§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
*VISCOUNT HARDINGE:My Lords, the object of this Bill, to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading, is to prohibit the use of hop substitutes in the brewing and preservation of beer and the importation of hops except in bags pro 550 perly marked. In my advocacy of this Bill I wish to say most emphatically that I am not suggesting anything that savours of Protection; nor do I wish to introduce into this question anything which may be regarded as of a controversial party nature. My reason for introducing this Bill is that I live in the centre of the hop-growing district of Kent, and am daily brought face to face with the sad havoc and ruin which the present depression in the hop industry is making upon the once prosperous villages of the Garden of England.
I have no wish, however, to dilate on the financial embarrassment—in many cases absolute insolvency—of many practical and industrious tenant-farmers and yeomen, with the consequent loss of wages and great increase of unemployment among agricultural labourers. This topic is humiliating to us who live in the hop-growing districts for this reason, that up to the present time nothing of a practical nature has been attempted in order to put an end to this deplorable state of things, although the whole of the hop industry is practically unanimous in regarding the position as one that could easily be mended if only His Majesty's Government would get to the root of the matter and recognise the causes of the depression and adopt the necessary remedies.
Although my own personal experience is mainly derived from Kent, I know, and your Lordships are generally aware, that other hop-growing counties are suffering from the depression in the same degree. From Worcestershire, Herefordshire, Surrey, Sussex, and Hampshire comes the same pitiable tale of grubbed hop gardens, unemployed labourers, and village tradesmen standing helplessly by whilst their businesses are drifting away from them. I venture to think that no one who is brought face to face with the existing condition of the hop-growing districts can fail to recognise the absolute importance of immediate steps being taken to put an end to such a depressing state of things, and prevent the destruction of what was once known as a great English industry, the maintenance of which I believe to be of vital importance to the people of this country. Of all classes, those who suffer most from the ruin of the hop industry are undoubtedly the pickers and the labourers, who are, very naturally, 551 now fast leaving the land. It will, therefore, be the labourers and the pickers who will derive the greatest benefits from the resuscitation of this industry. It is surely our duty to make it again possible for a large acreage of hops to be cultivated in this country, with the payment of a fair living wage and the realisation of a reasonable profit. If we can do this we shall have accomplished a great achievement, because it will have a considerable effect in bringing people back to the land. This is my primary object in appealing to your Lordships to give this Bill a second reading.
The hops question was discussed in your Lordships' House in May of last year, when my noble friend Lord Addington moved the following resolution— "That the continued cultivation of the hop gardens of England is a matter of national concern, and that the present critical condition of the hop industry deserves the immediate attention of His Majesty's Government." That resolution, as your Lordships remember, was unanimously agreed to. During that debate many interesting facts were brought to your Lordships' notice. The most reverend Primate, in a short speech, the eloquence and pathos of which I can assure him touched very deeply the hearts of those who are suffering so terribly from the depression in this trade, told us that— "having to be in touch day by day with the life of the Kentish owns and villages, he was simply aghast at the consternation which was then prevailing in the villages of Kent." That was the position last May. If that was the position then, how much worse must it be to-day, for everything which has happened since has been of such a character as to intensify the depression, increase the ruin, and magnify the utter despondency which now hangs like a black impenetrable cloud over the whole of the hop-growing counties?
In the course of the discussion last year Lord Eversley, who may be regarded as an expert on this question, having sat as chairman of a previous Hop Commission, told us that the hop acreage had been reduced for the last five years to 48,000 acres. I trust the noble Lord will forgive me for saying that the position then was even worse. From the official returns I find that in 1885 we cultivated in England no fewer than 71,327 acres; in 1907 the acreage was not 552 48,000, but 44,938. Last year's returns showed the astonishing decrease of 6,022 acres, bringing the acreage down to the ridiculously small total of 38,916, and I fear there is worse to follow. From the information constantly coming to my notice it is clear that the losses incurred by the hop growers last year were far worse than could possibly be imagined, with the result that another débácle has taken place by means of the grubbing and destruction of hop gardens. What the acreage will prove to be from the next Government Return it would be difficult to say, but I am assured by an expert that it is not likely to exceed 30,000 acres.
It has frequently been asserted that the depression is caused very largely by overproduction all over the world. In my humble opinion it is nothing of the kind. The truth of the matter is that we have underproduction in England and over-production elsewhere. If it were true that we had overproduction in this country, what excuse would there be for importing, by means of dumping, between. 200,000 and 300,000 cwt. of hops per year? I do not wish to pursue this point, because the Bill does not deal with dumping. This Bill is an honest attempt to assist a struggling and half-dead industry by the only means which still remain, His Majesty's Government having debarred what is generally considered to be the most certain and simple remedy—namely, an import duty. For the same reason I wish to put aside for the time being the contentious question of an import duty, and have introduced this Bill. I believe I am right in saying that this Bill includes no principle which has not already been approved both by the Hop Commission and also by His Majesty's Government.
When the hop deputation went before the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade last summer, Sir John Barker, who was one of the principal members of the Hop Commission, said, in introducing the deputation— "We want to prevent the use of hop substitutes, supplements, and preservatives; we also think that foreign hops should be marked, and we hope the Government will cause foreign hops to be distinguished the same as English hops in the future." After discussion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade agreed with everything that emanated from the hop deputation. I 553 repeat that I have introduced this Bill solely with the desire to save from annihilation what I know from personal experience to be a dying industry, and one which can only be saved by the immediate application of the best remedies we have at hand to apply. Having unanimously agreed to the Motion proposed by Lord Addington in May of last year, I consider that we had a right to expect, more especially after the issue of the Report of the Hop Commission, and the promises given to the deputation which waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade, that a Bill would have been sent up to us dealing with this matter. As this has not been done and the only excuse given is one of time, it seems to me that we shall be doing a great service, not only to His Majesty's Government but also to the country by passing this measure, and thereby saving a great deal of precious time.
There can be but little doubt that the country is not only ripe for legislation on this matter, but that by passing this Bill we shall be giving effect to the frequently-demonstrated will of the people. The series of meetings held last year throughout the hop-growing districts were unprecedented in the history of this country, and, as your Lordships are aware, they concluded with the absolutely unique demonstration in Trafalgar Square on what was called "Hop Saturday." I believe I am correct in asserting that that demonstration was a pattern of orderliness besides being an example of loyalty. After the resolution had been put from the different platforms and carried the massed bands played the National Anthem, and the tens of thousands of persons stood bare-headed and sang it not once but time after time. Because those people proved themselves to be an example of orderliness and loyalty are we to remain blind to their needs and deaf to their petitions? I say unquestionably, No.
