the Statute Book that only hops should be used, and the Committee of 1857 gave a list of various prosecutions of brewers who did not use hops. It is the law at the present moment in the United States that brewers shall be required to use malt and hops only. But, Sir, I venture to suggest an inquiry into a less drastic improvement, and one thoroughly in accordance with the spirit of legislation in the present day. I do not object to the brewer putting into his beer anything he chooses—tannin, quassia, or gypsum, or any other of those ingredients which, to some people, may be very palatable—but I should insist on his specifying in a legible manner the composition of his barrel of beer. That is done with respect to other commodities, as it is, to which labels have to be affixed. Some brewers have already anticipated legislation of this kind. Messrs. Leney, of the Phœnix Brewery, Dover, label their barrels with a guarantee that the beer they contain is brewed from malt and hops only. But I know of a case in Norwich where a brewer stated that he did not care a rap about the prices of hops, and that he never used them unless they were very cheap, but generally used tannin. He has a perfect right to do so, but it is only reasonable that he should be made to state what he uses. It is notorious that infinitely less hops are used now than formerly. There is a process known in the trade as "hopping down." This consists of collecting the hops left at the bottom of the barrel, and getting a drawback from the brewer for the space they occupied. In a 64-gallon barrel the publican has received as many as four and five gallons for collected hops. Now, he could hold in his two hands all the hops he could collect. Let brewers be compelled to state what they use; and I believe there is such a wholesome prejudice in favour of the old-fashioned ingredients of malt and hops, that a restriction of this kind would have a very beneficial effect on the hop-growing industry. There is another subject, that of extraordinary tithes. The Act was passed in panic, and I believe the agitation in favour of it was to a great extent disingenuous. As to the poor clergyman, a charge which was only incidental is now permanent and invariable. The tenants have derived some benefit, though landlords evade in some cases the responsibility imposed on them by the Act of 1886. I suppose it would be unpopular to say much on his behalf. He has had the pleasure and privilege of finding the difference by which the tenant has been mainly benefitted. We who represent this special industry have used what Constitutional means we could to draw attention to our grievances, including the presentation of Petitions, which we know are placed in that receptacle behind the Chair, and are forgotten. Two or three years ago we presented a great number of Petitions from the hop-growing districts. These Petitions were eagerly signed, and those who signed perfectly understood what they were signing, which cannot be said of every Petition sent to this House. I suppose we presented about 100 Petitions from Kent and Sussex. I leave others to speak of other counties, which I have refrained from mentioning. But the Petitions have had no more effect than we expected them to have. We had recourse to deputations. I will say upon that subject, that the Prime Minister, who received two deputations, one in March, 1887, and the other in November, 1888—two deputations remarkable for their influential character, large numbers, and unanimous representations—used these words which conveyed hope to us, though nothing has been done:— Certainly the important statements you have laid before me deal with what was one of the most flourishing industries in the country, an industry which we can singularly ill afford to lose. It has been well pointed out that this industry has the more claims upon the goodwill and consideration of all who are in a position to benefit it, that the displacement of it inflicts a more serious injury on the labour market than that of any other industry you can mention. Well, Sir, after that, though nothing was done, we certainly did get some indirect encouragement from the First Lord of the Treasury; who, in reply to an oft-repeated request that he would grant a Select Committee, said that, in the opinion of the Government, it would be impossible to grant such a Committee until a case could be stated on a Motion made in the ordinary course on a Tuesday or a Friday. And, almost immediately afterwards, by what must have been the direct interposition of Providence, I secured a Friday for the purpose. I think I have stated a case. I have endeavoured to do so clearly and temperately; and I do earnestly trust that the hop industry will receive, if not all the attention that we think it deserves, at all events the moderate favour which we ask the House to concede. I beg to move my Motion.

SIR E. LECHMERE (Worcestershire, Bewdley)

