Star. — London, England, 1822-03-01 00:00:00

profaned b) .-mouths, bid He (Mi. Hu such copdeet •ideals in the tad just adopted. panegyrics v on the sotdiers, witnessed the place at Knit -anything that time would • those who witnessed jute must be most unfair the Honoural bad nothing 'fionourable . throat, dirt As to the _ - bad read, whether this he (Mr. Hume) could assure the House, that the worthy Alderman (Waitbman) did, in fact, attend the Queen's funeral, but only as a private man. He did not attend in his corporate capacity--Eflere Mr. iitrraaseoaTu pointed to a letter which he held in his hand ; but the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) coa tinued3—sa I don't care for paper; I state only facts" —(A laud).—He did not care for paper when he could have the evidence of his own senses. He ap pealed to the House, whether, ilabreath of the law. had taken place, and a great Corporation like the City of London came forward to lay their complaints up'n account of it before Parliament, it was not just and expedient th3t inquiry should take place? He 1 could not imagine that his Majesty's Ministers had -really instituted any inquiry. An Hon. Secretary talked about one; but why had he neglected to state to the Douse what was the nature, what was the re sult of it? The House would not consult the great constitutional principle upon which justice was said to be administered to the People—namely, to do jus tice equally to all—if they did not listen to the peti tioners. The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to ,hew that the evidence tended directly to confirm the, original statement of Mr. Waitliman. The appeal which had been made by the Hon. Member for Do. vertu -sensed anything but justice in its principle. It had oo other motive—(Cries of Order, order)—it had no other motive but— Tne SPE.IK i:lt WAS under the necessity of calling the llonnurable Gentleman to order. -He was evi dently about to att r ibute improper motives to another Hon. Member. Mr. HUME said, then he would chise the sentence without supplying the words he meant to hare added--(Order, order). The SPEAKER again called to order. The Hon. Gentle an must see that his own detlaration of closing the sentence without supplyiag the words was a renewal of that very disorder which he (Mr. Speaker) had been before obliged to notice; more especially, as the House was now left to infer that the Hon. Gentleman had intended to impute impro per Motives to the Hon. Member for Dover. Mr. HUME was sorry that he had spoken out of order. He meant only to say, that it did not appear to him, in the common way of judgiag of men's words by their actions, and of their actions by their words, that the Hon. Gentleman had shewn himself a friend to justice—(Near, hear)—or to the institu tions of the country—(Near, dear)—hy the language which he had used in respect to the Petition which bad been presented from the City of London. H. I • should extremely regret that the House should refs.* the proposition of his Uon. Friend—( ear). Mr. Alderman WOOD in reply, expressed his as. tonishment that the Hon. Baronet (Sir W. Curds) should have spoken so lightly of evidence of which be bad only looked at one part. The Hon. Baronet should hardly have expressed himself so severely with regard to a Corporation from which he had for go many years derived a part of his support. He Was ' astonished, too, that his Majesty's Ministers *Mai indulge in the same tone with regard to the Corpora tion. Had they not dined with them lately? • they not attend at ens Corporation dinner given so forei n Monarchs, at the expense of 1:25,000.; and at another given in honour of a noble and gallant Gen*• ral, their friend ?_(Hear, hear, and laughter). He complained that the letter read by the Hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Butterworth) had unfairly introduced into the pre ent debate a confidential and private communi:ation, and contended that Mr. Sheriff Waithman had attended the funeral of the Queen as a private individual, and without his chain of office. The gallery was then cleared for a division. The numbers were the following-- For the modes - - Against k Majority SALT TAX. - 56 - 1.4 . m... 405 Mr. CALCR AFT said, that after the discussion which bad so long occupied the House, and excited their feelings so strongly, it was his duty , to bring before the Heine a question of dull detail, but of great importance—the Repeal of the Duties on Salt. —He had long considered the question, and had it much at heart ; and, if it took the turn which be hoped, it would be most beneficial to a very large class of the community—(Hour}--h might be in the recollection of the House, that, in 