monopoly, that the continuance of an oppressive tax could be made palatable to the people-it was not by an issue of exchequer bills to certain corporations or associations that the situation of the country could be ameliorated. No; such means would never reach the object-it could only be accomplished by abridging the public expenditure, by cutting down the establishments of the country to their proper station, by probing the whole system of the national expense to the bottom, and making it demonstratively plain to the people at large that parliament had not countenanced the issue of one penny beyond what was called for by the actual exigencies of the state. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that since he had been at the treasury board no memorial had been received for a repeal of this tax; and though petitions had been presented praying for an inquiry into these duties, there had not been any for its total repeal. Mr. Robinson explained, that he never meant to discourage the use of salt as manure; all he meant to infer was, that the present price could not prevent its use; as, if it really were an object, it was still cheaper than any other article that could be used for the purpose. Mr. Rose was of opinion, that a substitute should be named before they could enter upon so serious a consideration as the abolition of a revenue of 1,500,000l. a year. It was no valid objection to the salt tax to say, that it particularly fell on the poorer classes-so did every generally productive tax. What information could they get in a committee that they had not already? It was impossible, after the repeated discussions of this subject, that they could hope to elicit fresh matter in a committee. The evil of this sort of inquiries was, that during their operation the revenue became seriously injured, from the doubts that over-hung the speculations of those whose interests were to be in the end affected by the consideration. So it was in this very case. The defalcation in the last quarter's return of revenue was 80,000l., and the manufacturers did not conceal the cause of it; they did not hesitate to say, that they could not work freely, until the subject was brought to a final issue one way or another. Here was the case of a tax subsisting in its present state for a great number of years, and now it was proposed to shake it off, without any suggestion for supplying the great deficit that would be thus occasioned in the revenue of the country. Mr. Pitt's sentiments relative to these laws had been incorrectly stated. That great statesman was never so sanguine an advocate for their repeal, as he had been represented to be. He (Mr. Rose) also denied the benefit that it was imagined would arise to the agricultural classes by this repeal. In Ireland the duty on salt was by no means what it was here, and was it ever used in that country for agricultural purposes:[" Often," from sir John Newport.]-Well, he had never before heard so. There was no duty on it in the Isle of Man, and the farmers there never used it; nor when the tax was repealed in England, was it ever used for agricultural purposes. The fisheries were also generally indifferent about it-he knew the Deep Sea company (the only national one) was. As to the operation of the tax upon the poor generally, it was greatly exaggerated. He could not conceive how the hon. gentleman could be persuaded, that a poor man's consumption of salt amounted to a 20th part of his income. It had been calculated, that the consumption for a man, his wife, and three children, amounted to no more than 28 or 29lbs. in a year. On the whole, he was convinced, that no possible advantage could be derived from the committee. Sir T. Acland said, the tax on salt pressed on the lowest cottager. The high price of salt prevented the poor from resorting to one of the best means of hus banding their food. It was to be recollected too, that an addition of 15 or 20 shillings on the pig which he killed at the end of the year, was a most serious tax on a labourer. The vexatiousness of the