Star. — London, England, 1821-04-04 00:00:00

for which this measure was intended as a benefit (JJear. hear).-11 we were in a situation to get rid of any of the present Taxes, still this was not the Tax which he could recommend to have repealed:— Re was not afraid of the British Parliament doing anything to break .down the public credit of the coun try, which had raised us so high among the nations ; but he warned the House not to admit such a measure indirectly, and by so: doing, to reduce t he public creditor to depend upon the precarious loans which might be effected by a Bankrupt Ex chequer --(Hear, hear).—The repeal of this Tax would not carry the smallest quantum of relief to any one farmer in the country, which he, or the whole farming interest would be able to discover. This 'ax was not laid on incidentally, but as a branch of 'a large system, solemnly recognized by the British Parliament, as a means of preserving entire the whole ( public credit of the country. This fact he (Lord oCastlereagh) wished to press particularly on the at ;lotion of the House. In no degree had the con stimption of Barley been decreased by this Tax ; on the contrary, it had increased in a very considerable 'ratio; and he could assure the House that the price of beer had been twice reduced since this Tax was laid on ; and so far it had not been burdensome' on the consumer. The amount of the Tax, he believed, *is three. fhrthings on a gallon of beer; and if that was taken off, how could the consumer of beer feel any re lief ashen he drank it by the pint or quart. H e , f ur one, was at a loss to discover how such a person could be benefitted by it; and, indeed, it was his opinion, that if the Tax were taken off to-morrow, the only effect of it would be to di ininish the Revenue by a million and a half of money, without giving the slightest relief to the consumer of the article—(f/car). The increase in the consumption of beer exceeded 1;200,000 bat rels a-year since this Tax was impose l ; so that they were now looking at the surface of the question, rather than going into its proper and mi nute details. He could better understand the Hon. Member if he had moved for a repeal of then u sbandr y Horse Tax, which was a direct Tax on the Agricul-1 rural Interest, which he loved so dearly --(A laugh). was'sure that the Landed Interest would not accept a paltry relief at the expense of the finance., and the public credit of the country. Ile thought that, if it were proper to deprive the Revenue of any tax, they should rather propose the repeal of the Window and Salt Tax, which bore more on the Agricultural In terest, and the poorer orders of the people of this country. He should always endeavour to chew the House and the Country how fallacious such schemes and propositions of temporary relief must be. If they were to take.a general view of the state of the coun try, the House would see that the repeal of this tax would not be beneficial to the firmei or the con sumer. If all the taxes in the State were to be re pealed to-morrow, it would give no relief to the farmer, except they could go a little farther, and increase the consumption of his commodities. It was decidedly better to have three millions coming into the Sinking Fund than nothing at all.— Ministers were occupied in considerations of reduction to that point which would not interfere with the puhiic credit, or the wants of the State; but they did, in )819, lay on three millions of taxes to support that public credit. Would they then in two years allow that the country was so bankrupt in iesource, as to be obliged to give up one million and a half, which might influence our means of maintaining peace with Europe and the world ? ( Hear, hear).— Ibis was not a question between the House and the Govern ment, but between the House and the Country, and be was sure they would view it as such. If this mea sure should be carried, it would then he for the Go, rernment to say what it would do for its own honour with the public creditor ; but if it should be carried, it would be a most suicidal measure for the country. No man, he trusted, could feel more for the People than he did, and especially for the Landed Interest ; but the repeal of this tax would be of no advantage to either of them--( Hear, hear). Mr. COKE, of Norfolk, was of opinion that relief could not be long refused, because the landed inte lest would in the end beat down the Noble Lord and , his patronage. He thought many of those who now called for relief for the Agriculturist ought to blame themselves for the distress, which had its origin in the system of Mr. Pitt, in support of which many of those Honourable Gentlemen had voted for the last twenty five years. He was sorry to have lived to see the present state of the country ; and though he voted for the present Bill, he was convinced that nothing less than a change of system would afford anything like relief. The Noble Lord and his adherents said, that a reduction in taxation could not he effected without a breach of faith. Ile wished to ask the Noble Lord when that House kept its faith ?—(llear, hear !) He had been forty years a Member of that House, and he had never kuown it to keep its faith ; and he bad therefore no faith in it !—(/Tear, hear).