1817, whet he had moved the question for the first time, be went sb far as to press on the consideration of the House, the propriety of appointing a Committee to consider the effect of the Salt Tax. That motion he bad lost by a small majority ; themajority was, in fact, onlyee "—a rare circumstance as to any motion coming frond the place where he stood--(Has}—ln the year 1818 he renewed his motion, and a Committee was granted without coming to a queition at all, and that Com inittte (not selected by him, but fairly chosen with a najtnity, as usual, in favour of Ministers, by whom the appointment was made) came to Resolutions, one of which. with the permission of the House, he would now read— .' Resolved—That it is the opinion of this C r esomittee, that the repeal of the Salt Duties would be ',Wattles of the great. est and most important advantages to an *scripting* of persons is this Klugdona ; and that the preasststMe Of the omen and expenditure of the United /Kingdom oleos prevents yea Com mute *tom instracting their Chairman to move for leave to bring is a 801 l fur such a total rep,s,l"—(llear). —Un the Ist oi June. lelB, this and other new• lotions were iepurted to the House. It became hint now to account for the course he had thought advisable to intuit to abstaining from 1818 to 1820 wish4-411eur, . . and Of drill's*. It .. imposed in it ereign P o r ;T;i g l s liam aid Mary, and was then only three-halfpence per.gallon, and was, ark dse cases of most taxes, temporary. It was after wards doubled, and in the reign of George IL it was made perpetual, and increased to.Bd. per gallon, or se. per bushel. In the 28tb of the last King the duty was increased to IN. per bushel, and in the 46th of the late King it was increased to its present amount. This was a tat on a raw material, the produce of our own country, which was mixed up with all the neees series of life, and which weighed on the poor in that oppressive way that it was a poll-tax operating in the most burdensome and unjust manner—(Hear).-- Any one who knew the habits of the labourer, mutt I know that a day-labourer consumed as much of die raw material as he (Mr. Calcraft), or a man Of ten times his means—(Hear, hear).—How could this tax on a raw material be defended, when a mechanic, I labourer, labourer, or artisan , was taxed in this unjust xi' arbitrary manner ?—(Rear, hear)—Of the butdeni which it entailed on the labourers there were various opinions; but no one could say that a labourer paid by it less than from twenty to twenty-five shillings a year. When they looked to the state of the agncul tural labourer, what an enormous proportion of his income was thus drawn out of his pocket !-(Heats). This raw material, useful as it was in itself, was, by the means of the tax, rather a curse.than a benefit to the country, when it was produced in the greatest plenty. That, in the neighbourhood where the raw material was produced, the tax was the fertile cause of breaches of the law, was proved by the evidende taken before the Committee. The evidence of Mr. Justice Burton, who was twenty-eight years Justice of Chester, and Sir J. Stanley, the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, stated, that in Cheshire the Salt Tax was one of the great sources of crime and immorality . [ —(Hear, hear).—When it was considered that, for 1001, worth of the raw material the dealer had to ad vance 30001• of tax, thirty times the original cost— (Hear, hear)—when they added to that the accumu lated profit of each person through whose hands it passed, it was not too much to say, that when it reached the consumer it was with thirty-six or thirty seven times the cost of the raw material—(Hear).— But, it would be laid this burden would, fall, not upon the labourer, but upon the employer, it would go to increase the wages of labour. True, it did so; but, in a country like this, was there anything more desirable than to keep down the wages of labour ? (Hear, hear.)—What would be the situation of die manufacturers, if wages were not now ke2t dowi? But they were now unfortunately kept down at the expense of the farmer. For this was the situation of the farmer, that, by the great competition with him, he was unable to throw the cost of production on the consumer. The manufacturer was therefore now flourishing by eating the substance of the farmer.