tax was not less than its oppressiveness; for even in the bill which was to be brought in to relieve certain persons from its operation, many of the clauses were obnoxious to the very persons whom they were intended to relieve, on account of their re strictions and prohibitions. Wishing for the abolition of the tax, he was anxious to go into the committee, not with a view of putting an end to the salt duties in the present year, but in order to lay a foundation for doing it away at some future period. If the proposed inquiry were gone into, he had no doubt a fit substitute for the tax in question might be found, and he was therefore decidedly in favour of the motion, as he wished such steps to be taken as should indicate a desire to put an end to it at the first moment this should be found practicable. Mr. Calcraft, in reply, animadverted strongly upon the conduct of the board of trade, with regard to the measure under consideration. For it appeared, that the application of half a dozen interested persons to that board, had more weight with his majesty's ministers, and especially with the right hon. gentleman who presided at that board, than the general voice of the country, or the report of a committee of that House. But if the private application of interested individuals was thus to be preferred to the public interest, nay, to the consistency of ministers themselves, where were the people to look for redress, or for the candid consideration of their case? He trusted, however, that that House would not sanction such a principle, or produce the impression to which it was but too likely to lead; and, therefore, he called upon the House to accede to the committee, which he had felt it his duty to move. It was to be recollected, that he did not propose the repeal of the tax under discussion; that, on the contrary, he admitted the question to be doubtful, and therefore he suggested the propriety of referring it to the consideration of a select committee. But the right hon. the treasurer of the navy had distinctly stated, that it was desirable to repeal the tax altogether, if a convenient substitute for it could be devised. Yet, strange to tell, notwithstanding this declaration, the right hon. gentleman's course of argument was quite in favour of the tax, and he had declared his intention to vote against a motion, which merely proposed to consider the propriety of repealing this tax! As to the argument of the chancellor of the exchequer upon the re-enactment of the salt tax in 1732, notwithstanding its repeal about three years before, the right hon. gentleman should consider the material difference of information between that period and the present, as well with respect to chymical as to other points. The right hon. gentleman, stated that the revenue would suffer greatly if this tax was abandoned; and intimated that those who proposed its repeal were bound to find a substitute. He, however, | did not conceive that to be any part of his duty as a member of parliament. He had pointed out a tax which was oppressive to the people, and injurious to the country; and on these grounds he thought it ought to be repealed, even though the chancellor of the exchequer, with all his ingenuity in the art of taxation, should be unable to find a substitute. All he asked of the House was, that it should act with consistency, and inquire whether the tax might not with safety be repealed, and another substituted. The previous question being put, the House divided : Ayes.. Noes....... 70 79 -9 Majority against the motion......... Atkins, alderman Mackintosh, sir J. Martin, H. Martin, J. Milton, visc. Monck, sir C. Morland, S. B. Newport, sir J. Portman, E. B. Protheroe, E. Ridley, sir M. W. Romilly, sir S. Savile, A. Smyth, W. Sharp, Richard Stanley, lord Tremayne, J. H. Tierney, rt. hon. G. Waldegrave, hon. W. Wilkins, Walter Wynn, C. W. Wilberforce, W. TELLERS. Calcraft, J. Davenport, D. PAIRED OFF. Hobhouse, sir B. INDEX TO VOL. XXXV. INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. Abolition of Sinecures, Useless Places, &c. 945.