The Sun. — London, England, 1822-03-01 00:00:00

►me- bout be- 'ards care no this my into and ford wall, 1 the for tone, there .:. was tated 1g on ed at d not piece :n no by ssage deli.. tleman :f , o n the rani, it did apion pea ofr that own. this conduct was conciliator . He expressed no °pin his Mr. DENMAN understood that the Right Hon. Gentleman , had founded all his opinions upon the evidence.—(Hear !) Mr. PEEL.--" My arguments."—(Hear, hear !) An Hose MENBER, whose name could not be learnt, spoke a few words in favour of the motion, Mr. G. BANKES said, thatas the Hon. and Learned Mere ber (Mr. Denman) had asserted that the Sheriff's attendance 1 1 pOn the inquest did not affect the question of his conduct at I thightsbridge,he was anxious to state his reasons for dissent ing from that proposition. He would say that Mr. Sheriff Waithman's having been for six days the public prosecutor of li a particular body, n ame l y , t h e Lif e G uar d s, he was not a very kely person to keep . the peace betwixt them and the people upon the occasion in question.—(Hear, hear !)—The Hon. Member for Westminster had quoted Mr. Justice Blackstone in support of his argument, but he was surprised that he did not go to a part which bore directly upon the case at issue. He could not pledge himself to the words, but in the sense lie was correct in stating that it would be found in that authority, that it was determined in the great Charter of our Liber ties that no Sheriff should hold fees of the Crown. In other words, that he should not interfere in criminal mat ters.—(Hear, hear, hear!)—lf then a fortiori he could not appear in criminal, matters, a fortiori he could not a ppe a r as a public prosecutor. That he was at the Inquest in that ca pacity might be drawn from his own confession. He said in answer to the questions put to him by the Counsel,, that he ap- Peered there on the part of the relatives of the man who had been slaughtered, and consequently to endeavour to prove Who was the murderer. In referring to the evidence of the Proceedings of the inquest as given in the Times, he found in one plac e w h ere Mr. Sheriff Waithman had given a flat c ontradictior, to the Coroner, which he frequently did, about what a witness had said, the question was repeated, and the Coroner's impression was found tb -be correct; whereupon Mr. Waithman remarked, " the witness is swear ing to a. negative." One of the Jury immediately inter • fered and observed, that the witnesses ough t to be pro tected from such re fl ec ti ons . I t was sa id that elr. Waithman attended at Knightsbridge in the discharge of a duty which he tiould trotavoid. But was it not a fact that only a fortnight before, he had attended anothe r p rocess i on w h ere outrages Were committed, without moving from his carriage, or inter fering in any way whatever, while the procession was turned i nteethe very heart of the city of which he was Sheriff; in de fiance of the constituted authorities; He did not, therefore, go to Knightsbridge with the view to discharge what he thought to - be an imperative duty, or he neglected to perform that dutrupon the antecedent occasion. He believed that if.he had asked any man in the kingdom whether he was likely to pre- Jery e the peace by going to Knightsbridge, he would have been told that that was the last possible consequence which his pre aence svpuld have been likely to have.—(Cheers.)—The Hon. Member concluded by stating, that he could not refrain from ing to express his abhorrence at a nigh Public Officer acting w iMproperly and so illegally in the performance of his duty.— ( Cheers.) Me. G. BENNETT contended that Mr. Sheriff Waithman (lid not disqualify himself from attending the funeral of these tileneby having previously tak en a part in the proceedings of the Inquest. He acted in the discharge of an imperious duty in attending t o preserve the peace. The means of most ef fectually doing , that lay with his Majesty's Govern- Went-. They ought to have marched the troops out of the t : ° Nvn on that clay.—(A laugh.)—He contended that every tittle of Mr.lVaithman's letter was borne out by the evidence. Ile pointed to that of Mr. John Tyas, whom he highly corn- Plimented upon his account of the Manchester transactions. The Honourable Member then described what he considered to be the occupation of Reporters, and argued that the value of their- testimony was augmented thereby. Mr. Tyas's evidence although not . condusive upon th e f ront o f t h e carbine having beenpresented at the Sheriff, was sufficiently strong, backed asit wai by six or eight oth er w i tnesses, to support Mr. Waith kan's statement, and to call for inquiry in that House. The lion. Member declared his admiration and respect for the Life Gear* to be as great as that of any person ; and it was in justice to them as well as to the people that the motion ought to-be agreed to. Mr. .W. LAMB said, he was aware that any gentleman who ventured •to affirm in his place in that House that there were persons in the country who were desirous of pro moting disturbances, and inciting the people to break the peace, exposed himself to rebuke as a libeller of the people of England. But what possible motive, he would ask, could have led to the determination of conveying the bodies of these two unfortunate persons, with the pomp and tumult of a public procession, to Hammersmith for interment ? By whom was the expense of such a proceeding defrayed, for without expence it could note be conducted ? And what could it have been - the inducement to embark in such a project, unless wag to invite an attack from the soldiery, who were supposed, l ane temper of the time, to be too readyeto engage m such an or to risk the chance of a movement on the p ar t o f t h e ir riseh ta populace against the military, in ord er th a t p ersons o f t !sch a description as he had a ll u d e d t o m i g h t ta k e a d vantage of thoile disorder consequent upon such an oc currence to p romote se ends which they imagined likely to be best advanced by anarchy and confusion ?—(Hear, hear !)—Notwithstanding the O bservation of the Hon. Member for IVestminster, he would affirm that the persons engaged in the riotous proceedings at K nightsbridge, were not those who could, in the correct accep tation of the term, be properly called the people of England.— ( Rear !)—He happened to see the vast concourse of persons who attended that funeral • and he was sure, from his own observe twins, that the greath'ody of the people assembled on th a t occa sion were most quietly and peaceably disposed, and, in their te aPective situations in life, highly respectable in character ; but he saw that they were also attended in their progress by a great mob of persons of that description,who, from warmth of tern- Per, or worse motives,were always ready to take advantage ofevery. Pretext thatoffered for creatinghot anddisturbance, and by no in considerable number of those who are found to seek an advan tage in the confusion that ensues from every violent movement °fa/nob in this metropolis.