I beg to second the Motion; but after the very able and ample manner in which my hon. Friend has introduced the subject I do not think it necessary to add much, especially as I see around me many hon. Members who are interested in the matter. It is not our object to urge the protection of the landlords, or of the farmers—we wish simply to urge on the Government that a fair opportunity should be given to the House and the country to learn the great importance of the national industry of hop-growing, to realize that it is at present in a very serious condition, and to take counsel as to the manner in which the falling off in production can be remedied. One of the most serious results of the decay of the industry has been the very considerable reduction of the acreage under cultivation. My hon. Friend has given the House figures showing that in four years there has been a diminution of the acreage under cultivation of no less than 18,000 acres. It has been clearly proved, over and over again, that to cultivate an acre of hops no less than £40 is required, and out of that at least 75 per cent is laid out on manual labour. It may easily be supposed what the result must be to the labourers of the country when 18,000 acres are taken out of cultivation in so short a period. There is no doubt that the decay which has taken place in the hop industry is, to a great extent, the result of the competition of the foreigner with the English hop-grower. There is no doubt whatever that the fiscal arrangements of this country, by which our markets are opened to all the world without any reciprocity, are more injurious to the hop industry than anything else which can be conceived. As a proof that the foreigner does not reciprocate our open-handed liberality I may state that a duty equal to £37 for every ton of hops is imposed. In 1885 we had a very bad crop of hops, and a very large quantity of foreign hops were imported into this country, rendering our own hops practically unsaleable. In 1886 we had a good year for hops, and the foreigners had a bad year; but the foreigners purchased their own hops and took them back into America, instead of taking ours. Their own hops were, of course, free, whilst ours had to pay a duty. As regards the imposition of a duty, that subject has been lightly touched upon; and my own opinion is that if a duty were imposed on foreign hops English growers would be perfectly willing—at any rate, I believe they would be willing in the part of the country I represent—to pay an acreage duty. In some parts of England this has been a moot question, and I believe that one of the objects of the proposed Committee should be to ascertain to what extent the feeling on the subject prevailed. I believe the hop-growers would rather submit to an acreage duty than allow that great industry to still further decay. It is, no doubt, a fact that no branch of agriculture gives so general an employment to the labourers of this country as the hop industry. It was mentioned by the hon. Member for the Medway Division (Mr. J. S. Gathorne Hardy), when a deputation waited upon the Prime Minister in 1888, that within his knowledge no less than 30 or 40 cottages in a prosperous village with which he was acquainted had become vacant in consequence of the serious change that had taken place in this industry. If the existing state of things is to last, very grave injury must ensue, not only to the moral and social condition of the people, but, I believe, in great measure, to the interests of the farmers.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, viewing with concern the steady decrease in the acreage of land under Hop cultivation, and the serious displacement of labour occasioned thereby, is of opinion that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the causes which have produced this state of things, and to report as to the best means of providing a remedy,"—(Mr. Brookfield,)— instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. H. T. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN (Kent, Faversham)

As I represent a constituency very largely interested in the hop industry, I should not like to give a silent vote upon the present occasion. I think the hop-growing interests generally ought to be grateful to my hon. Friend (Mr. Brookfield) for the labour he has expended on this question. I myself feel absolutely certain that if something be not done in the direction of aiding the hop-growing industry, it will be absolutely crippled, if not entirely ruined. I wish to call attention to what I think is hardly realized by the House and the country—namely, what the ruin of such an industry as this really means. It means the ruin not only of the hop-growers, but of thousands whose daily bread depends on the success of the industry. If a hop garden is closed it means a cessation of employment for the whole of the neighbouring villages, as well as to some extent in the nearest towns. This employment is not, like many others, one that only exists for a certain period of the year, but it lasts for nearly the whole of the year, winter not excepted. In the winter the men are employed in digging the ground, or cutting the poles, and women and children shave the poles for use in the spring. In the spring there is employment in cutting the hops and laddering them, and there are many things to do throughout the year. The position of the hop-grower is as difficult and dangerous a one as exists in any department of agriculture. His is the most difficult and uncertain of crops, and it is one that is never safe from the first moment that the spade or plough is put in the hop garden until the hops are sold in the market. The hops are exposed to the ravages of insects, which appear to me to get worse year by year. A rhyme that is familiar to all Sussex men accurately expresses the facts of the case. We say— First the flea and then the fly, Then the lice and then they die. I have always felt very much that in agriculture there is an extraordinary tendency in everyone without practical experience to give us farmers who have spent our lives on the land advice as to what we have to do. They think they will help us by calling old things by new names. They do not even call fleas by the old name, but they call them aphidæ. A scientific man, visiting a farmer not long ago, asked him—" Have you any aphidæ in the hops?" and the man replied—"Well, Sir, I don't know, but there are an extraordinary amount of fleas." I cannot help thinking that if this Committee he granted, one of the things it will recommend will be a return to the old methods of cultivation. There is an old maxim which says—"Cut early, pick late, manure well, and cultivate." The reason why hops should be picked late is that they should be allowed to get to maturity before they are picked. I firmly believe that the reason why we cannot pick late now is due to the use of expensive manures, which necessitate picking the moment the hop gets a bit bright. I believe that if we were to return to the good, old-fashioned plan of cultivation, we should get better hops and better prices, and be able to compete better with the foreigners. The difficulties of the hop-grower are not at an end when he has successfully surmounted those I have named to the House. When he gets to market his difficulties only then begin. Amongst the factor, and the merchant, and the foreign grower, and perhaps the brewer, he is in a very unenviable position. Just imagine the poor fellow making his one visit a year to London. He meets a factor or a merchant, and does not know whether ho is on his head or his heels, and he accepts exactly what is given to him. We want some means of bringing the farmer into immediate communication with the brewer. Why the middleman should exist in the hop industry I do not know. Now, Sir, we do not indicate to the Government any particular measure of relief. We are not now asking for a duty upon hops, or for any particular remedy; but we do ask that there should be a complete and impartial inquiry into the question, in the hope that the result may be something which will avert the ruin which, unless something is done, appears to be almost inevitable. I would like to appeal to my hon. Friends on both sides of the House. I believe that some of the hon. Members opposite, if they were in their usual places, would not be on that side of the House at all. I would not only appeal to agricultural Members of this House, but to Members representing mercantile and mining constituencies. I would remind Representatives of mining constituencies that we agricultural Members, who know, I suppose, as much about mines as they know about hop gardens, have been ready to help them with the measures they deem necessary for the mining and working classes. I hope they, in return, will assist us now. And I would make an appeal to the Metropolitan Members from the East End, to lend a hand to preserve an industry which not only provides opportunities for enjoying fresh air to many of their poorer constituents, but also the means of subsistence for the families of these people during the winter. And, lastly, I would appeal to the Government not to turn a deaf ear to our representations. I believe some hon. Members are afraid of giving us the inquiry we ask for, as it might lead to a recommendation that an import duty should be levied on foreign hops. But I do not ask for such a. duty. I only ask that the subject should be inquired into, though, at the same time, I say do not refrain from doing an act of justice because it might lead to such a recommendation.