I wish to point out that this Bill is practically on the same lines as the Government Bill of last year. It differs only in one respect. This Bill is strengthened and made more practical, and, therefore, more useful. The Government Bill was undoubtedly weakened owing to its having to be introduced as an agreed Bill; and I believe it is generally understood that the 554 Bill as presented to the House of Commons was nothing more or less than a compromise, in which the best interests of the hop industry were sacrificed in order to save time and secure unanimity. Even then the unnecessary concessions that were made failed in their object. There were only two classes to conciliate—first, such brewers as use hop substitutes in the brewing and preservation of beer; and, secondly, a few foreign merchants who deal in foreign hops. That these two small interests were powerful enough to prevent the House of Commons from passing the Bill was clearly proved by the fact that twenty-one Members put down Amendments of a wrecking nature, and the Bill, according to promise, was therefore withdrawn. We need not, I think, endeavour to legislate for a small minority of brewers who desire to use hop substitutes in brewing or to preserve their beer by chemicals in lieu of hops; nor should we sacrifice the interests of thousands of our own people who are indirectly interested—there are many trades interested in the hop industry—for those of a small handful of foreign dealers who desire to retain the advantages they at present enjoy by not being required to comply with the English marking restrictions.
Was there ever a greater instance of injustice to the English grower? Immediately a foreigner lands on these shores he becomes amenable to our laws, and no exception is shown in his favour. I claim, therefore, that immediately a foreigner lands his hops in this country, those hops should be amenable to our laws, and no exception should be shown in their favour. If a hop grower in Sussex were to sell his produce to a brother grower in Kent, say, at Canterbury, the Canterbury grower is prevented by law from mixing the inferior Sussex hops with his own produce and selling at a good profit. But his foreign competitor, who is ruining both him and his industry, is absolutely free to mix and manipulate different grades and qualities of hops grown in different districts and very often in different countries, and is then allowed to ship them into England unmarked, undated, and absolutely free from any penalty whatever. I ask, again, is that fair, to the English growers? I consider it is a reproach to us that this preference to the foreigner has been allowed to exist so long, and, in all fairness to our English growers, the sooner it is put an end to the 555 better. That is one of the intentions of this Bill.
The first part of the Bill deals with hop substitutes and all preservatives other than hops in the brewing and preservation of beer. The Government Bill of last year was not so clear. It did not mention preservatives, but only hop substitutes. There are, I believe, some interested people who argue that a chemical preservative is not a hop substitute. I submit that their contention is prejudiced and entirely wrong. The Hop Commission of 1890 laid down this fact, that— "One of the principal uses of the hop is to preserve the beer by preventing a renewal of fermentation during the time before it is fit for consumption." Therefore I contend that anything which preserves beer other than hops must be a hop substitute.
It has also been asserted that the use of preservatives is necessary for beer intended for export, but the fact that in Bavarian beer exported no preservative or hop substitute of any kind is permitted seems to me to contradict that assertion. It is well known that many brewers in this country at the present time make beer for export to hot climates without any preservative but hops. It is some years since chemists first began to introduce their system in some of our British breweries, and there is little doubt that at the present time they have got a great hold upon the manufacture of beer. It is also a fact that during that period there has been a gradually-diminishing consumption of hops per barrel of beer. How much it has decreased it is difficult to estimate, for there are no official returns further back than 1901; but from the official returns of that year the consumption was 2.02 lbs. of hops per barrel of beer, whilst in 1907 it had fallen to 1.85 lbs. per barrel, and I believe that during the same period the consumption of beer also declined by something like three million barrels per annum. This is a strange coincidence, and should prove a valuable object lesson to brewers. It is contended that this decrease in the use of hops has only been made possible by the use of preservatives other than hops; and the claim, of the grower, that all substitutes for hops should be prohibited, is consequently fair and just. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will have no difficulty in accepting the clause dealing with the prohibition of preserva 556 tives. Such prohibition should meet with the approval of those who favour temperance, for it is surely preferable that beer-drinkers should be supplied with a pure vegetable beverage which has real value as a tonic and a food than run any risk of being drugged with a concoction of chemicals and minerals mixed up with the proper vegetable ingredients of a pure malt liquor. That these chemicals are utterly unnecessary can be proved by reference to the Bavarian beer laws.
I now come to the clause in regard to marking. This clause simply ensures that foreign hops when landed at the different ports of the United Kingdom shall be marked with the same particulars—no more and no less—as are required in the case of English hops. This gives no preference to the English grower, but simply provides that the English grower and his foreign competitor shall trade in the United Kingdom on terms of absolute equality. This to my mind is treating the foreigner with the greatest generosity and liberality. To continue to give him exception in regard to marking would be grossly unfair to the English grower. Subsections 5, 6 and 7 of Clause 2 provide machinery for checking the marking of imported hops. These subsections did not appear in the Government Bill of last year, but it is generally felt that such machinery is necessary and should be provided. I would like to state that I have not had the assistance of a legal draftsman, and that if there are technical errors, as no doubt there are in the Bill, they can easily be adjusted in the Committee stage. I understand that His Majesty's Government have always fully intended to secure absolute equality in regard to marking. I therefore hope that the Government will support this Bill and provide facilities for rapidly passing it into law before it is too late.
I am well aware that this Bill is not a complete remedy for the depression, for it will still leave a great grievance untouched; but it undoubtedly does provide a means of checking the annihilation of this industry by enforcing equal restrictions on the foreigner both with regard to marking and the mixing of hops, thus preventing the possibility of fraud. I believe it will have this other advantage, that it will increase the consumption of hops per barrel of beer. As I said 557 just now, since 1901 the consumption of beer has decreased with the decreased use of hops. Therefore, an increased consumption of hops should result in an increased consumption of beer. Thus the brewers as well as the hop industry will benefit, and so also will the revenue. I trust that your Lordships will agree to pass this Bill, for then we shall have the gratification of knowing that we have done all that at present is in our power to save from absolute extinction what was once a great and thriving industry. Let us, therefore, not be drawn away from the object we have in view by any of those who may be interested, financially or otherwise, in maintaining the present grossly unfair conditions. Let us rather endeavour to amend the fortunes of what the President of the Board of Trade has described as a great and valuable industry, and thus give the best assistance we can to an energetic, long-suffering, and highly-deserving class of our fellow-countrymen. That is my object for asking your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Hardinge.)
THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAU-CHAMP)My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will endorse an expression of sympathy at the indisposition which keeps away the genial and popular President of the Board of Agriculture, in whose place I appear to state the position of His Majesty's Government in regard to this Bill. I am certain that the passages which fell from the noble Viscount with regard to the present condition of those interested in the hop industry and the depression in trade from which they are suffering will have found an echo on both sides of the House. I may, however, say that this depression does not exist in this country only. In America there is a great depression in the hop industry, and a large number of acres of hops have been grubbed up. The Consular reports show that in one of the states the acreage has been reduced by from 5,000 to 6,000 acres; in another by 2,500 acres, or some thirty or forty per cent.; and that some of the plantations in California are being rooted up this year.
As to the history of this question, towards the end of last year a Bill dealing with the subject was introduced in another place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; 558 but, owing to want of time, it was not dealt with. This year the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture speaking at Canterbury, said that the Bill was received more contentiously than he had anticipated. He added that:— "If no unreasonable expenditure of Parliamentary time was required, the Government would reintroduce the Bill, as they were still of opinion that the grievance was a real one and one which called urgently for redress." Your Lordships are to-day asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, as the noble Viscount told the House, is substantially and practically the same as that which was introduced by His Majesty's Government last December. There are, however, one or two changes, but they are only of a Committee kind, and therefore I shall not venture to detain your Lordships by any reference to them at this moment.
In these circumstances the noble Viscount was really preaching to those who were already converted. His Majesty's Government introduced a Bill last year, and have promised to re-introduce it in another place this year. Therefore the action of the noble Viscount, if he will allow me to say so, appears to me to be somewhat superfluous and likely to render legislation more difficult. There is an old phrase on the subject of dishing the Whigs. This seems to me an attempt on the part of the noble Viscount to obtain for those with whom he is associated some of the credit which is due to the authors of the Bill as originally introduced; and the resolutions which have been addressed to your Lordships—I myself have received a large number—asking you to support the Second Reading of this Bill, and holding up the noble Viscount as a saviour of the hop industry, represent an endeavour to ascribe to him merits which are due to His Majesty's Government, and to dress him in plumes borrowed from the Bill of last year.
I am not quite sure that the full position of the hop industry, at any rate on material points, was brought before your Lordships. Like the noble Viscount I am interested in the hop industry. I am in the fortunate position, I am glad to say, of owning some farms on which hops are very largely cultivated, and I may say, in passing, that hop-growers are among the most prosperous of my farmers. I am not, therefore, quite so 559 hopeless in regard to the future of the industry as is the noble Viscount. But there have been certain changes to which I think it is only fair to refer. The first one was only touched upon by the noble Viscount, and then in a different regard. In the first place, fewer hops are used in this country now than in times gone by. Since 1901 there has been a constant diminution in the quantity of hops used in this country, the quantity having fallen in that period from 648,000 cwt. to 571,000 cwt. That, of course, is due in a large measure to a decrease in the quantity of beer brewed; and I am sure that those members of your Lordships' House who are anxious for an increase in temperance in this country would welcome the fact of a reduction in the quantity of beer consumed if they could be assured that it meant that those who had been drinking too much drank less now.
The introduction of cold-storage also has had a great effect upon the industry. It is a matter of common knowledge to all who are interested in the hop industry that the difference in price between one year and another is very large indeed, perhaps larger in regard to this industry than any other connected with agriculture. Cold storage has made a great deal of difference. It is possible in a year of surplus, when hops are cheap, to buy them up at a low price, keep them in cold storage, and use them the following year. In those circumstances, when there are not so many hops it is only natural that brewers should draw upon their reserve in cold storage.
There is another interesting point to which I should like to draw attention. I refer to the quantity of hops imported into this country. There is, of course, the point that you must use a certain quantity of foreign hops because they give a special flavour which some people demand; but it is interesting to notice that the average ratio of home produce to the total supply of hops during the fifteen years 1886–1900 was seventy-two per cent., and for the years of the current century it is exactly the same. That seems to show that the demand for the home produce is the same, and that probably there is not such great distress in the industry as the noble Viscount suggested. The quantity of hops imported is also diminishing. During the ten years 1867–76 it averaged, in round 560 figures 202,000 cwt.; in the following ten years the annual average was 215,000 cwt.; in the next decennial period it fell to 194,000 cwt., and in the ten years 1897-1906 it went down to 186,000 cwt. I am really unwilling to trouble your Lordships with further figures on this subject, because obviously it is very difficult to follow complicated figures in the course of a speech in your Lordships' House.
And, after all, there is no practical difference between the noble Viscount and myself. His Majesty's Government are willing that this Bill should be read a Second Time, but, of course, they are in the usual position of thinking that their own bantling is better than anybody else's, that their own Bill is probably better than that which any other person might introduce. In those circumstances, while the Government will offer no opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill, if it is read a Second Time the noble Viscount must not expect that the Government will take any part in passing his Bill. The position will be as it was before this Bill was introduced. The Government will reintroduce their Bill in another place, and they hope that it will meet with acceptance from both sides before the end of the session.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY:My Lords, I have not found it quite easy to follow the arguments of the noble Earl as regards the action of His Majesty's Government in this matter. He told us that the noble Viscount had been preaching to the converted. In some branches of human teaching we believe that conversion is ordinarily followed by action. Action in this particular case, however, has not at present been forthcoming, although the noble Earl has told us that a promise had been given that under certain conditions the Government might introduce such a Bill into the House of Commons again. Is there any practical difficulty in passing the Bill which is before your Lordships and in the Government's affording it facilities in the other House? Those are, however, mysteries into which I do not wish to penetrate; but I cannot understand why it should hinder the matter that a Bill in identically the same terms should have the advantage of passing through this House.