— This was the cause of the distress of agriculture, and the flourishing state of manufactures—(Hear, hear). This tax affected, however, not only the poor man, but all the branches of industry. It affected the fisheries ; it affected apiculture also, to a consider able extent • and though as much allowance had been made to these branches as, under the system of taia tion, was practicable, yet so long as the article re mained under the Excise, no branch of industry could be entirely relieved from the inconvenience and pressure of the tax. It was the nature of to heavy a tax to convert the trade in the article into a mono poly. He knew houses that advanced from 100,0041., to 200,0001. duty in a year. He did not chose, there fore, to move the simple repeal, as he would not thus violently interfere wish any interests. When he had :hewn that this tax, on an article so necessary, was, 35 or 36 times the original price, he should say his case was made out. Certainly, in the first instance,. it would cause a reduction of 500,0001. in the Re venue. But they had now an estimated surplus of 5,200,0001. Certain as he was of the possibility of further reduction of expenditure. and sanguine as to the increase of Revenue, he should have no hesitation, in proposing the reluCtion of this tax. •But takimi t ; to be at the worst, what was their situation? would have reduced the Sinking Fund, which they' had voted to be five millions, to 4,700,0001. with the pledge that all increase of the Revenue, should * applied to make up this very trifling deficiency.-+-:• i Now would any financier say that this would ma* any difference in publit credit ? He had brought for , ' ' ward the goestion after a short notice, because he' knew that, while a motion of this kind was in agita uoo, the less to individuals, and the defalcation in the Revenue would be considerable—Weer, /rem Ali Otamellor Pile Sachereer). He had no doubt, how ever, that if he had chosen to delay it. hundreds of Petitions against this oppressive tax would pour in. He had received a letter from the Drysalters of Bir mingham on the subject, and it wai worthy of remark, , that we were by the tax deprived of a mo s t beneficial branch of trade—the salting of provisions, which water , transferred to countries where eithet the duties on sale were low, or where smuggled salt could be used— (Hear, ear, hoar). The Chancellor of the Excite quer had formerly stated that the advantages of a repeal had been over-rated, as the tax had been abo lished in 1/20, and imposed aga in in 1782 . But it appeared from MeMoirs of Sir Robert Walpole, that the cause of the re-enaction was, that Sir It. Walpole thought the Excise could be more easily endured on ' an old than on a new article of taxation. H. revel ' lected that in a pamphlet of Mr. Burke's, that cilia nent writer bad particularly dwelt upon the differepsal . hams* Ertiosid sad Prim* with rogue so the &It drought ebiigedtowithstand, for tit e , reeent iirlenst, any fat. ea attempt at the reduction sties. The Sinking Paid was *waft to ansefunt to-eve Minton,. The tax on Malt, propound to.be repeated, *mild exceekr £1,200,000, for Ermined, and about £200,000 fdig Ireland—total, £1,400,000. for a year's produce of the Malt Tax; he spoke in Visaed numbers—(Heary —To meet this repeal, it axis intended to eppV 1,100,0001. from the reductioOof the 6 per C.ents. in' tni,cland, with about 90,0001. &sin :the same Wile- . tion in Ireland,. nd about 250A001. from the surplus of the Sinking Fund above five millions. Now, with such - an arrange m ent, he wild appeal to .thelloti. Mover, whether, if the peace of the' flak Tax, to which hii motion referred, eboild at once be reduced,' it would be possible to maiatain the proposed Sink ing Fund ; or whether, after the recorded Resolution or the House, in which the Hon. Mover himself con. curred, it would not be advisable to postpone the consideration of the reduction,, of the tax alluded io, to tome future opportunity ? (Hear, hear, pa the Mi nisterial Beichei). the.repeal of that tax were to be , preferred, he had no hesitation in saying, that its repeal should take place at once, rather ilan in the gradual manner recommended by the Hcin. Mover. An Honourable Member had calculated that the tax under discussion operated as a poll-tax upon every individual in the country of about twenty shillings a-head, assuming that this tax affected the poor as Much as the rich. Now admitting that such was the 'feet, and that the tax alluded to operated upon the poor as much as upon the rich, which he most tinctly denied, still be would object to the Honour able.Mover's opinion; for if that opinion were cor rect, this tax, instead of producing only 1,500,0001. as it was estimated, should actually amount to four rthen or fifteen millions, according to the last census taken of the population of Great Britain--(Hear).