—ln point of fact, the Noble Lord governed this country single handed, because the People were of one opinion, and the Noble Lord of a not h er . Th e Noble Lord had said, that the repeal of this tax would afford no re lief. He would wish the Noble Lord to look at the prices of horley in 1816 and 1817, when it paid a heavy tax. In those years the price was about 18s. When he (Mr. Coke) moved for a repeal of the War Malt Tax, in winch he succeeded, what was the con sequence? The price of barley rose, and there was no complaint from the grower until the blunderings and shifts—(A laugh)—of the Chancellor of the Ex chequer compelled him to impose the present tax, the immediate result of which was complaints and petitions fiona all quarters. Lord ARCHIBALD HANIILTON rose amidst cries of " Question, question!"—He could assure the Rouse, after the impatience manifested, he should not trole them at any length; but if he allowed this (potion to pass without recording his opinions, be felt that lie should lose the best opportunity of jus tifying himself to his Constituents. The Honourable Members who had preceded him in the debate, in *capon of the tax, had introduced such a variety of 'wantons .matter, that he (Lord Archibald Hamil ton) was at a loss where to begin. The Honourable 14 emher for Bosun . y had assumed, that the present expendituie was necessary, and therefore concluded that the taxes voted for that expenditure could not be repealed ; but he was of opinion, that what had Passed in that House during the present Session was sufficient to satisfy every man that a reduction ex ceeding the amount of this tax might be made in dial expenditure. had the Noble Lord made up his I mind tliW no reciaetion shotild take place? tie was one cf those who wete of opinion that the Noble Lord could not per severe lit the present system bf etperiditute and texatien ; ii . nd with regard to this tar, he was astonished how the candcul of the Noble Lord would - permit him to say tbat the repeal of it Would afford no relief to the agriculturists He would offer no argument to shew that it would afford re lief; because if the Petitions upon the table did not satisfy the Noble Lord and the Chancellor of the Ex chequer upon That point, no argument of his could do it. He put no faith in the promises of the Noble Lord, that Ministers would retire from office if the taxes were repealed ; because he remembered the failure of the Income Tax, when similar professions wete made, and he remembered the sending back of the Army Estimates twice did not compel the Noble Lord to retire. He did believe that the independent vote of one Honourable Member (the Earl of Fife) lost hini. his situation, and that the Noble Lord would on similer occasions resort to similar acts. (Hear.) This being the case, could it be said that the fair opinions of persons holding situations•could be gatheted? He opposed this tax or, the ground of its being generally injurious to the landed interest. The House would recollect, that the Noble Lord, in agreeing to a Com mittee on Agriculture, had said, they must not take into consideration the Revenue, the Corn Laws, or the Currency; but he would ask the House, of what effect would be the appointment of a Committee, if thes were not to examine those laws which particu larly affected Agriculture? Adverting again to the removal of the Earl of Fife, the Noble Lord ob served, that the removal of the Noble Earl was highly creditable to him as a man of honour ; he had acted in conformity with his own feelings, and also accord ing to the dictates, if not the actual instructions of his (Lord Fife's) Constituents—(llenr, hear). He felt it necessary to say so much in favour of his Noble Trien.l, whose manly and independent conduct was highly I ianurable both to his head and his heart — (hear, her, r, hear). He hoped that the case df his Noble friead (the Earl of Fife) would be a warning to other Honourable Members -.that it would evince to them that there were certain situations, however honourable iii any other point of view, which could not be held consistently with an independent vote in that House—(Hear, hear). The Noble Lord con cluded by supporting the motion.—(Lor a l cries of " Question, Question! Lord Fife, Lord I" The Ea f FIFE rose, amid loud cheering, and cries of Question !—He would not, he said, have pre sumed to address the House, were it not for what had fallen front the Noble Lord. He was not ambi tious of engaging their attention, or occupying their valualee time; and on the present occasion it would be much mote agreeable to his feelings not to do so, but there might be occasions when silence. wuel.l war rant conclusions which he did not wish to be drawn. He had no hesitation in sayieg, that the mode adopted lately with respect to the place which lie had had the honour to have held, was not; in his opinion, necessary at the present time, but was adopted, perhaps, for a motive which he should nct name—( Hear, hear).—lt was not rendered necessary, because he had some time ago.evinced his readiness to retire, from a conviction that he could not con sistently discharge his other duties.'fie had accepted the place under peculiar circumstances, and he must say, the time chosen for conentmicating to him that his Majesty had no further occasion for his services was net the most suitable—(icar, hear).