* MR. NORTON (Kent, Tunbridge)

I ask to be allowed to say a few words on this subject as representing a division in which, perhaps, a larger quantity of hops are grown than in any other in Kent. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject has gone deeply into the general question of the depression of the hop industry; but I should like to supplement what he has said by mentioning that a considerable number of labourers and their families (in one parish near my own, as many as from 25 to 30) have been obliged to emigrate, in consequence of the large reduction in the acreage of hops. There is no doubt that this depression has arisen from several causes—amongst others, over-production at home and abroad, the fraudulent marking of foreign hops, and the use of hop substitutes. It has been often alleged that we have suffered in consequence of some brewers resorting to other materials than hops for bittering their beer—and I myself, in introducing a deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year on this question, produced some very startling facts. I pointed out that in the year 1883, when the hops wore visited with a black blight, the price of quassia went up from £5 to £40 a ton, camomile and other bitters similarly advanced in price (in some instances 300 per cent.) in the month of October of that year. The large brewers, I am told, have set their faces against the use of hop substitutes; but if it is the fact that when hops are dear these substitutes are used by the small brewers that is sufficient to account for the fall in the price of hops. I think that one remedy for the depression in the hop industry would be to require the Excise officers, when testing beer for water, to declare whether the beer is bittered with hops or other bitters. We are in a position now to supply a test that is absolutely reliable—the President of the College of Public Analysts having undertaken to test any number of samples of beer submitted to him, and to declare positively whether they are bittered with hops or not.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. NORTON

I was endeavouring to indicate a method by which I think Her Majesty's Government might help us. The application of the test I recommend would have an excellent effect, as it would result in "showing up" the brewers who use hop substitutes to the public. The subject of the marking of foreign hops has been alluded to. I have taken a great deal of interest in this question, because of the representations I have had made to me by those who are concerned in the hop industry. I was informed that in the year 1883 old hops were actually taken from the beds and pillows of German cottagers, and sent over to England and sold at high prices. While the English grower is under a heavy penalty if he fails to mark the parish and the year of growth on his pockets, the foreign producer may send his in unmarked. I wish most cordially to support the Resolution of my hon. Friend, and I hope the Government will grant the inquiry asked for.