I always feel in a difficulty in speaking upon this subject, because three branches 561 of knowledge are concerned in the question—agriculture, brewing, and finance, and I know little about the first, nothing about the second, and little about the third. I cannot profess to be an expert in the slightest degree on any of the three, and therefore I find it exceedingly hard to weigh or to appraise at their proper value the conflicting statements that are made. But I do know something of Kent. The noble Viscount has recalled to the House certain words that I ventured to say last year on this subject. The only change I would make in those words would be to add that the difficulties are not only not diminishing but are certainly increasing day by day in not a few of the villages and country places throughout Kent. The condition of affairs is pressing with extreme hardship on labourers and farmers, and, presumably, to some extent upon landlords; and I confess that the words used last year by the President of the Board of Agriculture as to the matter being one of national concern and deserving immediate attention seem to me to be more imperatively true now than when the noble Earl spoke.
I did not quite understand the noble Earl the Lord Steward to-night when he said that probably there was not so much distress in this industry as the noble Viscount opposite supposed. I cannot speak for England as a whole, but I can speak for Kent, and I may say that it is not a matter of conjecture at all but a question of stern, hard, daily fact before the eyes of every one who has anything to do with the county. I believe I am right in saying that last year 4,194 acres were grubbed in Kent, and those who are able to form an anticipation for this year estimate that 3,000 acres are likely to be grubbed. That means not merely a change of industry, but a practical cessation of employment for a large number of people and practical ruin to those who have invested their money in this branch of industry.
To give a practical instance, I will take a certain parish of which I have intimate knowledge. There are five considerable farms in that particular parish. One of these, to the great advantage of the neighbourhood, is held and worked by a gentleman whose interest in the well-being of the people is such that, avowedly and obviously at a great loss, he continues to run this 562 hop farm on the ground that were he to cease to do so he would be throwing out of employment a large number of people. Not only so, but he enables one of his neighbours to do the like. The person working the next farm found it impossible to carry it on any longer, there being a steady deficit now from year to year. In connection with the next farm no rent has been paid to the landlord for the last three or four years, owing to the difficulties in making it up; and in the fifth case in this one parish the land has been grubbed, and the farm made into a fruit farm, employing a mere handful of people as compared with the large number formerly engaged. Those are tangible cases. And when we speak of those who are thus employed on the land, we cannot forget that large class who year by year are engaged in the hop-picking industry.
We are face to face with a situation that calls for attention, and, if possible, for remedy. It is quite apparent from the facts that a great historic English industry is perishing. If we were told that that was a disaster which must happen owing to a change in our conditions and that certain people must necessarily suffer in consequence, I suppose we would have to shrug our shoulders and put up with it. But if we are told, as we have been told, that it can be remedied, without departing from any economic or industrial law, by certain enactments which are set forth in this Bill, it is obligatory on us all to endeavour to make those enactments law and thus attempt to stem, at any rate, so grave a disaster as is now imminent, if it has not actually taken place.
As to the temperance aspect of the question, if it be said that what has recently happened has merely been that three million fewer barrels of beer have been drunk during a certain number of recent years, I am not prepared to say that I should regard that as an unmitigated disaster. But I am told that it is not that people are drinking less than they did before, but that they are transferring their attention to spirits instead of beer, and therefore the evil is a very real one. Not merely are those who produce the beer suffering, but those who are consuming the other form of liquid instead are likely also to be harmed. But when I examine into the facts I am unable to accept that explanation. I looked to-day at the speech of the Prime Minister in introducing 563 the Budget of last year. Mr. Asquith said— "On the other hand, the decline in productivity of the alcoholic group of Customs duties has been maintained. Foreign spirits show a falling off of £80,000 compared with the receipts of the previous year, and of £47,000 as compared with the Budget estimate in the year just ended.… An increase of £153,000 was anticipated from beer, of which only one-half has been realised. Instead of an increase of £110,000 from British spirits, there is a decrease of £90,000.… Although beer in 1907-8 continued to improve, the total revenue from beer, wine, and spirits combined shows a decrease of £151,000." That does not fit in with the argument that British spirits or foreign spirits are being consumed in lieu of the beer which is not being drunk. I do not myself lay particular stress in favour of this Bill on the argument that the necessity for it is great owing to less beer being drunk. Before I regarded that as an unmitigated disaster I should have to be shown that something else was being drunk which was more injurious. But that is by the way.
It is quite apparent that a great historic English industry is perishing in certain parts, that the workers are reduced to the lowest ebb, and that many of them, particularly those who are advanced in years, can turn to nothing else. I again say that if we are told that this can be, if not altogether prevented, at all events diminished by legislation which seems to be absolutely fair and just and to interfere with no industrial law at all, then I do most heartily hope that we shall give effect to it. The remedies proposed by the Bill are, as I understand, first, that by dealing with what are called hop substitutes and the like we are going to ensure that the ingredients of the particular beverage consumed are beforehand known and described; that is to say, that a beverage is not being sold under one name which is something different from what the consumer believes it to be. That seems to me to correspond with our idea of what is fair and right, and if that is the result of the clauses which deal with substitutes, then I hope those clauses may come into law as speedily as possible.
The second principle involved in the Bill seems to me also a thoroughly sound one, that we must take care that imported hops are not placed at an advantage compared with home-grown hops by being exempted from certain rules which apply to hops grown in England. If it be true that the sale of foreign hops is facilitated in this 564 country to the detriment of home-grown hops, that seems to me to be something which in common fairness, apart altogether from questions of tariff, ought to be prevented forthwith, and that I understand to be the aim of the second limb of the noble Viscount's Bill. If this Bill is, as it seems to me, practically identical with the Bill for which the Government have already accepted responsibility, nothing but good wishes ought to accompany its passage through this House, and I earnestly hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD:My Lords, in response to a very earnest appeal from the hop-growers in Herefordshire and Worcestershire, I rise to support this Bill, and I desire to say with what great satisfaction I have heard that the Government and the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading are practically at one on the subject. Therefore we have very good hope that the Bill may be placed on the Statute Book during the course of the present session. I may say that if I had understood that this Bill in any way contravened the principles of Free Trade I should have felt bound to oppose it, because I have no belief that any benefits will accrue to our working population from the doctrines of Protection; and I sincerely hope, on behalf of the agricultural population and the working classes with whom I come in contact, that we may have no fundamental changes in that respect during my lifetime. I hope, indeed, that the present arrangement may last as long as the Bench of Bishops.
