§
*MR. BROOKFIELD (Sussex, Rye), who had given notice to move the following:
To call attention to the Report of the Select Committee on the Hop Industry; and to move, That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary that the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Hop Industry should be carried out without any further delay,
91
said, his first duty was to thank the Government and their supporters for the strong interest they appeared to manifest in the question. Still, he could not pretend to believe that the auguries were exactly propitious for a very protracted debate or even adequate discussion. He felt encouraged, however, by recalling that on July 5 1889, under equally ominous conditions, he succeeded with the assistance of the Member for the Faversham Division of Kent in carrying a Motion for a Select Committee, The Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the causes which had produced a steady decrease in the amount 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. He proposed on this occasion to confine himself strictly to the Motion before the House—to the recommendation of the Select Committee which sat in accordance with the Resolution to which he had referred. But it would not be out of place for him to say in almost a single sentence that the hop industry occupied such an exceptional position that that was why they felt justified from time to time in calling attention to it, and in urging on the House the claim of the industry to exceptional treatment. The hop industry, speaking relatively, furnished per acre a greater amount of labour all the year round than any other branch of agriculture. Not only so, but the rate of pay in it was higher than that given for ordinary labour. While a hundred acres of pasture land furnished employment for not even one man, and a hundred acres of arable land only required four men, the same quantity under hop cultivation furnished remunerative employment all the year round, more or less, for from 35 to 50 men. And owing to the nature of the employment the wives and children could assist in a very material degree. It had been found that an ordinary single labouring man employed in hop growing could earn about £40 a year; that he might even earn with piece-work, which he could easily obtain, £50 a year, and that if he was a dryer he could make his earnings up to £50 or £60 a year. The "dryers" employed in "pocketting" could earn £5 or £6 more. Unfortunately the steady decrease of which they complained in 1889 had continued. The soli-
92
tary recommendation of the Select Committee had never been attended to, and the state of things continued as bad as ever. The hop acreage of Great Britain was slightly greater than in 1891, but the present total, 56,259 acres, was still considerably below the acreage before 1889. In Kent, indeed, there had been a loss of 206 acres since 1891. The Kentish area, 34,000 acres, was now nearly 4,000 acres short of the acreage of 20 years ago. That meant a loss of remunerative employment to at least 1,600 men. The Select Committee to which he referred took a great deal of evidence, and the recommendation they made was that "hop substitutes," when used, should be declared. Lame and impotent though that recommendation might appear to those best acquainted with the real wants of the trade, it was not possible that a recommendation could have been made in simpler or clearer terms. In moving for the Select Committee, his colleagues and himself had directed attention to many matters which they considered of far greater consequence, but the majority chose to differ from them, and also from the majority of the witnesses. The persons who gave evidence before the Committee were most of them, of course, interested in the growth of hops—owners and occupiers of land. But there was another very valuable class of witnesses; he meant the scientific witnesses—the chemists and analysts. He would show the connection which these witnesses drew between the decrease of the acreage and the adoption of substitutes. One witness, named Best, was a large hop grower in Worcestershire, which had been lately overtaking Kent in the cultivation of this very remunerative crop. This witness attributed the decline in the demand for hops to the use of substitutes. Being asked by the Chairman—
Do you think that hop substitutes are largely used?
The witness answered—
They are largely used by a certain class of brewers; not by the important brewers, but they are largely used by a certain class of brewers.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present.
§ House adjourned at twenty minutes after Nine o'clock till To-morrow.