—He was ordered to attend his Majesty to Ireland, and imme diately after giving a vote in that House, which was not dictated by party spit it, but by a sense of duty to his Constituents, and a vote which was in unison with one given in the last year upon the same sub ject, he had received this communication.. If this hasty and abrupt resolution were intended as a repri mand for that vote, he did not regret it (Hear, hear). Or if it were intended as a signal of terror to those in similar situations, he did not regret it—(Cheers). — Having trespassed so long upon the House with re gard to what had fallen from the Noble Lord, he hoped the House would indulge him for a few mo ments in stating his objections to the present tax ; hut before he did so, he must beg leave to remark, that in his case, the maxim, that resistance, when successful, was not a crime, was reversed; because when lie had in the last year voted with the minority on this question, no notice was taken of the circum stance, but the moment his name appeared with the majority, he was informed that his services were no longer wanted !—(Hear, hear).—He was not hurt nor offended in any way by this communication; and he hoped that his future conduct would spew that he would act as fairly and as consistently as his humble. abilities would permit, and that his conduct should be marked by loyalty to the Throne, and attachment to the person of that Monarch, to whom he was as true as the dial to the sun, though that sun might not always continue to shed its rays upon it!—(Hear, hear).—ln whatever light he viewed this question, he thought it unjust and im . ..solitic in principle, and ruinous in effect—(Cheers). Lord FOLKSTONE said, he had been called the I advocate of spoliation ; and it had been said that he must have advanced the arguments used by him on a former night without reflection. He was anxious to contradict this assumption. He had advanced the opinion he had given on that occasion, on the most mature consideration. Gentlemen urged this ques tion as if we were in a situation perfectly equal to the payment of our Debt, and that he advised the non payment of it, because it was not agreeable. Now, the country was not in such a situation ; neither had he given any such advice ; he had stated his opinion, not that the debt shotelsi not be paid, because it was not agreeable, but because he considered it as impos sible—( Cries of " Divide r). Mr. WODEHOUSE said, after the fullest consi deration he was still determined to support the Bill of the Member for-Essex. Mr. WESTERN replied. In 1816 Ministers de clared the affairs of the country could nct be carried on without a Property -tax; and that by that tax they would stand or fall. The tax was taken from them ; a but they retained their places, and brought forward a reduced set of Estimates; and he was persuaded they would now adopt the same course if the House, as he trusted it would, should deprive them of this tax also.—The House then divided— For the second reading Against it 4411 Majority against the Bin, and in favour of Ministers —9s The other Orders were dispond of, and the 'louse adjourned at Half-pact I. l w4re o'Clock. JOHN kNOT e LES, Esz ATA kV OFFICE: Commercial-Road, March 31, 1821: Stn—in your Answer bf the 23d (publish?d in The Public Ledger of the 29th Instant) to cur Letter of the 2t/th instant (published in the same Paper on the 21st, and subsequently its The Star and times) there are some statements liable to *a construction which it would be illiberal in us to ascribe to design when coming from a Gentleman, whose " principle" is " to render to every one what appears to be his due." Our questions were very simple, and you have given answers, but not direct answers to any of them.. Where you have admitted our statements, you have (we will not suppose with any evil intention) loaded your answers with irrelevant matter, which some (but of course none pOssessed of so sound a perception as yourself) may• conceive as militating against your own admissions. The basis of the ambiguity of which we complain rests on this point—Captain Brown's Chain Cable was composed of twisted Links, with sharp-pointed Pins, put in as Stays, to prevent their sides from co lapsing: Our Chain Cables are composed of Links not twisted, but having their substance in the same plane, and their sides prevented from colapsing, not by sharp-pointed Pins, but by broad-ended Stays, in troduced between, and embracing a considerable por tion of the opposite sides of the Links; and these we call ours, because our invention, whoever they may be made by, should even Captain Brown be ,the maker! Now, on this point we have to complain, that there is a want of precision in your Letter, as well as in your very learned Work, on the means which have been taken to preserve the British Navy. Before we proceed to notice other matters, we• shall advert to two or three points introduced in your An swer, which, being quite irrelevant, should be first disposed of'. As any inquiry into your motives for introducing them would be equally irrelevant, and, if known, would not affect the case, we shall make none. Your statement, respecting the first introduction of Iron Cables, is in some respects calculated to mis lead. It is true that, in 1808, Captain Mowlt did bring the subject of Iron Rigging and Chain Cables before the Naval Boards; and it is true that, shortly after, the Penelope was fitted with them, made a voyage to the West Indies, and returned in 1810; and that, in consequence of the result, Government ordered some ships to be fitted with Iron Cables; and also, that those supplied to the Crescent were com posed of short Links, having their sides parallel; but we remark in passing, and for a reason that will be sufficiently apparent, before we conclude, these pa t aliel-sided Links had no Stays—that is, they were the common pudding Chain. It is also true that, after some interruptions, Captain Brown, in 1812, succeeded in introducing his twisted Chain, with sharp-pointed Stays in the Links. But it is not true, that Chain Cables were then brought to great per fection," for the whole system, then followed, has since been abandoned, and the efficient system, in troduced by us, has l been substituted in its stead.