I am informed by those directly interested in the question in my part of England that this Bill, if passed, would bring very material benefits to them, and certainly the main provisions of it seem to me to be altogether reasonable. We should all agree, I think, that it is only reasonable that the foreign hop-grower should be put in the same position as the British grower of hops, and I understand that the English farmer asks for no more than to be put on terms of equality with his foreign competitor. Even if the Bill passes, however, there are many farmers who are not quite sure that they will be put on terms of absolute equality, because I am told that preferential railway rates are given to some of the imported hops over British hops. As an outsider, ignorant of the details, I 565 cannot but feel that if this is the true position of the case then the treatment is unfair.
As to the prohibition of the use of hop substitutes, I think we are only expressing what must be the almost universal view that what is called beer should be what the ordinary English consumer understands when he asks for beer—namely, a drink made from malt and hops. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable proposition that if any brewers make their product from a concoction of different materials it should be made plain to the consumer what it is he is really drinking. I have, of course, no means of knowing whether it would be easy or difficult to carry out any such distinction; but I do think that when a licence is given for the sale of drink we should so far protect the consumer that he may know what it is that is sold to him under that licence. Therefore I am very glad to find that, so far as present indications go, there is good hope of this Bill passing into law.
Whether our farmers will derive all the benefit they anticipate from the provisions of this measure I am not altogether sanguine, because, as the noble Earl the Lord Steward reminded us, there are other causes, such as the new system of cold storage, which keep down the price of hops. Personally I would not be at all sorry to see a large number of acres in the Herefordshire and Worcestershire district change from the growing of hops, say, to the breeding of Hereford cattle. My belief is that if the farmers were to gradually adopt that process of change they might find themselves in a much more prosperous condition than they have been hitherto. I am not sure also that the plea is well founded that the change would necessarily mean a lessening of labour and increase of unemployment. At any rate, if there is any danger of this kind I think the county councils might to a very considerable extent meet it by increasing the facilities for obtaining small holdings. One of the things that have surprised me of late has been the slowness of our county councils in giving facilities to thrifty and rising labourers to obtain small holdings. If our hop farms have to be grubbed, then I hope that at any rate some portion of them may be occupied by the best of the labourers now employed upon them, but occupied by them as small holders, forming 566 the nucleus, let us say, of a new English yeomanry. I beg to support the Bill, and to express the hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY:My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships on this question I feel that I must ask for your indulgence. But though I have no direct acquaintance, like my noble friend behind me and the most reverend Primate, with Kent, I have an indirect connection with that county which has given me an opportunity of appreciating the present serious depression in the hop district and the hardships occasioned thereby. On those grounds I venture to say a few words in support of this Bill.
My noble friend, in the course of his speech, denied that the provisions of the Bill embodied any tendency of a Protectionist character. I support the Bill most cordially on that account. From the earliest days of the proposed reform of our fiscal system I have never held views of a Protectionist character; on the contrary, I have advanced cautiously while following the lead of Mr. Balfour, whose policy in this respect has been explained clearly and lucidly in the various speeches he has made on this subject. But on frequent occasions in various parts of the country, where my attention had been called to any individual industry being injuriously and unjustly treated by unfair competition, I have indicated that I would gladly support any legislation which would remove the injustice and the injury, provided that no injury was caused to any other industry. On this account I think that I am perfectly consistent in supporting this measure.
This Bill is almost identical with the measure introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the end of the autumn session last year. The noble Earl the Lord Steward described my noble friend in charge of this Bill as preaching to the converted, but I do not think that was absolutely accurate. If he were preaching to the converted, I should like to ask a member of the Ministerial Bench on what ground the important measure introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not carried into law. It was defeated, I imagine, owing to the machinations of certain supporters of His Majesty's Government who sit on the back Benches of the other House, and who, through overwhelming it with Amendments, 567 ran the time so very fine that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I will not say he was anxious to do so, but, perhaps, not to annoy his supporters, took the opportunity of withdrawing the Bill. These opponents of the measure were in effect extreme temperance reformers and extreme Free Traders; and I would like to know what were the reasons which animated these sections of the Government's supporters in hindering the progress of the Bill on that occasion.
I confess I am at a loss to understand why temperance reformers should wish to crush the Bill, because, however much they might advocate temperance, I should have thought they would like to know that the beer which was being consumed was perfectly pure beer and not made of hop substitutes. As to the extreme Free Traders, they probably entertained some suspicion of their leaders in bringing forward this proposal dealing with hops, and because it seemed to embody a violation of their pure fiscal theories. I am equally at a loss to understand how the question of Free Trade comes into this measure at all. The object of the Bill is to establish absolute equality of treatment in the hop industry. Since 1866 the British hop-grower has been required to mark every package of his produce with his own name, the name of the parish in which the hops were grown, the year of growth, the gross weight and serial number; while the hops imported from abroad escape such marking. If all hops were marked there could be no question of passing off hops of an inferior quality as something better than they were; and noble Lords opposite will not deny that that can be done in the present state of things. If the restrictions are necessary for hops grown in this country, why are they not necessary for hops that are imported? I should like to have an answer to that question.
What is proposed in this Bill is analogous to the legislation passed during the past few years which has equalised the conditions with respect to foreign watches, foreign patents, and foreign ships. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he received a deputation on this subject, said:— "Whatever conditions you impose upon the British grower should be imposed also upon the foreign grower. That is not a departure from Free Trade." He went on to say— 568 "I have legislated in three Bills—foreign watches, foreign patents, and foreign ships—each imposing on the foreigner the same conditions as are imposed on the British trader. Therefore I am not afraid of that." Having spoken so strongly on this subject, I ask again, Why did Mr. Lloyd-George not carry through his Bill at the end of last year? I am not going into the question of preservatives, but it is somewhat curious to contend that hop substitutes should not be allowed in the brewing of beer but should be allowed in the preservation of beer. It seems to me that if damage is done by the one process, the use of substitutes in the preserving of beer is equally damaging. But I will not dwell on that.
I believe that what does most harm to the hop industry is the non-marking of foreign hops. The Committee which sat on the matter reported very strongly with regard to this, and also with regard to the use of hop substitutes in the brewing and preservation of beer. Therefore, if the Government are going to bring in a Bill on this subject they ought to lay great weight on the findings of the Committee regarding those points. Undoubtedly if hops are used instead of substitutes the beer produced will be a much purer article, and the health of the beer-drinking population of the country will benefit. I wish to lay stress on the danger of allowing an important industry in which a vast number of people are employed—the chief industry of a district—to be ruined for the want of a certain amount of legislation.
