On Friday, March 18, a large and highly influential meeting of hop-planters and others was held at the Sussex Hotel, Tunbridge Wells, for the purpose of promoting the repeal of the excise duty on hops. There were between 300 and 400 pre

sent.

On the motion of Mr. Moses Body, chairman of the committee, Mr. Rutley (Wrotham) was called to preside.

The CHAIRMAN said it would be his first duty to inform them that the meeting had been convened by bills drawn up by the committee appointed at the Robertsbridge meeting. As to the object the society had in view, he could only repeat the advice which he gave the planters at the Robertsbridge meeting, namely, that if they wished to secure the public attention and interest in their cause, they must proceed boldly upon a broad principle, and persevere consistently in one course. It was a matter of very great congratulation that so many persons had assembled. He took the circumstance as unmis takable evidence of the wide-spread depression-he might say distress, which they saw around them, and which had aroused them to public action. If he understood the objects of the meeting aright, it was not, however, merely to assert their distress and proclaim their losses, but to state publicly that they believed themselves to be unjustly subjected to a heavy and burthensome duty, and to devise the best possible means to get rid of it-to assert that the hop duty in its apportionment was unjust and unequal as a tax. There was no other tax like it upon any industrious class whatever in the country. He was well aware, however, and he did not wish to ignore it, that there were even hop-growers who would prefer that the duty should remain as it was, rather than that it should be repealed. That desire arose from the circumstance that those growers had many peculiar advantages of soil and situation, and did not feel the pressure to the extent that the majority of growers now experienced. That was the reason why they found those persons were in a position to pay the duty. But he could not consider the mere fact of one particular set of planters in a certain district desiring to maintain the duty was any argument in its favour; indeed, he should rather say no further proof was necessary that the duty was unjust and unequal, because one set of men were anxious for its continuance, while the majority were oppressed by it, and wished for its repeal. The persons who were anxious that things should remain as they were, asserted that hop-growing always had been, and always would be, a lottery; that it was a great speculation, and that all who entered into its cultivation ought to be prepared to meet its contingencies. They had been told that if they were patient the market would rise again, and they would have more years of profit. He well knew that they had had such years, and that they might occur again, even under the present system. But upon what circumstances would that improvement arise? It would be the very consequence of their present ruin, and the evils which had been already inflicted by the duty. Planters had been driven to grab their hops, and cease from their cultivation altogether, and it was at such a cost and sacrifice that any temporary prosperity would be secured. The attendance around him persuaded him that they were no longer inclined to submit to this unjust imposition.

Mr. MOSES BODY then rose to propose the first resolution, which was, "That the excise duty on hops is most oppressive to the grower, unequal in its pressure, most uncertain in the amount of revenue derived from it, and most unjust, hops being the only agricultural produce subject to taxation in the hands of the grower, upon which the duty is levied irrespective both of the value of the article and the cost of production." He did not stand before them as an advocate of free trade in hops, for he did not know that they could grow hops under that principle. Some told them that the duty was a tax upon the consumer, and that it did not press much upon the grower; but they well knew that they had very recently been selling hops at 17s., 18s., and 20s. per cwt., and he should like to know who had paid the duty on those, if the grower had not. It was very clear it

was not paid by the consumer (Hear, hear). It was also said that they could grub their hops if they found the cultivation of them did not pay, and thus relieve themselves of the burden. He had no doubt they all knew, being practical men, that there was some difficulty in that matter; they were aware that they had a large amount of labour upon their hands. He, for one, had lately, and perhaps most of the large planters had, grubbed a portion of their hops; but they could not get rid of the labouring population. That hung upon them in some way or other, and they must be maintained; and he had himself set on many extra hands, because many were literally starving. In fact, he had inore hands than he knew how to employ; but in the country districts it was not so easy to be disengaged from them, and that was one reason why it was so difficult to get rid of their plantations. If a man took a farm of some 200 or 300 acres, of which 20 were planted with hops, a large proportion of the valuation was taken upon the hop ground, perhaps £20 or £30 an acre. Therefore a man's capital became locked up in that way; and if he grubbed his hops, he by that means destroyed his property. Another reason why they could not grub their hops so easily as was supposed was that it was always after a heavy crop that they wanted to grub, because there was a larger produce than they required; in fact, they could not regulate the supply. With malt it was just the reverse-they made as much as was wanted. But they could not manage the hops in that way, as they did not know what produce there would be; but, after all, so far as grubbing was concerned, the greatest drawback was the duty itself. A man had got perhaps ten or twenty acres, prices were very low, and the tax something like £20 per acre, if he grew a ton an acre: He grubbed his hops and covered the land with corn, and probably got a profit of £3 or £4 an acre, but the succeeding crop had to pay the tax upon the previous year's produce (Hear, hear), therefore, if a man had £300 or £400 duty to pay upon twenty acres of hops, it ruined him. He must not, therefore, grub. Those were strong reasons, he thought, why they should get rid of the duty; but he had no doubt they all knew the matter as well as himself. He had been a grower for the last twenty-five years, and during late years at a considerable expense. He had found it a most unprofitable speculation; and he was persuaded that, unless they got rid of the excise duty, they could not continue to grow hops in these counties. If that were so, he would ask, "What would be. come of the labouring population in the hop districts?" He was himself at a loss to know.