— The Right Bon. Gentleman, after recapitulating his several objections to the motion, and pressing the propriety of postponing the present motion until a future opportunity, especially from a regard to the 'establishment of the Sinking Fund, which the House bad already' oted, concluded with moving the pre vious question. Lord NORMANBt stated, that Sir R. Walpole had proposed the renewal of the tax as a relief to the 'landed interests. On that occasion ' in a House of more than 400 Members, the Bill had been carried by a majority of SO only. • • Mr. LEYCESTER spoke in favour of the motion. Sir I. COFFIN stated that the poor man in Hamp shire and Cheshire who, forty yeary ago, salted two. lugs, could not now-afford to salt one. Dr. PHILLISIORt said that the tax pressed heavily on many articles of trade; but, as he had sortie nights back voted for a Sinking Fund of five millions, he could not now concur in a vote that took away ode quarter of that sum. But the abolition of the 5 per Cents. would next year leave a disposable revenue that might most properly be applied to the immediate and not the gradual abolition of the tax. Mr. CURWEN said, this tax formed a tax of one twenty-fourth of the labourer's wages, and only one 10,000th of an income of 10001. a year. He asked whether it was not in the power of Ministers to re peal this tar, without breaking in upon the surplus of See millions ? Was it not in their power by 'retrench ment ? If Country Gentlemen would do justice to . the country and to themselves, and support his Hon. Friend, they would find that Ministers' would not ' break in upon the Sinking Fund, but would be com pelled to retrench. Could any man doubt that there was yet sufficient room for retrench:neat ? As tOthe idea Of ekeessite produce in agriculture, and the pro posal of throwing land out of cultivation, he was quite astonished at such novelties. In 1814, the 'views en tertained on this subject had been very different.-- r For 25 years previously, the produce of this country, had been sufficient for the consumption of only two years, and fifty; Millions had been paid for corn frOns foreign countries. It had been then argued that this country, which could not be conquered by thi of an enemy, • might be vanquished by famine. — Had it, then, been anticipated that the manufacturer ihould come to have only ei ght . shillings a-week in layed of thitty- five? ? Hadin layed, tt, then, been expected that the consumption must fall in proportion to the fall of wages? He would boldly ask now whether the country could , go oo so? As to high prices, he thought they would be the ruin of agriculture; for foreign grain would then be imported, and the agri -eakurists would become worse. . There was only one eemedy, and that was a reduction of taxation. The' reduction on malt was not a drop in the ocean. Would it amount to one farthing on the pot? There would be no greater consumption in consequence of it. Last raj, blinisters hid said they would not hold their ,plates if the Horse Tax were reduced. It would, 'OM'. be no vatißatlon in them to reduce This tax— Awkr).—lt was a tax that pressed with peculiar, yiyarity ore agriculture. He differed from his lion. Friend, the Moyer, in one point : he did not feel for the montipolisti, who could now afford to lose some, 'of their enormous gains. The repeal of this tax would' `double the consumption, and cause double the quan tity to be worked from the mines. The fisheries, too, ' would be improved to an enormous extent. HoUand had made 1%000,0001. by her fisheries, out advantages, had never made 1,0000001. Mr. J. SMITH concurred in the opinion that it. *Aid be better to replace the ditty on Malt, and 4 that on Salt. He, however, doubted whether' il ih 7ten e tion of, kers to a great *Mount was the hest Any violation of faith with the pub-, uP Uzi Malt She ~e had net yet been brought in; and there was still time Sufficient to make any alteration the might think fit Vs tisake.. lie denied ilitit the lepeal of thi Malt TeX woultefiroduce any good affect, whilst, the repeal •Of the Salt Tait would be felt if a relief by everybedividual in the ccitintry: 7 Sir P. OMMANEY objected to the motion which Would hate no effect, be contended, in relieving the 'People. 