The noble Earl the Lord Steward consoled himself by saving that the hop industry has suffered equally badly in other countries. That is no consolation whatever. No doubt all industries and all trades must be prepared for depression; but the hop industry has suffered most severely. I read a speech a short time ago delivered at Canterbury by the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, whose absence and still more the cause we deeply regret, in which he attributed the depression in the hop industry in Kent to various causes. All these were, if I may use the expression, the fortune of war; but you can do something to prevent still further depreciation by putting British and foreign hops on an equality. When we consider the general depression in trade and the number of people now unemployed, I think the House will consider that it is the bounden 569 duty of the Government to take every step they possibly can to prevent the evil of unemployment and trade depression becoming greater. It is because I know the feeling of terror which exists at the present moment among the large populations dependent on the hop industry that I give this Bill my cordial support.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY:My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to say one or two words from a point of view which seems to me to have been entirely neglected—the point of view, broadly speaking, of Free Trade. The noble Viscount who introduced this Bill told us that though this was a palliative, he would be satisfied with nothing as a real remedy except a large duty on imported hops; and there is no doubt that what is underlying the minds of those who are keeping up this agitation is the establishment of a protective duty on British hops.
The right reverend Prelate who spoke on behalf of Herefordshire drifted along in this advocacy which has the essential point of Protectionism—namely, the advocacy of legislation in the interests of the producer and not in the interests of the consumer. He went in the direction of what is known as the Pure Beer Bill, and proposed to strike at the root of what was the concordat between Mr. Gladstone and the brewers when he abolished the malt tax and established the free mash tub. If his argument was sincere about wishing the drinker to know what he was drinking, he ought to prohibit the use of sugar, rice, and maize in brewing. The most reverend Primate told us, first of all, that it was contended that the diminution in the consumption of beer was transferred into an increase in the consumption of spirits. Then afterwards he told us that the revenue figures showed that there had been a diminution in the consumption of spirits, whereas there had been a slight increase in the amount realised from beer. Therefore the most reverend Primate need not have said that the matter was in the region of hypothesis; he got into the region of ascertained fact from the revenue returns.
I was glad to hear the noble Marquess opposite declare his adhesion to Free Trade, but I did not feel very much comforted when he said that he was perfectly satisfied with the Free Trade principles so lucidly expounded by his Parliamentary leader. 570 The service which the noble Marquess rendered with his lips to Free Trade does not give me perfect confidence as to the way in which he would apply those principles when the time should come for putting them into operation. On this Bill we have had a little too much of the Codlin and Short business from the two front Benches. Each side has been anxious to defend the hop-growers and to show that a microscope would be necessary to distinguish the difference between the noble Viscount's Bill and the Bill of the Government. I do not agree. So far as the marking of foreign hops is concerned I do not see any objection to that, although I cannot help thinking that the gain to the English producer would not be very great. In the first place, as every English pocket of hops has to be marked it is clear that any pocket which appears on the market unmarked is branded as foreign. In the second place, I suppose the people who purchase hops are almost exclusively brewers, who have competent and experienced buyers. As I have said I do not see any objection to that part of the Bill.
To the other parts of the Bill, however, I do see serious objections, even to the part which the Government have expressed their willingness to support—namely, the prohibition of the use of hop substitutes for the flavouring or bittering of beer. We have all received a circular from an interest which aroused a great deal of sympathy in this House last year but which has aroused no sympathy on this occasion. They state, among their reasons against the Bill, that its object is to compel them to use a great deal more hops than they use at the present time. I call that the essence of Protection. To force people to use something they would not otherwise use in order to increase the consumption of that article seems to me economically unsound. The Society issuing the circular to which I have referred state that the staple beer of the country is mild ale, and that if more than a certain proportion of hops were used the flavour would be rendered more dry and bitter, and this alteration would not suit the palates of their customers. They give other reasons, such as the fining and clearing of beer, against the large use of hops and in favour of the use of preservatives; and I cannot help regretting that no member of your Lordships' House connected with the great interest of brewing 571 has come forward to enlighten the House in regard to any of those matters. It is all very well to express genial sympathy with a particular industry, but it is quite another thing to embark gaily upon a course of legislation, the root principle of which is, to my mind, thoroughly unsound—namely, to interfere between the consumer and the producer in order to favour the producer.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN:My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of prolonging this debate, but merely to make a suggestion to the noble Earl who spoke for the Government, in answer to a remark which fell from him. The idea which appeared to be uppermost in the noble Earl's mind, so far as I could gather from his speech, was this—Who is to have the credit of dealing with this matter? It is very unfair, he said, that Lord Hardinge should step in and take from the Government credit which properly belongs to them, they having given notice that if they have an opportunity they will at some time or another introduce a Bill in the other House. I merely wish to point out to the noble Earl that there is an obvious course by which he can obtain the credit he appears to desire, and that is by introducing the Government Bill in this House. The noble Viscount will, I suppose, have his Bill read a second time to-day; but, if the Government are in earnest, as no doubt they are, in desiring to pass a Bill on this matter, why do not they introduce their Bill in this House? It certainly cannot, as we all know, be introduced in the other House for at all events a considerable time; but in this House we are not particularly pressed for business, and I am sure that your Lordships would be perfectly ready to give the Government Bill a Second Reading and to consider it at a later stage pari, passu with the Bill of the noble Viscount. It seems to me that that is a very obvious course for the Government to follow if they really desire to push this matter forward.
§ LORD HINDLIP:My Lords, I should not have intervened in this debate but for the fact that I have been inundated with letters from hop-growers and others interested in the hop industry, and also that last summer when the noble Earl, Lord Carrington, was speaking on the subject he rather left me under the impression that he did not consider that the hop industry in Wor 572 cester was in a very depressed condition. As regards the Bill itself, I believe it will do something for the farmer, though probably not so much as some people anticipate. I do not think anything short of a 40s. duty on hops will be really sufficient to bring about the desired change; but on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread I shall give my vote in support of my noble friend's Bill.