Mr. PARKER (Tunbridge) seconded the resolution, which was carried unanimously.

Mr. JOHN SIMES rose to propose the second resolution, which was as follows: "That it is the duty as well as the interest of all hop growers and others resident in or connected with the hop districts to take all the means in their power to procure the immediate abolition of this unjust tax." He was in the habit of making valuations, and he had been struck at the number of farms that had lately been stripped for payment of the hop duty. He was also in the habit of receiving rents, and had therefore had opportunities of noticing the difficulties with which those payments were met, and in many cases could not be met in consequence of the tenants having had to meet the hop duty. He was well aware that there was a difference of opinion upon the subject, and he was very sorry that it was so. It was only a few, however, who objected to the present movement, and they were only those who were seeking to retain a monopoly: they were trying to drive the industrious classes out of the market. If they made a fair calculation they would find that in the Weald of Kent and Sussex they had been paying something like 35 or 40 per cent. more than the Mid-Kent people. There lay the question. Let the Kent people, who were so bigotted in their opinions, and who tried all they could to drive others out of the market, have 40 per cent. put upon them. How would the question appear then, he should like to know; he was sure that they would soon be

rowing in one boat, and all would go hand and heart together in the endeavours to get the tax removed. All they wanted was a fair stand up fight. At present he was quite satisfied they were labouring under free-trade prices, and had at the same time a heavy duty hanging over them, and they need not expect to get anything during the next two years in the shape of new profit. The duty consumed them more than free trade. If any of them had anything to say on the subject he hoped they would do it manfully, and let the public know that they were unanimous. They must give a "long pull, a strong pull, and a pull altogether," until the tax was laid under their feet.

Mr. J. KENWARD (Uckfield) rose to second the resolution. It might not, he said, be deemed prudent on his part to do so, as he had been on the opposition side, but he now found that he had been travelling on the wrong road. He made it his business, however, to attend that day, and render his assistance in endeavouring to get rid of the tax.

Mr. J. WIBLEY (Sevenoaks) said he was a grower of highpriced hops, but he heartily agreed with the two resolutions that had been proposed. He was an old free-trader, and did not fear the importation of foreign hops in the least. He thought the high-priced men in Mid Kent and East Kent would benefit more from free-trade than any part of Sussex or the Weald of Kent; the consumption would increase according as hops were lowered in price. Why should they be ruined in their prosperity year after year, merely to be protected £1 63. from foreign hops? it was a complete bugbear; it was all very well when hops were eight guineas a cwt.

Mr. BODY begged distinctly to state that the society they had formed was not established in any respect as a free-trade society, upon free-trade principles. They had nothing whatever to do with free-trade. He had made those few observations from fear that some wrong impression might go abroad upon the matter.

Mr. WHIBLEY said he did not think anyone would volunteer to go to Government for a repeal of the Customs' duty; they did not ask for the repeal of that duty, but the question was one of a free trade character.