—(Hear, hear !)--And he must s aY, that unless breaches of the peace in the metropolis, oc casioned for the most part by the conduct of such mis efeants, were firmly resisted out of doors, and scouted in that IlouseL(Hear, hear !)—if they were to be called acts of the People, and protected by that feeling of constitutional respect which he trusted would ever be entertained in that House to wards the people of England, properly so called, it would be the to prevent outrage, riot, and blood s h e d, e ith er f rom e violence of the people, or the resistance of the military.— (Ch em.) a Mr. HOBHOUSE ex pl a i ne d, th a t w h en h e spoke of justice ing done t o th e peop l e , h e meant the people at large, as fe p r esented by the Lord Mayor and Corporation of London. Mr. BUTTERWORTH said, that the conduct of the sol vers was above all praise, and that they re a lly ac t e d i n de ence of th e i r li ves .' Tha t Mr. Sheriff Waithman he consi dered to be highly criminal, as connected with the whole pro- It%dings in his official capacity. To prove that he did not tend the funeral of d the Queen as a private individual, as th at Gentleman wrote to the Under-Sheriff. It ran as fol irse--"Sir,—Altheugh I cannot attend the funeral of her ~,niestT in a corporate capacity, I mean t o a t ten d as Sher i ff t.l the county, and shall be at. Hyde Park-corner at half-past e en o'clock to-morrow morning." This l e tt er did no t reach Tr. Sh er iff Willi ams until half-past nine in the morning of T i t funeral ; for although it was sent the ni g ht b e f ore , yet Z'r. Waithruan, knowing that Mr. Williams went to his ,l intry-honse i n th e even i ng , was aware that he would not eeiv e it until the next day, unless a special messenger were 'tit With it. He opposed the motion. Mr. HUME said that the Honourable Member for'Dover ~qd opposed the motion for an inquiry, and then attacked the !I-sons who were concerned in the transactions. This was irect insult to religion. If there ever was such a degree hypocrisy g as for men to hav e reli g i on i n t h e i r -mouths, and thing but Christian charity in their hearts this was an eance of it.—(Hear, h e ar ! ftoni some of th ' e "Opposition e 'fiches.)—lie contended that Mr. Sheriff Waithmate was at ',Oc funeral of her Majesty as a private individual. He cared ti et se e t h e letter which the Honourable Gentleman pro hiked, he sto o d upon the fact.---(Loud laughter.)—lt w as th e ; e h °Pie of E ng l an d an d not the Corporation of London alone, ° demanded the present inquiry. The appeal which the Z°Pourabl e M em b er for Dover had made was neither found ,' 111 fairne s s nor i n j us ti ce, and he could only att r ib u t e it '1 the motive.= he'rtie SPEAKER here called the Hon. Member to orderes proceeded with some remarks which were inaudible, and wt again addressed by the Chair to order. !dr. HUME concluded by supporting the motion. Mr. C. SMITH said a few words in favour of the motion. Mr. Alderman WOOD replied, and the House divided. For the Motion. 56 Against it.. 184 Majority. —l2B SALLX. NtIier.CALCRAFT, rose to bring forward the question of I ,_ c : he had given notice • a question of the greatest impor li, ; vire in which he he'd long felt an interest, and which t r had taken much to heart, and one which was calculated l i ebduce the mos t b eneficial effects to a large portion, in b!"l be might say to the whole, of the community. It would ‘. ctl 7iie.the recoli ec ti on o f the House, that in the year 1816, this question first engaged his attention, lie moved for ! ;, ?Minitte e on th e laws relating to the Salt Duties, wh;ch ; 4 7.tion he l ost b y a very small majority —a majority of only 9; e_clretimstance of rare and extraordinary occurrence or any orioposition p rocee di ng from the place in which he stood (the in t h os e i y t e i oanr 1 8 1 eB,of a the kivuse). On a renewal of his motion Committee was granted without coming to the question at all. That Committee, which was not one of his own selection, but what was considered a fair Committee, selected from all part s o f th e H ouse , l eav i ng a b are ma j or i ty with the Ministers, had agre,Fd ; to four Resolutions, of which be would take the liberty - of ' reading,one, on which the motion with which he 'was about to -conclude would be founded :7- • = . -• . •' " Resolved--That it is-the opinion o f thi s Continittee,-that the repeal of the' Salt. Duties Would be. pioductive of the greatest and most importapt, advantiges tip All descriptions of persons in this kingdom; and that-the present state of the income and expenditure of the United Kingdom alone pre vents your Committee - froM instructing their Chairman to move for leave to bring in a Bill for such total repeal." This Resolution that Committee, after two months of perse vering and diligent inquiry, came to_; he did not recollect whether on a division or unanimously. On the Ist of June, 1818; that Resolution . ; with three others, were reported to the House. Thoseresolutions having been so long standing 'on the Journals of the -House, it became him to explain the reasons which had induced- him to refrain from moving the total repeal of the tax, a motion to that effect ha v i ng b een so recommended by the Committee. He was exceedingly pressed to do so in 1811, by many of his friends who were on the Committee, and by many other Gentlemen whose support he hoped to have that night. But, be stated to them that he did not think th e con ditiO n o f the country and the state of its income and finances were such as would warrant him in moving for the repeat of those duties at that time. The same opinion governed his Conduct-in this respect in 1820 and in 1821 ; and it was not until 1822 that he saw the country so improved in its financial 'resources, as to make it perfectly consistent with the view which he had always taken of the subject, that be should come forward with a notice of this motion. The motion with which lie should conclude would be for leave to bring in a Bill for the gradual reduc tion of the duties on salt. He begged the House t o remar k, that he proposed that th e reduction should be gradual. As the House had been pleased -to sanction the adoption of a Sinking Fund of 5,000,0001. in.which be entirely concurred, he thought it incumbent on him not to interfere with that decision by any vote or motion which' be had to make . - 'l and on tbat account, thinki ng th a t a t ota l a b o li t i on o f these