Hop substitutes are not nearly so much used as is supposed. A director of one of the biggest breweries told me this morning that, so far as he was concerned, he would be very glad if hop substitutes were entirely prohibited, and I do not think the prohibition will meet with much opposition from the trade. Brewers have been accused from time immemorial of using chemicals deleterious to health, from deadly poisons downwards, in the brewing of beer, and some of your Lordships may remember that many years ago they were accused of putting strychnine in beer to make it bitter. As to preservatives, I think that is a different matter. For the export trade preservatives are, I understand, considered almost indispensable, and perhaps some amendment of the Bill in this particular may be made in Committee. If preservatives in beer are prohibited, I hope my noble friend or someone else will see that the same prohibition is applied to so-called non-intoxicating liquors such as ginger-beer, in the manufacture of which I understand preservatives are even more largely used.
Farmers in Worcestershire are very anxious for this Bill, or some Bill like it, to be passed. In Worcestershire the hops are gathered by pickers from the Black Country, and the prosperity of the hop industry is very vital to the poor people in those districts. One gentleman who farms some eighty acres of hop-land has stated that unless some legislation is passed for the benefit of the industry he will have to abandon further cultivation. He estimates that his wages-bill will be reduced by £1,000 a year, in addition to some £600 which he pays to hop-pickers and other employés. In one parish in Worcestershire there are ten farms on which during the last few years hop-growing has been altogether given up, with consequent loss to the labouring class. If the farmers in Worcestershire have to give up growing hops, not only will more harm be done to an already decaying industry, but additional people in the Black 573 Country will be thrown out of employment.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (LORD FITZMAURICE)My Lords, this discussion has ranged over a rather larger field than that which is contained within the four corners of the Bill before your Lordships. Of that I make no complaint, because all the topics which have been mentioned are, though not perhaps absolutely and strictly relevant to the proposals in the Bill, so nearly connected that it was not unnatural that noble Lords, especially those coming from the hop-growing districts of this country, should have dwelt upon them.
The most reverend Primate, for example, alluded to the question of whether or not the diminution in the production of beer in this country, to which attention was so strongly called in the Report of the Committee of last year, has or has not been accompanied by a corresponding decrease, or something approaching to a corresponding decrease, in the consumption of spirits; and he pointed out that, however much we may mourn over the troubles of the producers of hops, we might at least console ourselves with the fact that it implied a diminution in the consumption of liquors generally. That is a very large question, and I do not propose to go into it in any detail; but from such figures as I have been able to obtain, I am bound to say that it does appear that there has been not only a diminution, as was pointed out by the Committee, in the barrelage of beer brewed in the United Kingdom, but also in the consumption of spirits. In regard to the barrelage of beer, I find that whereas in 1898 it was thirty-five millions, it had sunk in 1906 to just under thirty-four millions. In regard to spirits, whereas in 1898 there was a consumption of 41,700,000 gallons, in 1906 the consumption had sunk to a fraction above thirty-nine million gallons. That shows that there has been a gratifying diminution in what are generally called the drinking habits of the population; but that series of facts, highly interesting as they are, is, strictly speaking, outside the immediate purview of the Bill.
I am more concerned to try to answer one or two of the points raised especially by the noble Marquess opposite, who asked me a few questions in regard to the position of the Government. I am bound to say that I thought some of his questions were 574 a little peculiar. He called upon me and my noble friends who sit by me, who are members of the Government, to explain the reasons of the opposition to the Government Bill in the House of Commons last year. It is not the business of His Majesty's Government to explain the reasons of the opposition to one of their own Bills. We are responsible for the Bill; we are not responsible for the opposition. We regret that there was opposition. We wish it had been otherwise. I am really not, strictly speaking, called upon to explain the reasons of that opposition, and I am bound to say that, if part of it arose from the temperance party, I am at a loss to understand why any member of the temperance party should object to this Bill. Having been a supporter of temperance measures the whole of my political life, it seems to me that, to a temperance advocate, as long as a man drinks beer or spirits it cannot signify whether the liquor drunk is made from foreign or home-grown hops. As temperance men naturally we would object equally; and I am bound to say that I was not aware that the opposition which did spring up, no doubt, and which was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Carrington in a speech in Kent quite early in this year, was a temperance opposition.
No doubt some members of the House of Commons considered that the Bill was a derogation from the strict principles of Free Trade as they understood them. There it is my misfortune, and that of other members of the Government, to differ from a certain number of our political friends. It appears to me, speaking on behalf of the Government, that the essential doctrine of Free Trade is that where you have to levy, for example, a Customs duty you must levy in the case of articles which can be produced at home a corresponding Excise duty, and in that way obtain equality. I accept the doctrine laid down, that the essential idea of Free Trade in its practical application is the doctrine of equality; and provisions merely intended to secure the purity of an article or to prevent fraud cannot in any way be described as a derogation from the principles of Free Trade as hitherto understood by the great bulk of the supporters of Free Trade in this country. I am quite aware that we have been accused, in regard to legislation relative to patents, to the law relating to shipping, and to the manufacture of watches, of derogating from Free Trade: 575 but I am quite unable to see in what way any of those measures is a derogation from Free Trade, because in all three cases you preserve absolute equality; you simply say that the law which you apply to your own home industries shall, so far as these things are applicable, be applied to the foreigner.
Now I come to what is the principal matter before the House. In the first place, is the condition of things so serious as has been alleged? I am the last person to underrate the anxiety and in some districts—especially, I believe, in Kent—the suffering which certain classes of the population, especially the poorer classes who have depended upon hop-picking, have experienced and are experiencing; but, on the other hand, it must be borne in mind that in certain other districts of England the condition of things is not nearly so serious. We have heard a great deal, in the course of this discussion, of Worcestershire and Herefordshire. We have it from the Report of the Committee that in these counties a somewhat different state of things obtains. The Committee say— "Up to 1901 the acreage under hops had in these two counties been maintained, and the reduction in hop land had been from 11,000 odd acres in 1901 to 9,000 odd acres in 1907.… There are more acres under hops in Herefordshire and Worcestershire than was the case thirty years ago." That paragraph shows that in this area, which perhaps next to Kent is the most important hop area in the country, the state of things is not nearly so serious, and that in Worcestershire and Herefordshire there has been a slight increase in the total acreage under hop cultivation as compared with thirty years ago. Nevertheless, the condition of things is serious enough to make the Government wish to do whatever they can.