'Re thiseght it was probable some reirench;. isseist"'Snight be 'inside triniorrcier, when they came into a Cenimittee 'of Supply. If they eciuld only knock Of a single Lord of the Admiralty, it Would be 0000 a year saved to the People. Sir . J. SEBRIGHT supported the motioff. He was ' convinced, unless tome effectual relief was given to the ariculterist, the land could not only not pay the rent imposed on it, but it could not even be kept in cultivation ; and unless the Country Gentlemen wished to see the land of their ancestors pass from their hand 4 he called on them now to come forward, end force Mif nisters to repeal this tax, and afterwardtiamsider hove • they could, by retrenchment, make up the deficiency. Mr. LITTLETON was fully aware of the relief which the Sepal of ibis tax would afford to every in dividual in the country, still he could not agree to the motion. Mr. BRIGHT was as anxious as any one could be to keep up the public credit of the country; but he thought it might be done with a Sinking Fund of less than five millions. The sum wanted on his Friend's plan for the repeal of this tax was only 900,0001.; and this sum, he contended, might be saved out of the enormous Estimates now before the House; either in salaries for useless places, or out of sinecures at home or abroad. Mr. Alderman •HEYGATE opposed the motion. He did not believe a reduction of taxation would re lieve ,the distress of the farmer, whose wants were occasioned by excessive production. He •contended that reduction of taxation had been carried as far as it could be carried with prudence at present ; but he only opposed reduction now, that he might support it with more effect hereafter. Mr. GIPPS said he was not now actuated by any . desire of popularity, but he conceived that the tax ought to be repealed, and that the deficiency might be easily supplied by reductions in the expenditure. BURRELL had intended to take the oppor tunity of delivering his sentiments.fully on the pie. sent motion, but had been diverted'by the course pur sues&by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He should support the motion, as he.was convinced that salt tiughtbe beneficially used in tillage, and that a fur ther reduction might be made in the Malt Duty. Mr. BENETT (of Wiltshire) remarked, that they were all agreed as to the oppressive and ruinous na ture of the tee in question, and it was surely obvious • that a sum of 4.:250,000 might be saved out of our immenseexpenditure An Hon. Alderman (Heygate) recommended ; but delay had been already acted on of late years, until agriculture was in a state of hopelessness and ruin. He would beg to remind them of the homely proverb, that 4 , whilst the grass grows, the steed starves." He trusted that she Coun. try Gentlemen, who had been so feelingly exhorted to arouse themselves on this occasion, ould not fail to satisfy the expectations of their constituents (Hear). The Marquis of LONDONDERRY would be most happy if the time was arrived at which it was poisi bleto repeal this tax; but the case was not so. The Member for Nottingham (Mr.J.smith) had adverted to the popularity which Ministers would gain by the repeal of this tax. He was as much alive as any man could be to , popularity, and its charms and comforts; but he trusted he should never purchase such plea sure and comfort by a departltre horn what he con eidered die more important duty of protecting die ptiblianterests. On a former night the House had ngreed to the proposition for making the Sinking Fend f. 5,000,000;. but now came Gentlemen in :ac cession; otter clainsing a repeal of the Malt Tax, ano ther etnie and claimed the .Salt Tax, another the Leather Tar, ancinaother the tax on Candles and Soap. If titx after tax was thus to be takea away, there would be no barrier against other reductions. There was a powerful party in the House, whose avowed object was to destroy the Sinking Fund ; though, by that means, the credit of the country would be laid 'prostrate—(4l laugh). Let not Hon. Gentlemen' suffer themselves to tie entangled, or bv. come in succession allies of the common enemy. If Hon. Members were not on their guard, the enemy would obtain a triumph, even whilst the House was decidedly against thew--(Hear, hear, and laughter). The repealers of one night would boast that their scheme was drawn up with a view to the conservation of the Sinking Fund, and afterwards would come the Hon. Member for Nottingham, and press fur the re peal of the Leather Tax, and for another slice, no less indeed than 600,000i:from the Sinking Fund.— Now, from the state of the money market, the saving 'effected by the reduction in the Five per cents. would not exceed 1,200,0001. and the whole of this, together ;iiiith the extra 1180,0001. the Sinking Fun.l, wntild Ale counterbalanced by the diminution of the Malt Duty. He hoped the House would beware, then, of the trap which was here set for it; he hoped it would be seen that Gentlemen opposite had no Fund in their view—that indeed they talked of no Fund, but tl e• inexhaustible one of retrenchment—(Hear, deer). — Was the Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Sebi ight) ia'bls place wh en hi s hiAje l ty's Ministers bad opened their-nlaus retteochosent-e.plans which had, be wouiti s hi l i f ir Is say, surpassed the expectations of the Howie?. .h. (A laugh).