MR. W. J. BEADEL (Essex, Chelmsford)

I think it is a noteworthy fact that there are only four Members on the Benches opposite, and that shows that, so far as anything connected with agriculture is concerned, the Opposition are absolutely and positively indifferent. Now, I feel, some difficulty in supporting the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and for this reason—that quite recently the House has discussed the appointment of a Minister for Agriculture, and if we should have such a Minister it appears to me that if his opinion should be sought in any questions it would be questions relating to the hop and the wheat industries. One or two of the hon. Members who have spoken have hesita- tingly suggested that the success of the industry is affected by foreign competition, and that for the welfare of the country and of agricultural landowners, tenants, and labourers, some amount of protection is necessary. I hold a like opinion. I say the sooner the Government give us that protection the better it will be for all of us. I am not afraid to propound those doctrines, if my hon. Friends are. But I think my hon. Friend would do well to wait until a Minister of Agriculture has been appointed, and take an early opportunity of placing his views before him. Of course, I should be gratified beyond measure to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer say he realized the fact that the agricultural industry had been severely tried, and will do his utmost to try and find a remedy for the distress which 'prevails in every portion of it.

MR. H. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

I do not altogether disagree with the hon. Member who last spoke when he urges the hon. and gallant Member to postpone the demand for an inquiry which he is now making. Those who are interested in the hop industry are to be congratulated on the clear, able, and effective exposition which has been given of their views tonight. But it would be an entire mistake for anyone to suppose that in the appointment of a Minister of Agriculture is to be found any specific remedy for the agricultural depression throughout the country. Undoubtedly, it is desirable such a Minister should be appointed; but no one should be induced to believe that the creation of an Agricultural Department is likely to be a specific for that depression from which agriculture has suffered for so many years. Now, Sir, the hon. and gallant Member spoke with great knowledge on the subject on which he addressed the House—with a knowledge which, perhaps, few hon. Members possess in the same degree. We are all aware, I think, of the great importance of the hop industry; and, for my own part, I confess I should regard anything like the probable extinction of the hop industry as lamentable in the last degree. The vast amount of labour employed in hop-growing, the remarkable decline since 1885 in the acreage under cultivation, and the equally remarkable decline in prices since 1883, have al] been made abundantly clear. Nothing appears to me to be more remarkable in the hon. Member's speech than the statement as to the amount of labour employed per acre in the cultivation of hops; and that being so, we may appreciate the indifference shown on the subject by hen Members who usually occupy the Benches opposite. When complaint is made of the difficulty of pursuing agriculture with success, hon. Gentlemen who usually sit opposite are fond of recommending that something else should be tried. They have advocated a large extension of the system of small holdings, on the ground that by that means many more people would be employed on the land. I, for one, should be very glad indeed if it were possible to have a large extension of small holdings, but whether it would answer all the expectations of hon. Members opposite is at least an arguable matter; but it is beyond all dispute that in hop cultivation the labour employed per acre is quite remarkable, and I suppose that no other expedient could be resorted to which would give so much employment on the land of this country. It is noticeable, therefore, that so few of the hon. Members belonging to the Opposition are present, and that their only contribution to the evening's proceedings has been a most uncalled-for attempt to count the House. It would be a source of great satisfaction to those interested in agriculture if the Government could see their way to granting the request for a Committee of Inquiry.