Mr. THIRKELL said he was a large grower in the Weald of Kent. He trusted they would wake out of their sleep, and make vigorous exertions to obtain the repeal of so unjust a tax. The resolution having been unanimously carried,

Mr. NASH (Rochester) said he had been called upon to move-"That a society having been formed to promote the repeal of the duty upon hops, this meeting pledges itself to take the most active measures to support that society in the attainment of its object." He stood before them as a Kent planter of more than twenty years' experience; he had grown hops in the hill district as good as most men grow, at least they had fetched as good a price-and he must say that he did not wish to see any gentleman grub his hops. He had been to Somerset-house and made extracts from some of the books. He would have them

clearly to understand that there were altogether three duties-the old duty, the new duty, and the 5 per cent.,

and he would tell them what had been the amount of each for every year. In 1711 the old duty of 1d. in the lb. was put on; 1778 the ld. per lb. was continued, and the 5 per cent. was put on; in 1780, 10 per cent. was added; in 1783, 15 per cent. was added; and in 1786, 14d. and 2-20ths was added; in 1801 it was 24d.; in 1806, it was reduced to 2d.; in 1840, when all exciseable articles were taxed, 5 per cent. was laid on; nearly all the latter tax had been removed, the only articles on which it remained being paper, malt, and hops: he believed that was a fact. He had taken the three years 1855-6-7, and he would give them the returns for those years, as he had taken them from the House of Commons. The amount of the new duty and war tax in 1855 was £294,643 10s., and the additional 5 per cent. on that was £34,661 10s. 44d., making £329,305 0.44d. The planters had been called upon to pay that above the ld. per lb. duty. Those were startling items, but correct ones. 1856, the new duty amounted to £197,869 2s. 43d.; and the additional 5 per cent., £23,267 Is. 34d.; making £221,136 3s. 8d. In 1857, the new duty was £168,999 13s. 103d., and the additional 5 per cent. being £19,879 15s. 64d, making £188,879 9s, 5d. The total of the last three years, of what he would say they were called upon to pay in excess of the ld. per lb. was £739,320 13s. 5fd. If such a

In

statement as that, of which he vouched for the truth, would not make them active, he did not know what would. Allusion had been made to the customs duty, which he did not think they had any right to have; for what had they to be afraid of, when he told them that the customs duty upon hops sent into this country year before last, and charged at 45s. per cwt., only amounted to £22,546? It did not amount to £10,000 of their duty, and were they willing to pay £417,526 to keep that £10,000. He recommended they should call a meeting in every parish, and get up subscriptions in every possible way. He for one would pledge himself to get subscribers to the amount of £50. Many people he was aware agreed with Mr. Dodson, M.P., that members of parliament did not know very much about the subject of the hop duty; but he begged to assure them that from many interviews he had had with those gentlemen they did know something of the subject and were taking a lively interest in their welfare. He was happy to tell them that he had received many promises from members that they would vote for the repeal (renewed cheers). He hoped therefore the planters of Sussex would set a firstrate example, and they might depend upon it that others would follow them, for they were all beginning to feel the pressure and would be glad to work alike. He had gone the length and breadth of the three kingdoms; and knew the general feelings of the country. If the planters would help themselves, everybody else was ready to assist them.

Mr. BARCLAY seconded the resolution. He observed that let him go where he might, and the subject of the hop duty was mentioned, people who knew nothing about it frequently said, "What did it signify to the planters? They got their prices for the hops, which included the duty, or they would not grow them." That was a point to which they should turn their particular attention. The growers knew and felt that they paid the duty, and that in many instances they never got back again any sum of money which at all represented it. There were too many of them held hops of 1855, and there was very little doubt that a large proportion of them would never be sold, and the growers would therefore not see the duty, to say nothing of the expense to which they had been put. What they had to do principally was to show, as nearly as they could, the situation in which they were with regard to the duty. They were called upon to pay it whether the hops were sold or not, and under any circumstances; if the hops were spoiled the duty must be paid out of their pockets. But the business in which they were at present engaged was as important a matter as any hop-grower could undertake, for they ought to get rid of the excise duty if they could by any possibility; for he was sure there were very few farmers who did not feel that heavier than any other payment. It was asked for in large sums, and at a time when they had sold the article for which it was claimed. If they did not care for the duty, and he believed there were a few in that situation, he would say, don't subscribe; but if they did, subscriptions would enable them to get rid of it.

The resolution having been carried unanimously,

Mr. BARCLAY proposed a vote of thanks to the chairman. The CHAIRMAN acknowledged the compliment, and the meeting separated.-(Abridged from the Sussex Express.)

LANGUAGE OF INSECTS.-I have frequently observed two ants, meeting on their path across a gravel walk, one going from and the other returning to the nest. They will stop, touch each other's antennæ, and appear to hold a conversation; and I could almost fancy that one was communicating to the other the best place for foraging. This Dr. Franklin thought they have the power of doing, from the following circumstances: Upon discovering a number of ants regaling themselves with some treacle in one of his cupboards, he put them to the rout, and then suspended the pot of treacle by a string from the ceiling. He imagined he had put the whole army to flight, but was surprised to see a single ant quit the pot, climb up the string, cross the ceiling, and regain its nest. In less than half an hour several of his companions sallied forth, traversed the ceiling, and reached the depository, which they constantly re-visited until the whole of its contents were consumed.-Jesse's Gleanings in Natural History.

