The Sun.
London, England, 1822-07-10 00:00:00

SCOTTISH COTTAGE TAX.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER resumed. He
remarked upon the impropriety and injustice which would at-
tach to the repeal of the Cottage Window Tax in Scotland,
while it was continued in England. If there were any objections
to the manner in which it applied to the poor, or to the mode of
its collection, he should be quite ready during the recess, or in
the next Session, to receive any communication with a view to
remove them.

Mr. J. P. GRANT did not think the Right Hon. Gentleman
was acquainted with the situation of a great portion of the
poor of Scotland, who were subject to this tax. lts collection
was most oppressive, and often produced to them a much
greater expense than the tax itself. Sotne places were so si-
tuated, that for the inhabitants to go to Inverness to pay the
tax would cost them fifteen shillings; and then, if they were
not paid in time, the collector came round and distrained upon
a whole district. After having seized their cattle, he would
not give them until he had received his expenses, which in
some cases amounted to twenty shillings, upon the original
claim of four and sinpence.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained.
He repeated, that if there were such hardships attending the
collection of the tax, he should be ready to receive any sug-
gestions for relieving them during the recess.
Mr. HUME said,. that the canes mentioned by his lion. and
Learned Friend were common in the thinly scattered widely
peopled districts of Scotland. _ _

Mr. LOCKHART spoke in favour of the remission of taxes.
Lord A. HAMILTON said, that after the candid and hand-
some manner in which his motion had been met by the Right
Hon. Gentleman, lie bogged leave to withdraw it.—Motion
withdrawn.

CURRENCY AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
Mr. WESTERN rose to state that he did not mean to bring
on his Resolutions to night. It was, however, his determina-
tion, that before the House separated, these questions should
undergo discussion. At present he should withdraw his notice,
and let it stand for to-morrow, with the intention of bringing it
on the first opportunity.
Mr. HUSKISSON suggested, that as two notices already
stood for to-morrow, the Hon. Gentleman had better fix the
earliest open day for his Resolutions. At present if it re-
mained upon the paper it would only stand in the way of pub-
lic business.

Mr. WESTERN said, that in case he was prevented from
bringing it on to-morrow, it might stand for Tuesday next.
SCOTS BREWERS.

Lord A. lIA II:TON begged to in Tailthe attention of the
House to a paper which had been laid on their table, the Memo-
rial of the Scots Brewers to the Treasury, which he could not
possibly conceive that Board or the Chancellor of the Exchequer
could have.taken into consideration. The case was this; two
years ago a clause was introduced into a Bill which became a law,
to compel all Brewers in Scotland to give an account of the quan-
tities of beer which they sold, and the quality and the persons to
whom they sold it. This, from the mode of doing business in Scot-
land, was utterly impossible, and instructions had been issued by

the Excise entirely at variance with the Act of Parliament, so that
in fact the brewers were subject to a penalty of 2001. whether they
obeyed the Excise instructions or no. It was said that the se-
curity of the revenue required ,the continuance of this law, but
he defied the Chancellor of the Exchequer to prove, that it had
been or could be acted upon. The Noble Lord concluded by
moving for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the 4th section of
the Ist and 2tl Geo. IV. c. 22.
The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUER objected to
the motion, on the ground that the clause in question was of
considerable importance to the revenue, and that no inconve-
nience had arisen from the application. He had, in fact, heard
of no complaint from Scotland, except that alluded to by the
Noble Lord. The repeal of this clause would merely go to re-
medy a fancied evil, at the expence of a considerable diminu-
tionof the revenue.

Mr. J. P. GRANT said, it had been admitted by the Board
of Excise that the brewers could not comply with the Act of
Parliament. He was at a loss, therefore, to understand the
Right Hon. Gentleman, when he declared that the trade sus-
tained no injury from this clause. He should certainly support
the motion.

Lord,A. HAMILTON said, in reply, that not a single town
could be named in which the provisions of the Act had been
carried into effect. If his present motion were unsuccessful, he
should, in the next Session, submit the case to the House in the
shape of a specific Resolution.
The motion was put, and negatived without a division.
The Report of the Irish Insurrectiun Act Bill was received ;
the Amendments were read a seconil time and agreed to, and
the Bill ordered to be read a third time on Thursday.
RECEIVERS-GENERAL BILL.
The House resolved itself into a Committee on the Receivers-
General bill.