-.' hey had indisputably gone !mood ." r.. yes • ' • • . .:.' * ' • '••••• , I °,- . ' 1 .4e4;,,';:l '4, .• . .; . , • • ' • • • • ••,- ' • : - , 4':• .r• rt . ...- m... :., ' ~. ....T.i.e.,0.A- -.t ••. . • . . • ' . • .-, • ~ -c - .4, _ 44 e :t.1. , P.. •.- ..- i. " .-- , . • • • - • ' - • . . , . • ' - , . . • , ...- • . . . .1 1 . - kiti 44 ,, . ,!, r , . ~.., .., . . ...... . ..,,~, ~ f, i! 1. :' ,?. ',:! . ..:: ,,: i .A. 701 . 4;:: , t•-• •.... 7:-- ,. . , : . :-71% .:, 4j . , . i C • ..' ',l sy tali, " titre with that word i s thahr tot move ' _ Atlyintial or.thise , -.IN& - ~'4 % • - led simrthingtet religion let their heafts...i... that atta40111101410; eapPlesed *atom: la d e ' -- et . : -'. . 1 , • .;1 -. 4 ._ . . 0,.: - ...11 ...-. .4 1 1. .. 47 •.', • - i ... .... riffle) rose toe tpress his abboriense of *hod hitolt pill*l . opho.iii i t i t ie to do fol• •Pbeettbl . •• of lloal . ilsOl•tis . . oldie i*i . ....' .416( e i ' 1 .4 'A i • •• es. ja.,4o7,o44llivisauu as attacking Judi- in 1019 , by 'his': thuds whir cm the dota l I se • • . . xn . e a u tin . ' :hedisaii '. '. ' asileidesoq So .- . *) • ~..i* • 7 : 7 ''- ' . - r ,t 4 e r... ! .., in ,p ci ....'' the *Manner arisich the Hefts Otlideiffati:C.fnnlittato end tiOltie Stockinet'. Vffiblid ittplu ft El -. itsild -' ' lw,v • . L . ,,, 44 coplar7 .wi . th %i t ch W.O • &beetl e iltii ~ 'Or opte d.4m attri l eer )._wi t hle ss uid.to the l helm* toluti, *eight, bat ' he Icattsitil m sZ i th a t 2 so ..•..4' - • • I t .' '. " Tho . Prill ..... .. .••f. .. . / ..• 90etnillt ll* , n 1ic,5,01 in; diet • whiih the 'lton..Gentleman had !welshed' dike ahrdueease loul mipospdsedse of eh, m en ... 1i5,i , ,k.... . moviairtor, liiiiiiit yii IttlAti. tiWtfali railOibi' ta , sun tb ' een: • ler% it was the opinion of those Who had. could- talltragt. Ma. 4 inoliw,fe,O ihr. opal of Aho 'a la lived oreaellait s j e t • .41tithatatfota,.pr this eountrre Zeit' to he tranuctitaus of the day, that what took duties. nal same Fuson bad imulw, .. .hi n y la No mr„,DA socatt a . 44 , . . dill sip :: .., . 7.srinic, . ices of givi lad ibis iightsbridge was not to he connected with and 1821, lied it *as not 'an the pitiselit. year that lie tax hid blithitifediKettby mitt ctoir4isinded stater ittr . . • then • eirehris of pw liar stpi... 'Thee had thooghtit'adiblitite scrota told** titirlditta, that man, nitl f httSt dot tb . ha tblkruted In a commere ' niiiiti.,OthOrwise,lie would tell.theio to middle* tame tat bed occurred at Hammersmith. very shordreome, when the _opinions of' be mad - elimesat row et the : llomi the teduction cooloat; :Troia 'a_ long residence in the amity . there bin n 0 11000n.thiy .Cofikl luntosi r ess t h e ... • %Amused the occurrences at Cumberland -J Of ibis impeet. m e th e w votte l e d e wi t h a l umina Chester, - he.-wita *talk diNts ipernielous effects bit which WOW& he. received with nicht:4lyd Mastic: be niadve-mattei of discussion. But it was 'for tims graduartedactios• of she Outlives Salt ;he public morals--( • t ero z ), s • : : treP• as Al' 4 0111 4 i i4z *said • , rto mil up two transactions in the way beggled the House to remark -- the gradual redueciOn The CEIANC . Air the EXOII4EQUER si , .Mr. WAN VET "tipphied 'the itiociOti: . end of them —(inn, hear).—The day -wet •• Ids., per hostel,' and sere ! ? approyad• -' 'hiett e ee b y 4,1,1 a, s h e me , .. Genetgt; StOlGlilit urged . the repaid of ihe till. rabic Gentleman had done ; after what the He had Ward no arglioteut monist this itteakire en 3. gto (1.) with the other,' and it WAS, bathe .he Oroposid.to take 0t..55. per bushel each vest till it and 'sittlititalay , yam Id e t t a t t e d ; .•he k le Gentleman's part, only an attempt to wit extinguished. H e tr a t - ei that this pe ei e s se l s e as 'House bad 'heady dew awards 'tlas tederetinn of 'citptidnit the fletehue 'could not afroid tii give up tbsi , ... into the eyes of the 'Hoose—(firor hear). sit xn,d aygradual as anfinie, `:die totted with taitation.uilffeer;dartr, mu tat Itakitliwthetilipasitior 'Silt Tax and the Malt tax too. But had the Malt , .-1 letter which the Honourable Gentleman Man that the inaledthtetiosynt *east:fon waiitlesir Beach's) * wad 15 it 'bays"' di. Osteblidiment of a Tax been 'determined nnl—Certainly. not: Had due _ whether it was or was not a true letter, of able, could swish:a-Wean Asis r i,te nr ) , iHn.should flow Oinking Food, he thou • the ilia* 'oust feel llill passed?—Certainly not; so far from it, the Bill y ~ 5x.....1 .....41A ...tn.. the House. that the state the firkin and prestress . of the Tea. It was Ent ohOrdtowithstand, for itt , Is :env fat.. hatfnet vet been bronolit in I and there tel. still Wnsi _i• tam