— But it seems we derived great advantages from the previous practice and experiments which the two Mr. Bruntons witnessed in Captain Brown's Manufactory. We should have been very stupid indeed if we had not attended to what was passing before our eyes ; but it you mean to insinuate (and you know whether that was your intention) that we acted in any way dishonourably to Captain Brown, you are ignorant of the real facts; for we would rather believe this of you, than that you have wilfully concealed them. Mr. Brunton took great interest in the first intro.' duction of Iron Cables; he was the first who em ployed Captain Brown to procure an Iron Cable for the purpose of trying its efficacy (on board a ship of his own, the Active); and Mr. Brunton also (in con junction with some other friends of Captain Brown) purchased the vessel of which you speak, viz. the Penelope, and fitted her out for her West India voyage; and the result was what you have stated: (the next ship fitted with an Iron Cable was also Mr. Brun ton's). But you have, omitted to state, though the fact is most important, that in all the exertions that were made to introduce Iron Cables, Mr. Brunton acted under the clearest understanding that he was to have a proportionate and adequate share of the advantages expected therefrom. As to your statement respecting our very able foreman, Mr. Fuller, we refer you to his own answer, subjoined to this letter; and to your other question we answer—Our principal knowledge, and every thing respecting the best form of Links for Chain Cables, was derived from expel iments made by our selves, on our own premises, with our own proving machine. The Iron, we need hardly add (but you ask the question) was procured from the Iron Masters, and the workmen were in our own employment. In another part of your letter, you speak of Cap tain Brown having reduced the price of Chain Cables from 635. per cwt. to 425. Who fixed the price of Chain Cables at first? Captain Brown f What price did he then charge? When did he reduce the price? and why ? When you shall have answered these short questions, the Public will understand perf ec tly to whose interference the reduction is to be ascribed ; and also the Totive for it ors his part who first fixed the price. But, in passing, we beg to state, that there is a possibility of carrying this so far as to render it impossible to do justice to the article, either in mate rials or workmanship ; and should this day ever ar rive, the benefits resulting from the use of Chain Cables will again be lost to the Public. Now, Sir, having answered your questions, let u return to our first letter of the 20th instant, and your answer of the 23d. We asked you, whether you had not, at our manufactory, witnessed experiments which were instituted for the express purpose of proving the comparative strength of Captain Brown's Cables (Ca , bles composed of twisted Links) and the Cables of our invention (Cables having the substance of the Links in the same plane, with broad-ended stays). And to this you have answered—" I have seen as many or more Experiments on Chain Cables at Capt. Brow n'sil as at your manufactory." Is this au answer? Our question had reference to a particular fact; but your answer embraces no one fact, except that you have seen what you call " Experiments," at Capt. Brown's. You have not stated what they were; and, if you had, we might possibly have denied that, in our sense of the term, they were experiments at all; for we do not give that name to the mere process et as certaining by the proving machine, the soundness of ,a Chain Cable—a prwss with which we, and pro bably Captain Brown, arc occupied every day; but on the other lurid, these el Experiments" *ere o f the kind to which our question applied, we now ask yon to state, in one word, what was the result? But this is, perhaps, not now necessary, for—. . We also asked you whether our Cables did ate, When tried against Captain Brown's, tear them in pieces? And you have given such an answer as might have been expected from a Gentleman of ve.; racity" The triangular (we shall not quarrel about terms so long as we can understand each other) the triangular Link which you manufactured in March, 1816, did then tear the twisted Chains to pieces!" To this answer you have, however, attached a rider, Which may call for another question from us. You add, " But you then objected to try the parallel•sided Chain, as first made by Captain Brown (hut xvith the subsequent addition of Stay Pins), observing that they were equally as strong as your's, and it would be only trying the relative finalities of the iron and work manship.' Now, Sir, we beg you to state whether, by " the parallel-sided Chain," you do not mean a Chain composed of Links having their substance in the same plane, in contradistinction to twined Ly.ks? and secondly, whether, by the " subsequent addition of Stay Pins, ' you mean the same sharp-pointed Stays which he had been in the habit of using in his twisted Chains, er broad-ended Stays? Of