* MR. GOSCHEN

An hon. Member sitting behind me stated that he and those who were acting with him in this matter had been practically challenged by the First Lord of the Treasury to make out a case for an inquiry; and had been promised that if they did that the Government would grant the demand for one. Now, Sir, it is my duty to examine the speeches which have been made, and to see to what extent a case has been made out. A suggestion has been made that the Government perhaps does not realize the importance of this industry, but I assure the House that no one could more entirely realize the importance of the hop industry from many points of view than the Government; and though there are certain matters connected with it on which, through lack of personal knowledge, I should hesitate to speak, yet it does so happen that, living myself in a hop county, I am generally familiar with the course of prices and the production of hops, and no one could live in such a county without knowing what extensive employment the industry provides. In my neighbourhood there is hardly a family which is not in some way interested in the cultivation of hops. I do not absolutely accept as correct the estimate given of the amount spent in the cultivation of hops. Hon. Members put it at £40 per acre. I should rather put it at £30 or £35. But, at any rate, the figure is large; and there is no doubt that the industry is a healthy and wholesome one, and that it touches many interests—such, for instance, as the growth of underwood. My hon. and gallant Friend also referred to the interest of the hop factors and merchants in the Borough. I think they, at any rate, may well be left to take care of themselves, for I have not learned that the extraordinary cheapness of hops has materially affected their profits. It is true, however, that hop cultivation is a large and important interest, and the Government have every sympathy with it; but I am not sure that my hon. Friend has strengthened his case by pointing out the precarious nature of investments in hop cultivation. I think the arguments he puts forward on that point may be pushed too far. No doubt the industry is of an extremely risky character; but I doubt, if taken over a long average of years, it is so risky as some hon. Members have suggested in their anxiety to prove that something ought to be done. There have been violent fluctuations in the prices of hops. Various Members have assigned different causes for the depression during the last six or seven years. I am inclined to refer it to what took place in the year 1882, when hops went up to an extraordinary price—£22 per cwt. being in some cases obtainable. The hon. Member put the price in that year at £15, and then showed how in the following year it fell to a very much lower figure. But he did not inform the House that 1882 was a year in which the average yield was not more than two or three cwt. per acre, and even supposing the hops were sold at £20 per cwt. the return would be only £40 per acre, or the exact cost of cultivation. These extraordinary high prices in 1882 were therefore due to the smallness of the yield. What was the result? Why, in Germany, California, Australia, and many other countries there was an enormous increase of cultivation during the next few years, and over-production led to the usual result—a fall in prices. These high prices in 1882 had another result. They led the brewers to endeavour, as far as they could, to avoid the use of hops by having recourse to substitutes, some of which turned out to be very satisfactory, and proved to be more economical than hops, oven when the prices of hops considerably fell. This, indeed, is a very instructive instance of how nature revolts against excessive prices, and finds some substitute to avoid them. Tam not sure whether we are not still suffering from over-production, although I doubt very much whether the prices which have prevailed during the last two years have been such as to enable foreigners to continue the competition. My hon. Friend in quoting the figures said the prices fell by more than half between 1882 and 1883. But if he will look at the prices which ruled in 1879, 1880, and 1881, he will find that they were about the same as in 183 and 1884, and since then prices have been much higher.

* MR. BROOKFIELD

I acknowledged that in the years 1887 and 1888 there was an improvement in prices, but I endeavoured to account for it by pointing out that the importation of foreign hops diminished in those years, while there had also been a diminution in our own acreage.