Now a cow wants one-thirtieth of her own weight in hay a day, to keep her in good order; and we may thus calculate the amount of labour required to masticate the food, and fit it for the stomach. The labour of chopping or grinding twenty-five pounds of dry hay a day, is no small item. This excessive labour is performed by one set of muscles-the jaws; but, by sympathy, affects all the other muscles; causes the blood to circulate quicker, the breath faster, the consumption of food greater; and still the growth of the animal is retarded.

If a machine was invented to grind hay, the ground article would approximate, in value, to unground oats, in producing fat and muscle. Chopping hay and stalks is valuable just in proportion as it approximates to grinding, and relieves the animal of the labour of grinding it. An animal fed on ground or minced food may perform an amount of labour equal to grinding it fit for digestion, and fat as fast as another which does not labour, but grinds its own food.

Prematurely grey whiskers and beard, while the hair is still black, show the relative amount of labour performed by the jaws and the head.

LIME, AND ITS CHEMICAL CHANGES.

Lime is not, as it was once supposed, an element, but consists of the metal calcium united with the gas oxygen, and is pro

perly an oxide of calcium, just as potash, soda, and magnesia

are oxides of potassium, sodium, magnesium. It is never found

pure in nature, except occasionally in the craters of volcanoes,

but is usually united with carbonic acid, for which it has a

strong attraction. In this state it is neutral, and insoluble in pure water. When limestone or any other form of carbonate of lime is exposed to a sufficiently high temperature with access of air or moisture, the carbonic acid gas is driven off, and the lime which remains is called quick or caustic, from its strong alkaline re-action. When such lime is plunged into water for a short time, or water is poured upon it, heat is evolved, the lime swells, cracks, gives off much watery vapour, and finally falls to a powder. This powder or slaked lime is a this state it is still caustic, though somewhat milder than when hydrate of lime, water being chemically combined with it. In fresh from the kiln.

The rise of temperature is so great when large heaps of good lime are suddenly slaked, as to enflame gunpowder and scorch wood; it certainly exceeds, according to Pelletier, 500°; and when the operation is performed in a dark place, light is also evolved. All sorts of imaginary causes have been assigned to account for these phenomena. They are referable, however, to a very simple and universal law. All substances during their change from a gaseous to a liquid, or from a liquid to a solid state, evolve heat, and vice versa. The intense cold produced by liquefying ice or snow by admixture with salt is a familiar instance of the latter; and the heat evolved in solidifying carbonic acid under intense cold and pressure is sometimes dangerous evidence of the former-the expansion of air consequent on the sudden liberation of heat from the carbonic acid in the moment of congelation not unfrequently shattering the vessel to atoms.

Lime in slaking will absorb one-fourth its weight of water; but the slaked lime is not more moist than before. The water

unquestionably, therefore, is chemically combined with the lime, and becomes solidified; and it is simply owing to this solidification of the water that heat is evolved.

Caustic lime has a strong affinity for water and carbonic acid. When kept in a dry place it gradually slakes, cracking, splitting, and crumbling to powder with the evolution of heat

which, however, is not so perceptible on account of the length of time during which the process is extended-just as though it had been slaked by pouring on water. In this case the lime has obtained from the atmosphere the 25 per cent. of water it needs to slake it. There is this difference, however, between air-slaked lime and that which is water-slaked: the former is slaked precisely as the latter, by the absorption instead of being simply a hydrate of lime as when water-slaked, of water, but it also absorbs carbonic acid from the air, and it is a definite compound of hydrate and carbonate of lime,

42.6 per cent. of the former, and 57.4 of the latter. Air slaked lime, therefore, is far from being so caustic as water-slaked, upwards of one-half of it being reconverted into the same chemical state as it was in before burning.

After the lime has absorbed sufficient water and is completely fallen to pieces, carbonic acid is absorbed much less rapidly, especially in damp situations. In fact, though there is a constant tendency in lime to return to the state of carbonate in which it existed previous to burning, yet, by mere exposure to the air, it does not attain this state in any assignable time.