course we do not put this question for the sake of gaining information ourselves, for we cannot be supposed ignorant of what kind of Chain Captain Brown then proposed to try ; but it is necessary that your statement should be ex ' hibited free from ambiguity, and you yourself cleared from any imputation of meaning to hide truth where you have, perhaps, only been inadvertent. • The Public ought to receive your answer to this question ; and when you give it, we have no reason to expect it will be less explicit than your acknow• ledgment, that in the Expei iments made in March, • 1816, at our manufactory, our Chain Cables did then tear Captain Brown's in pieces ; and when you give your answer, the Public will see why we said, that to try the Chain be then offered against one of ours, would be only trying the relative qualities of iron and workmanship. For whoever employs our broad ended Stay in a Link having its substance in the same plane, unless the form of the Link, in other respects, be very bad indeed, may produce a good Chain— because constructed on our principle—because, in fact, our Chain! And such was the Chain then of fered by Captain Brown. It was his Chain in no other sense than that it was his property, he having paid for the iron and workmanship. Nor will we suffer to pass uncontradicted your assertion that we have, since 1816, altered the form of our Links, and nearly come to the form then proposed by Cap tain Brown. Whatever be the form of our Link in any Cable, it is, and always has been, made as straight as the na ture of the manufacture will admit, in the parts which intervene between the ends of the Links and their middle part ; that which is supported by the Stay, as described in Mr. Brunton's specification; but it is possible, notwithstanding your many and great at tainments, that you may not know, or may not - have considered, that the longer the Link is made propor tioned to its substance (and they are frequently made so to lessen the weight of the Chain) the nearer will its side approach to a parallel. This part of your letter might have been pasied over, but for the wrong inference that may be drawn from yotir words. The parallel-sided form " was first proposed by Captain Brown," you - say; but though you know the fact, you have omitted to state (for we wish not to impute to you wilful concealment)—you have omitted to state, that in the parallel-sided Links then proposed by Captain Brown, he had introduced our broad ended Stay, and not his own sharp Pins.—So much for the efficient part of the Chain Offered by Captain Brown in 1816 ! You have put to us this question—" If the broad ended Stay be of such importance, how is that, in many of the Cables you have supplied, those Stay Pins have worked out ?'— Allow us to say, that this question is as foreign to the real subject of discussion between us, as it would be in us to ask you this question— " Since printing is an art of so much importance, how is it that so many stupid books are printed?"— That the broad-ended Stay is of no importance, can not be your meaning; and we should be great dolts indeed if we did not understand the true aim of your irrelevant question. It may be sufficient to an swer, that the cause was then explained to the Navy Board, and that it did not rest on any deficiency in the Chains, but was owing to ether circumstances, connected with the manner of using them. As, except in the case of the Cables furnished to a few of the Revenue cruizers, these to which you have alluded, this circumstance has in no instance occurred, a cause over which we had then no controul, could alone have operated to produce the effect stated in these instances, hut which is now in a course of being obviated, in consequence of our repeated representa tions. You speak of Captain Brown's twisted Chain, with pointed Stay Pins in the same vessel, being re turned perfect. It would have been a wonder had it been otherwise ; his Cable, to all appearance, hav ing never been used ! Indeed it would have been a little singular if it had, when it was twice as heavy as ours, and consequently much more troublesome to manage : for this is one of the great advantages which resulted from our improvements, as you well know, that the strength was found so superior to Captain Brown's, as to render a Cable of half the weight efacient for all the purposes of the heavier- . . twisted Chain Cables before in use—and thereby pro ducing an immense. saving in the first cost, which is a point of much higher importance than any small difference in the price tier cwt. of the Cable actuaily brought into service. We have yet another point to submit tp your own candour. In your answer to our letter, though you state that you "always objected to the twisted Links, for their comparative want of strength ;" and, more over, that Captain Brown adrnitt..td, nearly twelve months previous to the trial (meaning the trial of strength at our Manufactory), that the twisted Links were not so strong as the plain sided," you at the same time add, that " the supply of Cables, manu factured by Captain Brown, has never been discon tinued," but without anywhere stating that the Cables supplied by Captain Brown have, ever since that trial, had the broad-ended Stays, invented by Mr. B. union, inserted iu their Links, and these Stays oily! Is this the fact, or is it not? and if it be the fact, as assuredly it is, had we not reason to corn. plain of the statement in your valuable Publication,