tuties might interfere with that Resolution, be should abstain from proposing it. If a gradual reduction of the duties, which amounted to 15s. a bushel, at the rate of ss. a year, were agreed on until the whole were reduced, he thought that would he as gradual as any of those who agreed with him and the Committee in opinion, as to the obnoxious nature and weight of the taxi - could expect. This tax, like a great many others, began at 'first as a merely tem porary tax in the reign of William and Mary, at - the rate of three-pence per gallon. Soon afterlards it was doubled and in the reign of George 11. was made perpetual, and raised to eight-pence per gallon, or ss. per bushel. IL was not until the 38th George 111. that it was raised to 10s. a bushel; and in the 45th year of the same reign it was raised to its present amount of 15s. a bushel, on a raw material, the produce of this country, which mixed itself up with all the necessaries of life, and with all the articles of daily consump tion of every man in the country, and operated as a poll-tax on every individual. Every person at all conversant with the subject knew that the poorest day-labourer in Isis daily consumption used as much of this article as any rich' man could. Thus did this tax--a tax upon raw material, which could only be justified by the strongest and most overwhelm ing necessity, press in a•MOst unequal 'proportion On the poor man. No man in the country , could be found to say that this tax affected him ilta lower degree than the.rate of 255. a year; and when they looked at the price of labour— of agricultural lahouriti particular—they would see what an immense proportion of the earnings of the poor man this tax drew out of his pocket. -The article was also rendered-, by the operation of this tax, to the country where it was produced in great plenty, a curse rather than a blessing. For from the temptations which it held out- to persons in the neigh bourhood to engage in smuggling, he did maintain, and the testimony of the late Mr. Burton, who had been many years Chief Justice of that district,, and Sir John Stanley, the Chairmanjof the Quarter Sessions, with that of several other good authorities, bore bins oust in the opinjon, that it Was rendered one of the greatest sources of crime, and immo rality in the county of Chester, where it ought to have been considered as one of I he. greatest blessings . that Providence could bestow upon it: It might, perhaps, be said, that under so strong a conviction as he expressed of the advantages to be derived from the reduction of the tax, he ought to move for its totalirepeal ; but lie contended that he ought not to do so, according to the -principle of the resolutions of the Com mittee. He knew, besides, that there were large capitals engaged in the trade in this commodity, and he was cone dent that if he could carry the immediate repeal of the whole tax, it would be productive of extensive loss, and great detri-, ment to the persons engaged in t lie trade. One of the great inconveniences of burdensome taxation was, that it drove the trade into a monopoly, and that was the case with the salt trade. Many houses its that trade- Ise knew who paid front 100;0001. to 200,0001, for duty; therefore, in a trade so shack led, he did not think it would he proper to interfere violent ly or abruptly. If his proposition was acceded to, it would undoubtedly reduce the revenue 500,0001. Now, by the Reso lution of the House, (in the propriety of which he agreed,) there was to be a sinking fund of fire millions. At present there was 5,200,0001. Surplus revenue, and though he was sanguine as to the increase which might be made to that sur plus by reductions and economy; yet, taking it as it stood at - present, in the first instance it would reduce the sinking fund to 4,700,0001. ; and he should like to know from any finan cier in that House, whether that could be considered incon venient or injurious to public credit. Certainly he would have it understood, that future savings should go to make up the sinking fund to 5,000,0001. If he understood the Noble Lord correctly, it was his intention to snake annually a reduction from the taxation ; this, therefore, would be merely an anticipation of that ,proposition of the Noble Lord, and' would, he was pertuaded, increase the general prosperity in a far greater degree than' it would. impoverish either the sinking fund or the revenue. - He had given but a stunt notice of this question, and why? because humble as the individual was who made it, if it should remain in sus pense, it would be a great inconvenience to trade and a great loss to the revenue. Among other evils this tax had entirely driven the trade of salting provisions from this country to others, where salt was either smuggled or was otherwise to be cheaply obtained. If he would halm post poned Isis motion, then be was sure the table would have,been covered with petitions in fat-oar of a repeal of, the tax. When he brought forward this subject in 1817, it was said by the Hon. Gentleman opposite that he overstated the advantages resulting from this measuve. The thing had been tried : fur in 1729 Sir Robert Walpole , took off the tax, and in 1732 it was again put on, because of the small relief obtained from its repeal. But the reason why Sir Robert Walpole renewed this tax was, that he was contemplating his excise sclteme-at that time, and lie thought on the renewal of an old tax it might more easily be placed under that sys tem than a new tax. He mentioned this, lest the objection should be again revived. The Hon. Member then referred to the opinion of Mr. Burton, in 1769, in which he made it a ground of congratulations, on comparing the labourers of England and France, that the former ate their salt at 2d. a pound, whilst the latter paid sd. That acute writer knew that this article, though apparently trivial, pervaded every necessary of life ; and he thought it matter of boast that this country should be so lightly taxed on so important an article, in comparison of the Gabel& of France. Yet at this time we were paying a heavier tax than that imposed by the then arbi. trary Government of France. The Hon. Member concluded by moving " for leave to bring in a Bill for 'gradually repeal ing the Duty upon Salt." Mr. DAVENPORT seconded the motion. He concurred in all the observations of the Honourable Mover, and thought that he would receive the thanks of the farmer and the bless ings of the poor for his'endeavours to get this Tax removed. He thought it was a Tax which could never have been con templated but by a narrow-minded Statesman ; and as to its effect upon the morals of the people, he could speak with confidence from his own observation. It offered a tempta tion to perjury, to petty theft, and to those other crimes which led on to the greatest; and he was so convinced of its mischievous consequences, that he sincerely hoped he should see the day when it should be entirely abolished. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was but justice to the 'Honourable Mover to admit that lie had brought the question forward in the most candid manner. It certainly was desirable to dispose of it as early as possible, inasmuch as its suspension might prove highly inconvenient to the Salt. Trade. He differed in all the conclusions which had been drawn by the Honourable Member; and after what Parliament bad already done to reduce taxation, and after it had pledged itself to maintain the Sinking Fund, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) called upon the House to resist any further encroachments upon the revenue. The Honourable Mover had contended that the repeal of this tax could not materially affect the Sinking Fund ; but by Sinking Fund, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) meant a clear excess of revenue, and hot somethi ng ma d e up b y an addition to the UnfundedDebt.—(Hear, bear!)-Parliament had already gone to the greatest possible extent in the way of reduction. The atnount of the repeal on the English and Irish Malt Tax would be little less' than 1,400,0001.; and to meet this sum, the saving in paying off the Five per Cents, would he scarcely sufficient.— Even if a further reduction could be made, ha was by no means prepared to say that the present would be the most, proper tax to repeal. The choice of the tax, when a further reduction could be made, must depend entirely upon circumstances; but, at all events, he did not agree in the polity of a gradual repeal; for tie salt trade would be as much stagnated and contracted !. - 4 a partial as by a total repeal ; and he should not at any time approve.of the con demnation of the tax by p gradual repeal of it. He should prefer •giving up", the tax at once. The 'Hon. Member had compared it tna Poll Tax. Assuming, for the sake of argti ment.(though he by no means - admiited the fact) that the poor man paid. as much as the rich man, the amount stated by. the Hon. Aleinher was greatly exaggerated. .If each pet- SOP paid so much as 255. a year, the tax ivotild:prodttee not less. than 14 millions . a year. He: (the Chancellor.of the Ex 'cheqtier) believed it might amount .to about 2s. a head per , annum, but - certainly not any more; The Hon. Member had referred to•Alr. Burke's Pamphlet. bat it was well known that in 'France the objection to the Gabelle- was not so much to its amount as to ,the oppressive regulations by . which .it was exacted. The Hon. M e mber h a d a l so r e f erre d to the time of Walpole, to skew that the tax was repealed, to promote an Excise scheme of Sir It. 'Walpole. .Why•then bad not _Sir. Robert Walpole, on the revival of the tax, placed it under Excise management ? It was not brought'under the Excise until nearly 60 years afterwards. Rut he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) resisted the motion upon general grounds; upon the Resolutions which the Muse had adopted this Ses sion, and which could not he departed from consistently with public honour or public interest. He should, therefore, move the previous question. . • Lord NORMANBY supported the original motion. Sir Robert Walpole had moved the renewal of the tax, as a relief to the landed interest, in lieu of Is. in the pound on the Land Tax. He (Lord N.) considered taxation as the principal cause of our present distress. He was aware of the decision of the House 'this Session with respect to the Sinking Fund. He lamented that decision; and he hoped the House also would not have cause to lament it. Mr. EGERTON spoke in favour of the original motion, but in a tone of voice scarcely audible. He considered the tax as a grievous tax; and as one affecting rents to the amount of 10 per cent. The relief afforded to the agriculturists would, be thought, bear no comparison with the taxes upon agricul ture;- The reduction of the Malt Tax would amount to little more than a million, while. the taxes affecting agriculture amounted to fifty millioos. He_ trusted the country gentle men would compel the Ministers to afford a-more effectual 'relief to agriculture byreducing taxation. Sir ISAAC COFFIN agreed that the tax operated as an in centive to crime. Some time ago, he wished to export a quan tity of salt from Liverpool ; and the men whom he employed stole a considerable-quantity, by occasionally concealing it in their breeclies.—(A latigh). Dr. PHILLIMORE concurred in opinion with the Hon. Mover, that the tax pressed heavily upon the lower orders, and caused considerable injury to the Fisheries. It was on. ly on account of ,the then state of the expenditure that the Committee alluded to had forborne calling fur a repeal of the tax at that period. Ica 1819 he (the Doctor) had submitted to the House a Resolution upon the subject, to which the House did not agree. Had that Resolution been assented to by the House, he had no doubt the tax would, ere this, have. been abolished. He preferred a total to a gradual repeal;; but the present question was, when the repeal could take place. As the House_ had agreed to maintain the SiPliiitg • Fund, he could not vote for the repeal at present. He thought it would be more advisable to abstain a little; and he confidently trusted that the abolition. would not he opposed next year. For the reason he bad given be could not support the motion of the Hon. Member, but he declared himself an enemy to the principle of the tax. , Mr. CURWEN said his Hon. Friend,f,when speaking of the effect of the tax, had intended to say, that every family paid 255. a year, and .not every individual. This tax, in his opi nion, bore most heavily upon the bembler - classes, and took away. 1-84th of a man's wages, while it did not take away more than loOOdth of the income of a rich man. Hp was saT tisfied the tax might be repealed without affecting the Sink ing Fund, as Ministers, if compelled', would retretich'to meet the reduction in the revenue. It was impossible, he thought, `for the country to go on in its present situation. He trusted that Parliament, by reducing taxation, would enable the far mer to supply corn at moderate prices. The partial repeal of the Malt Tax would be thought to he productive of little or no good; and it certainly would not make one farthing diffe rence in the price of a pot of porter. The taking' off the Pre sent tax was to be preferred to the repeal of that mien Malt. Salt was used to improve land, and was highly necessary for the encouragement ,of our fisheries ; but he feared the re luctance of Ministers to give it rip arose in . a great measure