* MR. GOSCHEN

Yes, we have begun again to bold our own, and evidently the case of the hop-growers is not so hopeless as some hon. Members seem to think. While, however, I, on the one hand, deprecate any panic, I desire, on the other, to be perfectly explicit in what I say with regard to some of the proposals that have been made. It would be cruel kindness to hold out any hope that Parliament (an give the hop-growers any assistance by legislation which would impose an import duty or a differential duty on foreign hops. I cannot give any encouragement to such an idea as that, for I do not think that the time will ever come when this House will consent to any legislation of that kind. The hon. Member deprecated the suggestion that he was proposing anything in the way of protection; but there was an undercurrent of protection running through a great portion of his speech. The effect of any such legislation would ultimately have to be borne by the general public, for the brewers would indemnify themselves by brewing lighter beer. So long as we hold to the doctrine that no restraint should be placed on the importation of food for the people we cannot make an exception in the case of hops any more than in the case of corn. The hon. Member says that, if this House were composed of Members who were hop-growers, they would certainly impose either import or differential duties. But this House is mainly composed of the representatives of the consumers of beer, and not of hop-growers, and such a proposal would not commend itself to this House nor to the country generally. Even the producers of barley might have something to say on the question; and I must point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that if a Committee is granted it would be unwise for the hop-growers to infer that there was any possibility of a duty being placed on foreign hops. I think it far better to be explicit on this point and not to raise hopes which may not be fulfilled. Then, said the hon. and gallant Member, there was a time when a duty of 40s. was charged on foreign hops, while only 20s. was charged by the Excise on English hops; and he told us that the repeal of this duty was a fatal step. But does he wish us to revert to the system of differential duties? When I put that question to him he was good enough to say, he left that to be decided by Her Majesty's Government. I do not think that a proposal to put a higher duty on foreign hops would commend itself to the country, and I would not advise any of my friends in the hop-growing districts to rely on that being done. In regard to railways, it is no doubt the intention of Parliament that there should be no preference given to foreign over English hops. If there remains any kind of preference or privilege, I hope the matter will be brought by the hop-growers and the leading persons in the trade to the attention of the Commissioners, who are bound to rectify any grievances which exist, and to see that the remedy is applied that Parliament intended. Parliament distinctly contemplated that no such privilege should be given. With regard to the system of middlemen, I do not see how any remedy can possibly be applied by Parliament. I know how grievously the system is supposed to operate upon a great many of the growers of hops, but this is a matter which the hop industry has in its own hands. I doubt whether the interposition of Parliament could be effectual in a matter of this kind, although, by means of a Committee, some light might be thrown on the matter by indicating means of which the members of the industry could avail themselves. I now come to the question of branding. English hop-growers are bound to brand their hop-pockets according to the district from which they come; and the hon. Member instanced a case of a friend whose property was divided by a bridge, and who got 10s. a pocket more for the hops grown on the one side than for those grown on the other. I do not know whether my hon. Friend alluded to myself, but that is precisely my case. Through the recent change in the boundaries, they have put the greater portion of my hops into Sussex, depriving me thereby of 10s. a pocket, although the hops are precisely the same as those grown in the Kentish part of the garden. Well, if the obligation to brand hops be imposed upon the English growers, it is a perfectly fair subject for consideration whether foreign hop-growers should not equally be compelled to give the place of the origin of their hops. As to whether we should be enabled to exact penalties and to control the matter in the same way as in England I will not give an opinion. Then there comes a further point to which my hon. Friends attach considerable importance. They maintain that the national beverage should be composed of malt and hops. Well, are we to legislate so that the consumer of every article is to be informed specifically of the materials of which the article he consumes is composed? No doubt it is a fit subject for inquiry whether any of the ingredients put into the beer are deleterious, and contrary to the health of those who drink it. My hon. and gallant Friend has recognized that if quassia ho not deleterious it will be difficult for Parliament to enact that it should not be used, but he contends that people should know that they are drinking beer made of quassia and not hops. If ingredients are used which are positively deleterious it will doubtless be right for Parliament to interfere. Still, I am bound to say that the brewers have always made out a strong primâ facie case that the substances they used were not deleterious However, I do not see that there can be any objection to have an inquiry into the point. I think I have now dwelt upon most of the subjects referred to in the course of this debate, and explained the attitude of the Government towards the question. We recognize the great importance of the industry, and we recognize also that a certain depression has taken place, although I have better hopes as to the future of the trade than some of my hon. Friends around me. At the same time I cannot hold out any hopes that the existing state of things can be remedied by a course of either open or veiled protection. I do not wish Members to be led into the opinion that the Government, because they grant a Committee, may possibly be led to assent to measures to which they cannot consent. But many other suggestions, short of protection, have been made, into which it would be advantageous that inquiry should be made. I shall be glad of an inquiry because it will clear the air and satisfy those who are engaged in the industry. By careful examination every grievance may be sifted, and the Government may be able to decide on measures which will remove just grievances. I should accordingly be prepared to accept the motion if after the word "means" the words "if any" were inserted, and I hope my hon. Friend will accept that small modification of his Motion.

* SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT (Sussex, N.W.)

I hope the answer of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will satisfy my hon. Friend (Mr. Brookfield). The question to which my right hon. Friend referred, as to whether deleterious substances are introduced into beer, is one which deserves consideration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has even indicated that there is a better future for hops than many of us think; and the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of preferential rates on railways are of the most valuable character, and even stronger than those of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. He has stated as clearly as we could wish to hear from any Government that the Government will do everything in their power to prevent railways charging a farthing more for home produce than they charge for foreign produce. My right hon. Friend has admitted that the hop industry is very much depressed, and he might also have admitted that there are other industries which are much depressed in this country. It is a general complaint now that whenever any branch of the agricultural interest fails, the whole of the persons who have been employed in carrying it on go to the towns to swell the number of people who require employment there. If the Committee that is to be appointed can point out how employment can be obtained in this country so as to prevent a rush to the colonies it will do a good thing fox the country. My right hon. Friend referred to underwoods. He knows that the underwoods of this country have deteriorated 50 per cent. My own have deteriorated more, if anything, than 50 per cent. Why is this? It is simply because we have been pressed very severely by foreign competition. I am glad my right hon. Friend has been able to grant this inquiry, and I think that before long he will have to grant an inquiry of a much larger character, that is to say into the question of why we cannot grow wheat at a profit. I venture to say that such an inquiry would be of vast importance to a nation like ours.