|| 174. Army and Navy Seduction Bills, 901. Nepaul War, 232. Prince Regent's Speech on Opening the Ses- Prince Regent; Attack on the, 4, 57. Buonaparté, Personal Treatment of, at St. Prince Regent's Message respecting certain Helena; 1137, Cleary, Mr.; his Petition, 474, 531. Exmouth, Lord; Vote of Thanks to, 174 215. Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill, 491, 551, 825. 233. Hunt, Mr.; his Petition, 169, 546. Dangerous Meetings and Combinations, Reform; Petitions relating to, 325, 420. Seditious Meetings Bill, 1202, 1210, 1222, 1227. Sidmouth, Lord; his Circular Letter, 1307, 1308. Ireland; Scarcity of Provisions in, 836, 905, Sinecures and Useless Places, 529, 945. Malt and Pensions. Duties Bill, 775, Treasonable Practices Bill, 901. Malt and Pensions Duties Bill, 409. Mutiny Bill, 1078, 1136. Navy Estimates, 408, 1080. Demise of the Crown; Renewal of Commis- Nepaul War, 238. Newgate; Persons under Sentence of Death New South Wales; Conduct of the Governor Ordnance Estimates, 1133. Petitions relating to Reform, 78, 143, 176, 202, 211, 220, 233, 245, 310, 311, 331, 347, Prince Regent's Speech on Opening the Ses- | Scotch Mad-houses Bill, 1192. Prince Regent; Attack on the, S2. Public Income and Expenditure; Committee Public Houses; Licensing of, 495. Saint Domingo; Petitions relating to cruel- Salt Duties; 1316. Saving Banks Bill, 222, S48. Secretaries of the Admiralty; War Salaries Seditious Meetings Bill, 590, 837, 850, 931, Speaker, Mr.; Indisposition of, 1306, 1308. Trade and Manufactures of the Country; Votes of the House, 1273, 1275. Window Duties, 492, 1194. Wine; Petition from the Importers of, 639. INDEX OF NAMES.-HOUSE OF LORDS. Aberdeen, Earl of, 62, 565, 1263. Athol, Duke of, 478, 485, 1252. Auckland, Lord, 1253. Bathurst, Earl, 65, 832, 1146, 1205, Darnley, Earl of, 77, 487, 529, 530, 827, 856, Eldon, Lord, see Lord Chancellor. Erskine, Lord, 485, 544, 1213, 1217, 1224, Grenville, Lord, 533, 583, 1204, 1206, 1211, Grey, Earl, 42, 198, 424, 478, 482, 488, 530, Harrowby, Earl of, 58, 419, 483, 531. 1214, 1217, 1223, 1224, 1267. Lauderdale, Earl of, 227, 229, 232, 428, 485, Liverpool, Earl of 196, 226, 228, 230, 232, Lord Chancellor, (Eldon), 173, 215, 329, 478, Melville, Viscount, 174, 1223, Rosslyn, Earl of, 829, 1212, 1225, 1269. Sidmouth, Viscount, 75, 192, 491, 551, 1202, 1267. St. John, Lord, 63, 956, 1211, 1212, 1225, Sussex, Duke of, 582, 1266. INDEX OF NAMES.-HOUSE OF COMMONS. Abbot, Right Hon. Charles, see Speaker. Addington, John Hiley, 184, 186, 209, 781. Atkins, Alderman John, 246, 1071. Attorney General (Sir William Garrow), 83, Baring, Alexander, 840, 857, 882, 891, 929, | Colthurst, Sir N., 920. Brougham, Henry, 83, 112, 150, 155, 162, Brydges, Sir Egerton, 759, 1003, 997. Burrell, Sir Charles, 877, 910, 914, 916. Calcraft, John, 190, 191, 307, 349, 392, 783, Calvert, N. 245, 247, 250, 892. Canning, Right Hon. George, 85, 93, 120, 153, Casberd, R. M., 354. Castlereagh, Viscount, 177, 186, 190, 205, 208, 235, 250, 252, 291, 319, 323,325, 332, Chancellor of the Exchequer (Right Hon. Cochrane, Lord, 78, 79, 80, 81, 87, 91, 93, 98, Cocks, Somers, 651. Courtenay, William, 740, 928. Croker, John Wilson, 390, 670, 883, 1082. Elliot, William, 96, 147, 614, 654, 849. Folkestone, Viscount, 183, 186, 210, 312, 652, Fremantle, W. H. 80, 320. Garrow, Sir William, see Attorney General, Geary, Sir William, 90, 969, 970. Goulburn, Henry, 1206. Grant, Charles, jun., 30, 90, 359, 849, 1059. Gurney, Hudson, 648, 931, 1078. Hamilton, Lord Archibald, 176, 187, 578, Harvey, Charles, 792, 944. Heathcote, Sir Gilbert, 153, 647, 707, 781, Heron, Sir Robert, 164, 505. Hippisley, Sir John Cox, 927, 936, 1088. Huskisson, William, 94, 329, 347, 463, 670, 1222. Jones, J., 394. Knatchbull, Sir Edward, 343, 762, 837, 968, 969. Knox, Thomas, 920. Lamb, William, 26, 88, 360, 401, 616, 799, 1312. Lambton, J. G. 248, 876. Lascelles, Lord, 158, 303, 321, 332, 757, 850. Lyttelton, Hon. W. H., 382, 798, 942, 1032, Mackintosh, Sir James, 793, 933, 937, 939, Madocks, William, 698, 788. |