from the circumstance of its being a source of considerable patronage. Mr. JOHN SMITH agreed that the Repeal of this Tax was more desirable than that of the Malt Tax ; though in gene ral he doubted whether much practical relief could be ob tained under our present difficulties by the reduction of taxes., He should, however, support the original Motion ; because salt was in such general consumption among the poor. The tax met them at every step. It had not un frequently happened that pigs which he had offered to poor persons had been re fused-because they could not purchase the salt wherewith to cure them. He thought that Ministers, supported as they were by a powerful majority, were too apt to despise thegeneral opinion of the country; but he assured them they were un wise in doing so, and that the present was an opportunity (of which they might well avail themselves,) to obtain deserved popularity by consenting to the proposed repeal. Mr. HENDLEY opposed the motion. He thought the tax could not be repealed without injury to public credit. With respect to the agricultural distresses of the country, lie felt confident that the only cause of them was an excess of produce. General GASCOYNE complained that false hopes had been held out with respect to the salt tax. 'lt had always been dt?- scribed as a tax which was not to be permanent, and the constant argument had been that the time had not arrived for repealing it. He heard with no small degree of surprise an Hon. and learned Member, who had formerly been of opinion that the tax ought to be repealed, support it on the present occasion. The reduction of one shilling on the malt tax was not beneficial t 6 the farmer, Nothing 'would give so much relief in taxation as taking off the tax on salt. There was no man more desirous of giving relief to the landed in terest than hieriself. Any relaiation of duties paid by the farmer was acceptable at this time, but he contidered the reduction of the- Malt Tax no relief at all. The brewer re ceived little advantage, and the public could nut expect a difference of a halfpenny in the.pot of beer. To the motion he gave his steady support. Sir F. OMNIANNEY supported the motion. He wished to see the poor man able to salt his pigs, which in many in stances could not be done.—(Latighter.)--He came into that House as the representative of a poor sort of people. His care was to uphold the poor, and he should support them in spite of all derision. Those who considered him capable of deserting the poor did not know his character. He did not approve of the reduction of the Five per Cents., because it would occasion distress among certain individuals. The greater part of the money from the Five per Cents. would go into foreign stock, and they Would never see it'again. They would not have enough left to buy salt. Sir J. SEBRIGHT rose to protest against the doctrine of the Right 'Honourable Gentleman He stood forward the advocate not only of the agricultural interest, hut the inte rest of the community. Whatever might be the present state of the finances. it was plain to common understanding that agriculture could not be kept up. if something was not dune, it must soon be relinquished. The 'result of all the inquiry he had made on the subject was this :—The ploughed lands of England not only failed to produce the amount of rent, "but they could not be kept in cultivation. consi dered the reduction of the Malt Tax an insult offered the public. It would afford no relief. Having heard that the Country Gentlemen would do all in their power to ame liorate the distresses of the country, lie called upon them to come forward, if they did not wish to see the land of their forefathers uncultivated. He called upon them to come for- . ward and oblig e hi s M a j esty ' s Mi n i sters to take off the taxe s . If they did not, Mi n i sters wou l d be obliged at last to do that which the people of England had a right, not to ask, but demand. Mr. LYI'TLETON considered it his duty to oppose the mo tion. He was ready to admit there was not a tax which fell heavier on the farmer than the tax on Salt. All the dairy farmers w;!re deeply affected by -it, but, unfortunately, ob noxious as the tax was, it could not be repealed without giv ing up the Sinking Fund. Upon an honest consideration of the advantages the Sinkin Funtlafforded for supporting the credit of the country, lie could not consent to abandon it.— The preservation of that fund made it impossible for him to support the motion. Mr, BRIGHT agreed with these Hon. Gentlemen who ar gued that the Sinking Fnnd could not be touched; but he had come to a conclusion that the Chancellor of the 'Exche quer had over-rated the amount of the Sinking Fund. He found that the Sinking Fund, on R former occasion, had not been so great as the present Fund; and that it was sufficient to support the credit 'of the country. If that was so, a deduc tion might be made ; 300,0001. might be struck off without inconvenience. Many deductions in the estimates of the public service might also be made to supply the deduction. The country Gentlemen, by repealing the Salt Tax, would essentially serve their constituents. Alderman HEYGATE opposed the motion, on the ground that a repeal of the tax would prevent that support they were bound to give to public credit. He congratulated the House on the sincere efforts which bad been made to reduce taxation. Mr. GIPPS snid he should rote for the repeal of the tax. Mr. C. BURRELL said relief from thr Salt Tax would be more beneficial thin the reduction of the Malt Tax. Mr. BENNETr(of Wilts) considered the Salt Tax ob noxious and oppressive, and he called on the country Gentle men to repeal it. • The Marquis of LONDONDERRY rose, to, state shortly • • ' the grounds of his opini o n. H e did not wish to disguise that it would afford him great satisfaction to say, they had arrived at the period when, consistent with "th e di sc h arge o f t h e i r . public day, his .Majesty's Ministers could recommend 'the re peat Of the Salt Duty. The Hon: Member for Nottingham had mode : an appeal to the House, in - . Order to prove how popular the Kin's Ministers might be, if they repealed this ,tax.; but the Noble:Marquis held that Ministers 'would be unworthy the confidence of the country; if they were to sacri fice the larger. nterest or the nation to popularity. The Hon. Member fo r Wareham had stated, th a t he was nut askingthe House to r escind the Vote they gave o n 'a for Mer night, but to recommend them to rescind, In point of policy, what they had r:lone in the Committee. The first question was, whether the House were satisfied that the repeal of the tax in question would injurr the income of the country. On this point the Noble Marquis was prepared 'to ••'trove the