Mr. HUMS moved as an Amendment to the clause fixink
the salaries, that the words " not less than 3001. nor more than
6001." be inserted.

Mr. R. SMITH wished to hear some explanation frol.i the
Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, why he had not followed up
the recommendations of the Committee. The Bill had origin-
ally been printed in conformity with the recommendations, but
had been altered in its most material clauses upon its recom-
mittal without notice to any Member of that House. The
maxinzunt of the salaries, including all expences, had originally
been fixed at 6001., but a clause had since been substituted, in
which the words " including all expenses," had been left out,
and the Government empowered to grant 3001, a year for ex-
pences' in addition to the salary of 6001.
Mr. LUSH INGTON said that there was not the slightest
foundation for the imputation which had been thrown upon his
Majesty's Government by the Hon. Gentleman opposite. He
had already wearied the House with explanations on this sub-
ject. The Bill had, in the first instance, been brought in in
strict conformity with the recommendations of the Committee,
but it- was a new doctrine that the Government was bound
implicitly to adhere to such recommendations.—lf the explana-
tion had not been much earlier it had been only that no oppor-
tunity had been afforded. With respect to the plans it would
be both more safe and economical than that recommended by
the Committee.'' The average salary would be about 500/. It
would be greater in the more populous counties.
Mr. It. SMITH was of opinion that if the Right Hon. Se-
cretary had read the evidence he could not have reasoned as he
did. The objections which the Commissioners of Excise had
to the Committee's plan ought to have been stated in evidence
before the Committee. At all events notice should have been
given of the deviations from the Committee's recommendation.

Mr. H. GURNEY thought that there were cases in which
6001. would not he enough, and that it was proper to allow ex-
penses._

Mr: BANKES was of opinion that it was improper to delay.
the notice of the deviations till nearly 12 months after the Com-
mittee had sat.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER defended the
conduct of Ministers with regard to the Bill.
The Amendment was finally withdrawn.
Mr. LUSIIINGTON proposed a clause, authorising the
Treasury to make an allowance of 2s. per mile, and one guinea
per day, while travelling.—The Clause was agreed to.
The house resumed, and the Report was brought up, and
ordered to be received to-morrow.

The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
Louse adjourned at DALr-PAST ONE.

The following is a copy of the Petition of a numerous body
of the Freeholders of this county, presented in the Commons
by Sir EDWARD ENATCHBULL on Thursday night, expres-
sive of their regret and indignation at the adoption of Mr. Con-
BETT'S proposition at the late County Meeting.

" To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland.
_

" The humble Petition of the undersigned Freeholders
of the County of Kent,
" Humbly Sheweth—That your Petitioners have seen with
grief, astonishment, and indignation, that a Petition purporting
to be a Petition from the County of Kent, complaining of Agri-
cultural Distress, and praying for Parliamentary Reform, has
recently been presented to your Honourable House, to which a
concluding paragraph or rider was tacked, praying that your
Honourable House, after having refortued itself, would be
pleased to make a just reduction in the interest of the National
Debt.
" Although your Petitioners sensibly feel the pressure of the
distress at this moment weighing upon the agricultural interests of
this con nty,in common with the said Petitioners, an d are com pelled
to pray that your Hon. House will, in your collective wisdom,
devise and effect such remedies as may appear best calculated
to afford your Petitioners efficient relief, your Petitioners spurn
with indignation the imputation that the distress under which
they labour, in common with other Freeholders, should
have operated not only to the perversion of their judgmenis, 1
but to the direliction of their moral principles, and they con-
fidently trust your Honourable Howe will continue to sustain
the public credit, which has hitherto enabled their favoured
Country to resist all the Powers of Europe ; and to maintain
the House of Brunswick on the Throne of these Realms, by
a strict adherence to the terms of the contract entered into
with that public creditor, but for whcse assistance in pro-
secuting an expensive, though necessary, war, your Petitioners
might not only have been deprived of the 'privilege of petition.
ing your-Honourable House to redress their grievances, but
also of their Freeholds, and have been made the vassals of ty-
rannical Government and Foreign Rule."—( Kentish Gazette,
July 9.)