* MR. C. W. GRAY (Essex, Maldon)

I hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Brookfield) will accept the offer of the Government, although I must confess I was rather sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer made one or two remarks as to the perfect hopelessness of the remedy that is asked for being granted; at the same time, all of us who have a certain amount of sympathy for that remedy know perfectly well that the present Parliament is not likely to deal with the subject in any practical way. I think we are indebted to my hon. Friend (Mr. Brookfield) for the clear way in which he has brought the subject before the House, and to the Government for consenting to the appointment of a Committee. Before we can expect a remedy we must lay our grievances before the House and the country. The hop industry has become very much depressed, and I for one shall be very curious to know what remedies the Committee may propose. In Essex we used to be considerable hop-growers, but we have now lost the business altogether and no hops whatever were grown in the county in 1888, although by a printer's error one acre of hops is returned in the Government returns as having been grown in that year. It is of great importance that if respectable employment can be found for the women and children in our villages it should be found. Though I do not think a remedy can be found without trespassing on forbidden ground, as a first step. I thank the Government for having consented to the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry.

* MR. CORNWALLIS (Maidstone)

We are all extremely grateful to the Government for having accepted the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Brookfield), but I sincerely hope the Committee will in no way limit its inquiry. If I read the Motion aright, the serious displacement of labour that has taken place, owing to the decrease of the acreage of cultivation stands in the forefront, and situated as I am, being a large landowner in Kent, having perhaps a more direct interest in the cultivation of hops than any other hon. Member of the House, I hope I may be allowed to impress on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the serious nature of the disease from which the hop cultivation is now suffering from. As the Representative of a town to which unfortunately, a great many of the unemployed flock from time to time, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman there is good ground for the Motion made this evening. In a neighbouring village to my own there is a farm on which, but a short time ago, there were 100 acres of hops. That acreage has been reduced within the last two years to 30, entailing thereby a loss in wages to the people of the village 'of no loss than £1,500 per annum at the very least. A similar state of things has occurred all round in the hop-growing district. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he has hopes that this will right itself. I am not as sanguine as the right hon. Gentleman, for we have now come to this pass, that our hop acreage is lower than it has been for 20 years. We see no sign of improvement. I can only sincerely hope I am wrong, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right. In conclusion, let me assure the House that there is really good cause for the Motion of my hon. Friend.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Another Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words— A Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the causes which have produced the steady decrease in the acreage of land under hop cultivation, and the serious displacement of labour occastoned thereby, and to report as to the best means, if any, of providing a remedy."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

SIR W. LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)

No one expected there would be a house to-night ["No, no"]but the making of a House shows there is great interest taken in the question by the hop-growers. It is a good thing there has been a House because we have heard a very excellent speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion was not so satisfactory as his speech. He consented to the appointment of a Committee, but I think we may say "his poverty and not his will consents"—his poverty of voters. It seems to me there is no more reason why we should have a Select Committee to inquire into the misfortunes and sorrows of the hop-growers than there is to have a Select Committee to inquire into the condition of other interests of which we have lately heard so much. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says very properly he will not give any sanction to any idea of protection. But the whole aim of the supporters of the Motion is protection. You cannot keep protection out of the Committee. The inquiry will all go to spread that fallacious nonsense. I look upon this as a very absurd proposition, and if no one else votes against it I shall.

* MR. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University)

I do not know whether the hon. Baronet is aware of the fact, but there are a great many people who depend upon the growing of hops for their daily bread. If the hon. Barenet will go down and enjoy the hospitality of his friends in the hop counties, he will find that the hop harvest is looked forward to by the poor people as a means of paying their rents. I think the Government have acted wisely in accepting the Motion. It is not the landowners only who are interested in this question, but the tenant farmers and the labouring classes are all affected. Nor is this all. The annual ingathering of the hops is looked forward to with great interest by a large number of the poor of the Metropolis. I do not to-night see those Representatives of East London constituencies who on other occasions have been so ready to tell us what the people desire, and are so jealous of any police interference with their liberty of action. If they were here they could tell us how in great numbers the poorest from the most congested districts flock to the hop grounds and find in a few weeks' employment the means of adding to their scanty resources. When the hop industry is depressed, that depression affects the poorest in the East End of London also. Anyone who calls attention to the state of this industry and secures a hearing for its claims, as my hon. Friend has done, and any Government that gives an opportunity for the suggestion of remedies for the depression of this industry, does benefit to the agricultural community and to the poorest class in our towns. It is right that the attention of Parliament should be called to such matters. I do not know whether a remedy can be found, but I do not think it is becoming for those who claim to be working class Representatives to sneer at proposals for the improvement of an industry in which all classes of the community are interested.

* MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

I think the hon. Gentleman is very unjust to the hon. Baronet. I do not understand that my hon. Friend has expressed opposition to the discussion of any practical suggestion to remedy agricultural distress. Reasonable proposals with that object in view will have our heartiest sympathy and support. I have not had the advantage of hearing the debate through, and I hope the House will not quarrel with me if I make an observation or two which must, by necessity, be of a hypothetical nature, but I gather from what has fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it has been suggested during the debate that a means of relief might be found in the imposition of a duty upon foreign hops. Now it seems to me that any suggestion of that kind is entirely beside the mark. I have taken the opportunity of referring to the Statistical Abstract and the figures in relation to hop importation, and they are of such a startling nature, that really to try and found upon them a case for the imposition of a duty would be simply ridiculous. According to the figures in the Statistical Abstract the quantity of hops imported into this country has diminished to half what it was 5 or 6 years ago. In 1879 the importation was nearly double, and in 1882 it was more than double what it was in 1887. And as to the value, the value of hops imported in 1887 was actually less than one-seventh of that for 1882. If there is any suggestion to remedy distress by the imposition of protective duties I will only say it is a course not warranted by the actual condition of the hop trade.

* MR. C. J. DARLING (Deptford)

It will have surprised Members who have followed this debate while the Benches opposite were absolutely empty, that the hon. Member should come in now at this late hour, and, having supplied himself with a few statistics which relate to nothing said in the course of the debate, a debate which he ingenuously admits he has not heard a word of, should come to the rescue of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Lawson), who, of course, we knew, if he came here in time, would oppose this inquiry. The hon. Baronet professed himself surprised that a House should have been made to discuss this subject; but ho takes his measure of the interest taken by the House in the industries of the country and questions that affect the working classes from his Friends who sit around him, every ono of whom, having absented himself, the hon. Member is surprised that there are others interested in the discussion. Of course, if it had been a question as to how somebody had been hurt or even rubbed against by the police in Ireland in the course of a public disturbance, those Benches would have been crowded from end to end.

An Hon. MEMBER

Quarter Sessions.

* MR. C. J. DARLING

At Quarter Sessions they would find themselves very much at home. Of course, we know that, if the hon. Baronet had got here in time, he would have opposed this Motion. He comes here as the professed and inveterate enemy of the hop. He would not have this Committee granted; he objects to the hop industry being in a flourishing condition; his opinion is that there should not be a hop in the country; and, so long as he can get rid of the hop, he is quite content to sacrifice everybody who gets his living by growing, packing, or selling hops. There is this excuse to be made for the hon. Baronet. He takes his place among the other minute enemies of the hop mentioned by my hon. Friend. But the hop has survived—I will not repeat the rhyme again—the four enemies that have been mentioned, and it will survive the fifth added to the number of its enemies, but whose name for poetical purposes it is difficult to introduce into the rhyme quoted. It is only in the interests of the insects that the hon. Baronet has taken part in this debate; it has been left to Members on this side of the House to speak in favour of those who get their living out of the hop; it has been left to hon. Members opposite to attempt at once to destroy the hop and those who live by the cultivation of it.

* MR. JAMES ELLIS (Leicestershire, Bosworth)

It is an extraordinary thing that complaint should be made that we have taken no part in the Debate, for it is notorious that time after time Motions in which we are interested are simply voted down by hon. Members, who hoar nothing of the discussion. We have other remedies for the distress of the poorer classes in this country, to which hon. Members on that side will not listen. We want to marry the people to the land, and we believe that by securing the people on the land, there would be much more benefit to them and to the nation than by the growing of hops. If we want hops we have a right to get them were we like, but the people can grow more useful crops; something that will help to feed the people. The land hunger is strong among the people, and we think we can find means to satisfy it, and cure the evils complained of. No one expected there would be a debate to-night, or we should have been present to listen or take part in it. I am glad that some of us are here to vote against a Motion that seems to me to be absurd and ridiculous.

MR. M'CARTAN (Down, South)

If there is anything likely to provoke hostility to the Motion, it is a speech such as that of the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling). For my own part it was my duty some time ago to call attention to the fact that there were not 40 Members in the House, and it comes with bad taste from the hon. and learned Member to taunt us with not being in attendance. I think it is the duty of Members at all times to vote for inquiry when a grievance of the industrial classes is shown to exist. From those Benches we have often had to complain that appeals made by us on matters of importance to the Irish people have been refused without a hearing, but I merely wish to say that when a demand for inquiry is made by any portion of the kingdom it is our duty to grant it, and so I shall give my vote for the Motion.

Question put, and negatived.

Words added.

Ordered— That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the causes which have produced the steady decrease in the acreage of land under hop cultivation, and the serious displacement of labour occasioned thereby, and to report as to the best means, if any, of providing a remedy.

SUPPLY—Committee upon Monday next.

Back to