repeal would be injurious to the hest interests of the country. Could the tax be repealed at a OtoMent When all classes were looking to the consistency of Parliament,. which alone could support the mea sure then pending in the Money market ? The Member fur Wareham, who is agreat tact iciap, had recommended the repeal of the tax in three years, by proposed gradations of 500,0001. The Noble Marquis did not- understand the financial ground upon which the Hon. Member acted, but if it was advisable vo repeal the tax, the progressive payments proposed-by the Hon. Gentleman were certainly objectionable. He then came to amore general view of the bearing of this question, amid contended that without information of what Parliament had done, they could not repeal the tax.' A compliance with the motion would lay prostrate the credit of .the country. If Gentlemen were sincere in the opinions they expressed on Friday night, with reference to the Sinking Fund, they would not become allies of the common enemy, whose object was to get a repeal of all taxes. If the Salt Tax were repealed, the Hon. Member would come forward with his Leather Tax. After what passed the. other night, it was impossible they could repeal the salt Tax. The Noble Marquis . then adverted to the retrenchments Made by the Goiernment, and the pros pect,of still 'greater savings. If, upon an investigation, a' surplus remained, then he would allow the House to discuss the propriety of repealing the tax.- If public faith' would allow the repeal, due attention would be paid to the sobject. The House at that time would run thli risk of losing confi dence in Parliament, and perhaps destroythe advantage to be . derived from the rethiction Of the Five per Centi. if they suf fered themselves to appear'yegardless.uf :public credit and their own opinions. It was impossible they could rescind the pledge they had given not to interfere With the Sinking Fund - . •Sir T. LETHBRIDGE considered it his duty to speak plainly to Ministers. • He felt 'that the landed interest was likely to be sacrificed to the National Debt, and he called 'on the country gentlemen to come forward at - this paiticular period in stipport of theirown interest ; if they did not they would turn their backi on. themSelres.. - -(A langh.)—They had biiconfidence on. their general: policy, and he believed in that they had the support of the legitimate people of England. He .knew well that men •of their 'great. minds' could not long continue to pursue any course not meeting the • concurrence of the landed interest. Had he caught the Speaker's eye sooner, lie should have proposed an Amend'• ment, that the words " total and immediate" be substituted for graduated. He hoped the repeal of the tax, would be car. tied; but he h o p e d it w o u ld not end t h ere. He was - bound to report the sentiments of the people oflingland who sent him there, and in doing so, he was bound to say his Majesty's nisters must reduce more. taxes.—(Hear, bear!) Mr. J. MARTIN followed up the observations of the last Member, and maintained - that a reduction of the Civil List expenditure ought to he effected. . Sir E. KNATCHBULL said that irtheMotiOn bad been to reduce five millions of taxes, instead of the-motion before the House, he would have voted (dr it. The Representatives of the landed interest • in, that House would do their duty and oblige further reduction. They Would do it uninfluenced, and unawed ; and be.zubst here say, that if they did enforce a remission of taxes, to the extent.of. five millions, he did not believe the Sinking Fund watild be touched. ' He' was Con , vinced other means, in allusion to the Pension and other Lists, would be found to corer the loss of them. Mr. T. %VILSON said, he thought the principle of the motion good, but that the motion itself was far from Wise Ot that moment. • Mr. BROUGHAM could not help remarking on the ex traordinary course of the debate. •If a n y person had heard all the language of every speaker that night, with the excep tion of the Noble Marquis, 'and 'not: heard - the coneltision of each speech, he would think .that a more harmonious as- sembly never got together -to discuss any question. Every • one agreed with his Honourable Friend in deprecating the. principle of the tax, and even agreed in the propriety of re pealing it, only one party were for doing' it now, and the other at a future period. But this he would venture to say, that if they did:not carry the motion that night, :they'would hear no more of repealing the odious tax than they would hear of retrenchment; and they never . would -see any thing of retrenchment if, they did not oblige it tube effected by repeating this and 'Other taxes. Reduce the Ways and Means of Ministers, and they will. soon - see a reduction of expendi tfire.--(Hear, hear!)—He begged the House to look at the tactics of the Noble Marquis opposite, in beguiling the House in an unwary moment into the Resolution on the occasion of the motion of the Honourable Menther(Ltird Althorp.)' He now turned round upon those ..who voted for the Resolution of that night; and told theistthey were bound hand and foot by that vote never to vote for the repeal of any tax . till there - wits another surplus of revenue to the extent of five millions. This was a specimen of his : Lordship's Parliamentary tactics, and he`entteated the Hinise to force the 'Noble Marquis to put his .good :intentions of reducing more taxes, if he was so disposed, into effect. Let them repeal a tax which no onerharl,been'found bold enough heretofore, or at present, to defend.-=-(Hear, hear !) Mr. PEEL rose 'for the purpose 'of entering his protest against the doctrines which his-Learned Friend who last spoke hall laid down in' the conclusion of his speech. Thy Learned Gentleman-might deceive the How.e.with ingenious argnment, - bUt he appealed to every man of common sense whether the House had not, on the motion of, the Noble land (Alt burp) on a preceding evening rmed the resolution of 1 819, viz. that . it was desirable that a surplus of 5,000,0001. shoultl'lle - anntral-' ly applied to the reduction of the national debt. But if the first resolution was not sufficiently plain, it had been fallyeginfirm ed bytbe second. Could'any man doubt the construction of that resolution? He objected to the motion of the Hon. Gentle man because he thonght it a doubtful policy for Government to pledge itself to the repeal of any tax whatever. No one could say what might be the effect on the country, not only with re gard to the revenue but with regard to trade, .in consequence of a direct pledge being given that' any particular tax should be repealed, On that ground he should resist the motion of the Hon. Gentleman, He was disposed also to,ohject to the ElMendment