We have no intention whatever of taking any step in the direction, which, I am afraid, judging from this debate, is desired by some noble Lords opposite, of putting a duty upon foreign hops. But, short of that, any reasonable proposals, such as those which arise from the Report of the Committee, the government are anxious and willing to consider; and I may remind your Lordships that the President of the Board of Agriculture, whose absence and the reason we all deplore, has actually this year given a distinct and specific pledge at a meeting at 576 Canterbury that the Bill will be reintroduced. His words were— "Last year, at the end of the session, Mr. Asquith brought in a Bill. As regarded that Bill, it certainly was more contentiously received than they anticipated, but he would say that if no unreasonable expenditure of Parliamentary time was required, the Government would reintroduce the Bill—" that was a specific pledge— "as they were still of opinion that the grievance was a real one, and one which called urgently for redress."
The noble Lord opposite, Lord Camperdown, asked what was not at all an unnatural question. He inquired the position and intention of the Government, and why it was than the Government Bill could not be introduced in this House. I am in a position to say, that had my noble friend Lord Carrington been here this evening, he would have been able to give an undertaking that the matter was receiving the friendly consideration of the Government, and that there was every probability that he would be able to meet the wishes of my noble friend and other noble Lords by introducing the Bill in your Lordships' House. But I would prefer that your Lordships should receive that pledge from him or from my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, who is also absent this evening. I can, however, say that the matter is receiving the attention of the Government, and I have every hope that the Lord Privy Seal will be able to give a distinct assurance to your Lordships on this subject.
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Hardinge is to be congratulated upon having provoked an interesting discussion, and one which must on the whole have been extremely satisfactory to him, because in none of the speeches to which I have listened have I detected any attempt seriously to shake the position which my noble friend assumed. He was, it is true, taken to task at the outset by the noble Earl who spoke first for the Government for having, I think the expression was, arrayed himself in the plumes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not sure that the simile was a particularly appropriate one, because nothing could have exceeded the modesty of my noble friend's statement. Let me venture to point out this, that if any plumes had been appropriated, the plumes are those which were furnished by the Committee, and it 577 would be just as fair to charge the Chancellor of the Exchequer with decorating himself with the plumes of the Committee as to charge my noble friend with doing anything of the kind.
Then my noble friend was also asked why, considering that His Majesty's Government had pledged themselves to legislate upon this subject, he had thought proper to introduce a Bill in your Lordships' House. I think it must have occurred to my noble friend's mind that the Bill of His Majesty's Government was not pressed with any very great earnestness last year, and I think it may have occurred to him that that Bill, resembling perhaps certain battleships of which we have heard a good deal during the last few days, may not have been destined to be produced exactly at the moment when we should have been most glad to see it produced. I understand that no opposition will be offered to the Second Reading of this Bill, and I do not see how, after the debate which took place in this House last year, it would be possible for us to resist the Second Reading. Upon that occasion, as the House will recollect, an overwhelming case was made out to show the piteous and deplorable condition into which the hop industry had fallen, and there was a general feeling all through the House that if anything could be done to improve matters for those interested in that industry it should be attempted.
But last year we were told, and told with very great propriety, that His Majesty's Government had lately appointed a Committee to investigate the whole matter, and we were invited to wait for the Report of the Committee. That was a reasonable request; we have waited for the Report of the Committee, and the Bill of my noble friend is founded upon that Report. It does not attempt to deal with those controversial questions which arise in connection with proposals for the imposition of an import duty upon hops. Even if my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, whose absence and its cause we all of us sincerely regret, had been present we should not have been able to-night to discuss with him whether as he suggested to us last year, an import duty on hops was or was not a tax on the food of the people. The Report of the Committee shows, what I think was evident to most of us last year, that this is by no means a very simple case, and that the present position of the 578 hop industry is due not to any one cause on which you can put your finger, but to a combination of causes, and that it is extremely difficult to assign to each of those causes the exact amount of importance which is due to it. There is the effect of foreign competition, there is the effect of increasing temperance, there is the effect of the more economical use of hops and of the more intensive cultivation of the hop gardens, and last, but not least—because this really seems to me to be almost the most important cause of all—there is the effect of the introduction of cold storage, which undoubtedly must have prevented hop-growers from reaping, as they used to reap, great advantage from an exceptionally abundant harvest of hops.
In those circumstances we have two recommendations, and two recommendations only, before us—the proposal to prohibit hop substitutes and the proposal to require hops to be marked. As to the use of substitutes, I am content to shelter myself behind the Report of the Committee, who seem to have gone very fully into that question. I understand them to advise that these substitutes are somewhat rarely used and not by the large brewers; but they do point out, on the other hand, that prohibition may not have the whole effect expected of it, because if substitutes are used now, it is not believed that they displace a very large quantity of hops. Up to that point I see no difficulty in accepting the advice of the Committee. But I confess that, in regard to the inclusion of preservatives—a point on which the Bill of my noble friend differs from the Bill of His Majesty's Government—I should like to hear a little more evidence before I commit myself to any definite view. We are told that it is believed by many that preservatives are, on the one hand, innocuous, and, on the other hand, indispensable to the manufacture of certain kinds of beer. I understand that the four principal firms of Burton all use preservatives. One question certainly will arise if we seek to prohibit the use of preservatives, which is this—shall we be able to prohibit the use of preservatives in the manufacture of beer without going into the question of the use of preservatives in the case of other kinds of foodstuffs? There is no doubt that a large quantity of foodstuffs is at present made up with preservatives of some kind. With regard to marking, I think that, if English growers of hops are required to mark their goods, it is just and 579 right that the importers of foreign hops should have their goods marked in a corresponding manner. It is surely desirable that a brewer who prefers to use British hops—I am told they do not all prefer to use them—should be able to ascertain at once from the appearance of a package whether the hops it contains are British or foreign. I say, therefore, that this Bill has my best wishes. I freely confess that I am not sanguine enough to believe that it will revolutionise the hop industry; but it may do something, and whatever we can do I think we ought to do. To my mind the most important result that has arisen from the discussion of this question is that we have elicited from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a perfectly distinct assurance upon what I conceive to be a question of policy of the very highest importance—an assurance to the effect that any conditions now imposed upon British producers should be imposed upon foreign producers of the same commodity.
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:I am perfectly content to rely upon the ipsissima 580 verba of Mr. Lloyd George when he received the deputation of which mention has been made.
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly distinct, and I entirely agree that one may hold that view without in the least departing from the strictest orthodoxy of Free Trade principles. I gather that no opposition will be offered to the Second Reading of the Bill. I should certainly vote for it without a moment's hesitation.
On question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.