Fruit growers' deputation sees P.M.(1839)

Post date: Apr 03, 2012 6:14:32 PM

The Sherbourne Mercury reported on 6th May 1839 on what seems to have been a frank meeting at which Alderman Matthias Lucas of Wateringbury Place took part with the Prime Minister, Lord Melbourne, and the President of the Board of Trade, Poulett Thomson (soon to be replaced by H. Labouchere). For the significance of fruit to Wateringbury's economy see Wateringbury Tithe Survey (1839). Lucas also gave evidence to a House of commons enquiry in the same year as did his tenant at the Beck, George Langridge.

FRUIT DUTIES.—IMPORTANT INTERVIEW WITH LORD MELBOURNE. (From the Kentish Gazette.)

A deputation of the following noblemen, members of parliament, and gentlemen, waited, by appointment, on Friday last, in Downing street, upon the Right Hon. Lord Melbourne, and the President of the Board of Trade :— His Grace the Duke of Richmond, Lords Strangford, Sondes, De Lisle, and Sydney, the four Kent County Members, Geo. Byng, Esq , and Capt. Wood, members for Middlesex ; George Darby, Esq.,and Capt Alsager, members for East Sussex ; Thos. Wm. Branston. Esq., and George Palmer, Esq., members for South Essex; Alderman Lucas, C. G. Whittaker, Esq., Chairman of the West Kent Committee of Fruit Growers; Robert Francis. Esq., Chairman of the East Kent Committee of Fruit Growers ; Thomas Jolly, Esq., Chairman of the Committee of the London Fruit Salesmen, with several other London fruit salesmen.

On being ushered into the audience-room, the Duke of Richmond opened the business of the deputation by stating, that tbe object of their attendance was to call upon his lordship to fulfil his promise made in the House of Lords last session of parliament, of giving a protecting duty to the British fruit growers. His Grace was, he said, aware his lordship was of opinion that he had made a conditional promise.

Lord Melbourne. —What I said was, that I would take the objectionable clauses into consideration.

The Duke of Richmond—Such, l am aware, is the impression upon your lordship's mind ; but I am very certain lhat it is an erroneous one. The fact is, you expressed a very strong desire that the Customs' Bill should be allowed to pass with the fruit and turnpike clauses in it; and, provided we did so, your lordship made a positive promise that you would, early in the present session of parliament, pass a protecting bill to the British fruit growers. This was most distinctly understood, not only by myself, but by the noble peers who are now sitting by me, as well as many others, and also by the reporters of the Mirror of Parliament, and other morning papers. Can you for one moment suppose, after my serving with you in the administration, that I should have allowed the late Customs' Bill to pass upon an assurance from you that you would take the objectionable clauses into consideration? No, no; I too well know what that word means. If such had been your answer, we, having the stick in our hands, and the power at that time of using it, you may depend that we should have done it, by throwing the Customs' Bill out altogether, and compelling you to bring in another Customs' Bill without the exceptionable clauses. One of these objectionable clauses, respecting the police passing through turnpikes duty free, you are now about to alter ; and why not do justice to the fruit growers! If you are determined tbat fruit shall have a free trade, why do you not extend the law to oranges, and not confine yourselves to the fruit grown in this country only. You have for this season deprived the revenue of upwards of £10,000; but that, I suppose,you care nothing about, though I think your friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would have been very glad had it found its way into the treasury. Mr. Hodges presented a memorial, numerously signed by the London Fruit Salesmen, praying for a protecting duty on fruit. Mr. Hodges ably showed the great injury these persons would sustain, as well as the fruit growers, if the present nominal duty was retained. Mr. Jolley said the nominal duty would ruin nearly the whole of the fruit salesmen in London. The only few individuals who could benefit by it, would be the importers.

Alderman Lucas—l have considerable plantations of fruit in the parish of Wateringbury, and during the gathering season I frequently employ, for weeks together, upwards of 40 men, women, and girls. There are many hundreds employed in the fruit plantations in various parishes of West Kent, who must be thrown out of employment if there is not a fair protecting duty on fruit. These, deprived of their mode of livelihood, will increase the poor-rates double what they now are. And if the Kent planters are driven to make cyder of their apples, it will not only injure the cyder counties, but it will cause a reduction in the consumption of malt liquor, which will injure the revenue. Mr. Whittaker, of Barming, bore testimony to Alderman Lucas's statement, and said that hundreds in that and the adjoining parishes must be ruined without a fair protecting duty.