Which' . another Hon. Gentleman had suggested, because he thought it impossible; at the present moment, for GorernMent 'to bear the reduction of a tax amounting to _1,100,0001. The question *as - how far the estiinates of the year would bear a reduction to the amount of the tax now sought to be reduced: The revenue of the country amounted altogether to 55 millions, the expenditure amounted to 50 mil lions, 33 of which went to pay the interest' of the natiinial debt, leaving the sum of seventeen millions for the public expences. The Navy, .the Ain*, 'the 'Ordnance, and 'Mis cellaneous Estimates consumed nearly the whole of that sum, and in what department then 'could Government at Present make any redu c ti on ? Could the Army be reduced? So tar was that 'front - being *practicable that it had' been one of the charges against Government by the Gentle men on the Opposition side, when the: state of Ireland was under consideration, that the army was in a d e q ua t e . I n wh at manner then could further retrenc h ment be introduced in the Army? Let the House look .to.the state of the Army in Scotland, and lie would ask them, not whether it ought to be • reduced, but' whether it ought nut to be inci eased ? Then, as to the Navy,theHouse must. know that they had scarcely ever pass ed a vote regarding that establishment, without some Mem ber ekpressing his regret that its reduction had been carried to so great an extenti With regard to the Ordnance and the Miscellaneous Estimates, it was impossible for the'most rigid economy to propose any further reduction. The Hon. Baronet (sir T. Lethbridge) had concluded his address by compliment- , ing the Members of Government on the general line of poli cy which they had pursued; of Coarse he did not consider him- - self included in thaicompliment ; but if it was true that the Governthent had acquired the confidence of the country—if they had ,maintained a. fair character throughout the arduous period during which the duties of Administration had • been discharged by them, it had been by pursuing, through a sea son of difficulty, a course directly opposite to ,that 'tow pro posed. They had'done it by maintaining the national faith, and upholding the public character.—(Loud clreers.) — Mr. MABERLY - as'slired the House, that the amount of the tax in question might be saved in the collection of the' Revenue. Mr. CALCRAFT briefly replied. He begged the House to bear in mind, that the NOble Mariinis was refniing the reduction of 508,0001. only, when he had promised a reduc tion to the amount of one million for next year.—(Hear.) ' The Houie then divided, when the numbers were—ln favour of the Motion Against it Majority The Gallery was not again opened, and • upon a motion of Mr. Forbes, that fr . . Drummond be added to the ❑umber of the Committee •on Foreign Trade, a division was called for, when there appearing to be but four Members in the House, it was of course adjourned at HALF-PAST TWO. THE FIVE PER CENTS. • The following ,Resolutions. were re p or t e d i n the .rouse of Comnions on Wednesday night .• 1. " That all and every person and persons, Bodies Politic and Corporate, who now is or are, or hereafter may be, inte rested in; or entitled unto, any , part of .the National Debt re deemable by Law Which now carries in • Interest after the rate of Five Pounds per Centum per Annum; and is ikautilly kiiciWn by the name of Navy Five per Cents., or by the name Irish - live per Cent. Annuities, payable at the Bank of England, and who .shall not signify his, her, or their dissent; inAhe man ner hereinafter mentioned, shall; in lieu of every £lOO of au - eh Five per Centum Annuities, receive, and be entitled. to,"the sum of £lO5 in a new Stock, to be called the New Four Pounds. per Centum Annuities,' and to carry an Interest after the rate of Four Pounds per Cept. Ann., and so in proportion for iiny greater or less amount of such Five per Cent. Annuities that the Dividends thereof shall be payable half-yearly at the Bank of England, upon the sth day of Jan., and the sth day of. July, in each and every year :=And the first. half-yearly Divi dead on the •. id New Four Pounds per Cent. Annuities shrill be payable on tne sth day of January 1823 :—And that the said New Four Pounds per centutn Annuities shall not be liable to be paid off until the sth day of Jarniary 1829. '• . • • . 2. " That the Interest and Dividends payable in respect,of the said New' Four Pounds per Centuni Annuities 'shall be charged and chargeable upon the Consolidated Fend 'of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland., in the 'Sallie manner as the Interest 'and Dividends of, the Five Merida per . Centum Annuities how stand charged on the said Flind. • 3. "'That all and every person and persons, Bodies Politic or Corporate, who shall not within the period commencing On Monday the 4th day of March, and ending ,on Satorday the 16th day of March; 1822, both d ays inclusive, signify his, her, or their dissent from accepting an.; receiving a Share in the. said new Four Pounds per Centuni Annuities in lieu of her, or their respective shares in the said Five Poitrids per ten- Wm Annuities, in the 'Manner hereinafter directed, shall be deemed and taken to have consented to accept and receive the same; provided always, that if any Proprietor or Proprietors a Five Pounds per Cent. Annuities shall not be within the limits of the United Kingdom at any time between the 22d.day of Feb. and the 16th day of 'March 1822, but shall be in any Other • part of Europe, it shall be lawful for such Proprietor or. Pro prietors to signify such dissent at any time before the Ist day. of Junee 1822 ; and if any such Proprietor or Proprietors shall not,•at any time between the 22d day of February, 1822; and the Ist day of June 1822, be within any part of Europe,•,it shall be lawful for him, her, or them, to signify such dissent.at any time before'the Ist day of March 1823, Such P:oprietor.or Pro prietors proving to the satisfaction of the Governor and Direc tors of the Bank of England, or any two or more of them, hiS, her, or their absence froth the United Kingdom, 'or out : of Europe as above specified ; and that his, her, or their share or shares pf such Five Pounds per Centum Annuities stood her, or their name or names respectively on the 22d day Of February 1822, in the books of the Governor and Company of the Bank - of England, provided also that such Proprietor •or Proprietors so absent from the United Kingdom, or out of Europe, shall signify such his, her, or their dissent within ten days after'his, her, or their return to the United Kingdoin.7 4. " That . provision should be made by this House for pay ing off such Proprietor or Proprietors of the said Five Pounds per Centum Annuities as shall signify his, her, or their dissent from accepting and receiving any share in the said New Four Pounds per Cent= Annuities in lieu.thereof." 5. That all persons, Bodies Politic and. Corporate,..pos- ifessed . of any part of the said Five Pounds per Centum Annuities, and who shall. desire to signify such dissent as - aforesaid, shall, between the 4th and 16th days of March 1802; both inclusive, by themselves, or some agent or agents for that . purpose duly au thor ize d, s i gn if y to the Governor ,and Coinpany of the Bank of England such dissent in writing under his, her, _or their hand or hands, 'together with:: the • amount of his, her, or their respective shares in the said. Five Pounds • per Cent= Annuities, and which said dissent` ahrill be' entered in a book or books• to be opened and kept by , tht said Governor and Company for that purpose, and numbered in the order in which his, her, or their dissent s h a ll b e rece i v ed by the said Governor an d Company ; and in case of any transfer of such shares, or any part or parts thereof, after such dissent, the part or part-4 so transferred shall be entered in the said books under the same numbers as were affixed to such shares when the dissent was so signified ; and every such dis sentient proprietor or proprietors, or his, her, or their assigns, under any such transfer, shall be paid off in the numerical order in Which his, her, or their name or names shall he. en._ tered in such book, such payi sent to commence on the sth day' of July 1822, and to be continued at such periods and in such manner as' Parliathent may direct." • 6. " That every PrOprietor or Proprietors of the Naiy Pive Pounds per Centum Annuities aforesaid, shall receive the Diri dehds due thereon on the sth day of July, 1822; and‘that every Proprietor or Proprietors of the Irish Five Pounds per Centuni Annuities aforesaid, shall receive the Dividend due'theretiPdri on the sth day of April, 1822, and shall also receive one,quars, ter's Dividend thereon on the sth day of July, 1822, and the said last-mentioned Five Pounds per Cent= Annuities shall • be paid off; or converted into Four Pounds per Centum Arinui , ties, in Manner aferesaid, from and after the said sth day of July, 1822, and no transfer of the said Irish Five Pounds per Centum Annuities, or of any Annuities at the rate of I , We" Pounds per Cent= per Annum, payable in Ireland, to or limn:, the books of the Go ver n o r an d C ompany o f t h e B an k of Eng land, or to .or from the books of the Governor and Cotnpany of .. the Bank of Ireland, shall take place from and after the 26th day of February, 1822." 7.." That all Executors, Administrators, Guardians, and Trustees, may signify such.dissent in respect of suchshirres . •of the said Five Pounds per Centutu Annuities, for the holding of which their names are made use of respectively, and all Ex ecutors, Administrators, Guardians, and Trustees, not signify ; ing such dissent, shall be deemed to have assented as aforesaid, • and shall, be indemnified in respect thereof." . • ANNUAL MALT TAX ACT. The following is -a correct Copy of the Resolutions agreed to on Wednesday night in the House of Commons, and upon which a Bill was ordered to be brought in accordingly : 1. " That there be allowed. the Duty of Excise upon 'Malt, charged by - an Act made in the 2d year of the reign of his re sent Majesty, for the servi ce o f th e year 1 112 1 , upon all Malt• which shall have paid the whole of the Duties now by law chargeable on Malt, and which shall be used and consumen . after the 25th day of February 1822, and before the sth clay,tif April 1823, in the making or brewing of Beer, the di s till ati Oh of British Spirits, and the making ofVinegar, respectively,-not, exceeding the proportions, and in manner following : viz. " To Brewers of Beer in Great Britain for . sa l e , for 'every four Barrels of Porter, which Shill be charged with Duty as Strong Beer, the sum of Bs:—and for every three Barrels of Ale which shall be so charged the sum of B s .— an d f or every seven Barrels of Table Beer which shall be charged with Dutlf,. • Bs.—and to every Distiller of British Spirits in Great tam for sale, for every nineteen Gallons of British Spirits of the strength of seven per centum above .hydrometer. • proof, distilled from'Corn irash charged with Duty; the sum of 2s.—and to every Vinegar-maker in. Great Britain for sale, for every 36 Gallons of Vinegar of the strength of proof. Made froM Nialt only, and charged with Duty, the sum of 20" . 2. " That from and after th e 25th day of February,,lg q,„ . the Countervailing Duty of sixteen s hilli n g s an d twopence; im posed by an Act made in the 59th year of the reign of his ,late Majesty, upon Irish Strong Beer, Ale or Minn, imported or brought into Great Britain directly from Ireland, shall tease and 'determine, except as to any arrear thereof ; and that in lieu thereof the following Duty o f E xc i se s h a ll ,b e charged', : - levied, collected, and paid " For and upon every Barrel, consisting of thirty,shr gallons English Beer measure, of Irish Strong. Beer, AleitirMum, which shall be imported or brought intd Great Britain dfrectly from Ireland, an Excise Countervailing Duty of fourteenshit t lings and two pence." 3. " That there shall 'be granted and. allowed for and upon every Barrel of Strong Beer or Ale made or .brewed after the 25th day of February 1822 in - Great . Britain, above the price'of eighteen shillings per Barrel, exclusive of the Duty, and not being Two-penny Ale, mentionedand described in the seventh article of the Treaty of Union With Scotland, which shall be. duly exported to Foreign parts as merchandize„,a Drawback of fourteen shillings and two pence only, in lieu of the Draw.' back now payable on Beer so exported.% LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S .BENCII, Ftua. 2ft. .. Before Chief Justice Anaorr and a Special Jury. THE APOTHECARIES' coMpANv v. nowt. This was art action to recover from the defend int .cutain penalties imposed by the 550 Geo. 111. oil all persons (not practising as Apothecaries at the time) who_should; after Alie passing of the Act, practice as Apothecaries. Several persons, who gave the defendant tun greatest Credit for skill and capacity, were called, some of whom pro►eu. him to have practised as an Apothecary after the pasShig - tif the Act, and others proved his having acted previous to the,p;l•s -ing of the Act, but he bad not at the time served more than three years and a half of his apprenticeship. • . Mr. DEN lAN addressed the Jtiry for the defendant. The Jury retired for a few minutes, and on I heir return delivered a verdict for the plaintiffs on the lit count—Da wages 201 ; and for the defendant on all the other counts.