Lord Melbourne replied, in a vein of satire.—The cyder you make in Kent will not hurt the revenue, for nobody will drink it after you have made it; and the alteration of the duty on cherries cannot hurt you, for it is impossible for them to be brought from France in a saleable state. Upon this fruit you can fairly give your continental neighbours a good beating.

Mr. Francis—lf we can give our continental neighbours a beating on cherries, it is very certain, my lord, that we shall be thoroughly beaten, through your intervention, in regard both to apples and pears. We are now suffering from the effects of your legislation, to an extent which we cannot very soon forget. Sir Edward Knatchbull-I think the government have acted most unfairly towards the British fruit growers. They first get a law passed fixing a commutation tithe on fruit grounds on an average calculated by the value of fruit plantations in former years, when there was a protecting duty on fruit, and immediately they got this accomplished, they most unjustly (quite at the close ot the session, when many members had left town) secure the reduction of the duty on apples, pears, and cherries, to about 2d. per bushel, thereby lowering the value of fruit plantations more than 50 per cent.

Mr. Darby.—l contend, my lord, that the fruit growers have shown the ruinous losses they must sustain by the unjust reduction of the fruit duty. This step also militates against the revenue of the country, and will drive hundreds of poor families into workhouses. The only end attainable by this sweeping measure is the encouragement of the foreigner to sell his fruit in this country and load home with our hard specie.

Mr. Byng—By the present course the government are inflicting a most serious injury on thousands of the industrious poor who have been encouraged by the landowners and occupiers to cultivate their gardens by planting fruit treesby the sale of the produce of which they are frequently enabled to pay their rent.

Lord Melbourne.—By the memorials and documents you have placed in our hands, you show that you have sustainedconsiderable losses for several years previous to the reduction of the duty. You have merely anti- cipated the extent your losses may amount to by the proposed alteration , but you have not to our satisfactionM p shown such losses will certainly occur.

Mr. Francis.—l beg leave, my lord, to refer you to the documents I had the honour to send you, and by which you will see the serious losses that have been sustained by several of the largest fruit growers in East Kent.Some of those losses nave arisen from blight and the attack of caterpillar, but if your lordship will take the trouble to look at the statement of my losses, which have not arisen from either of the above causes, but from the great difficulty and very great length of time required to raise a valuable plantation, your lordsnip will see that from 1824 to 1830, the first six years after planting, I have made no calculation on the expenses and loss; but from 1830 to 1837, seven years, you will see that my average loss per annum has been £119. 16s. Id.; and on my growth of 1838, I shall sustain through the reduction of the duty, a loss of nearly £200. Mr. Lewis of Farleigh, stated to the President of the Board of Trade, at the last interview, that he should sustain a loss on his last year's growth of fruit of upwards of £ 150 from t h e same cause. Your lordship may also see by my letter to the Board of Trade dated March 3, 1839 that the average price of culinary apples sold inCovent Garden market;, during the years from 1832 to 1837, was 3s. 1 1/2d. per bushel, out of which you will see deducted for gathering, packing, wharfage, carriage, etc. 1s. 6d per bushel which leaves only 1s. 7 1/2d. per bushel for paying rent, taxes, tithe, labour, and to cover losses, &c. Thousands of growers in this kingdom are in a similar situation to myself; and my average annual loss having been £119. 10s., with a protecting duty, your lordship must plainly see that it would be much more with only a nominal duty. The plantations in this kingdom have so greatly increased within the last fourteen years, that we can and have for several years past, excepting the present, supplied the market with a good commodity at very reasonable prices. There is a protecting duty, my lord, on corn and hops, but upon fruit, which is more precarious than either, you have taken the protecting duty off.

Lord Melbourne.—The protecting duty on corn is not sanctioned by the present representatives of the country.

Duke of Richmond.—That I must take leave to deny. The duty has been and is sanctioned at this time by the representatives of the country.

Mr. Francis. —I made a bold assertion to the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, at the last interview I had the honour of attending, when tbe right hon. gentleman stated,'That subsequently to our former interview, he had received a memorial from the London fruit salesmen, praying for the continuance ol the present fruit duty;" upon which I expressed my surprise, and stated that " I was very certain that ninetenths of the London fruit salesmen would gladly sign a memorial for a fair protecting duty." I now beg the favour of the right hon. gentleman to furnish me with the number of signatures attached to the salesmen's first memorial, and also their names, when it will be proved whether my statement was correct or not.

The President of the Board of Trade.—l will furnish you with the number of signatures to the first fruit salesmen's memorial, but I will not promise to furnish you with the names.

Lord Melbourne.—We will take all that has been said into consideration, and will send you an early answer.

The deputation were then bowed from the presence of the ministers, and the fruit growers are anxiously awaiting the result.