The Sun.
London, England, 1805-03-05 00:00:00

not conceive any, possible uric more . oppressive and'
more Objedionable than the present, and .he
therefore give his most hearty concurrence t 9 the
amendment. proposed by his Noble.Ftieiid.'
Mr. EGERTON had received the most positive
instruaioris limn his Constituents in Chesire, to
oppose a measure so injurious to their interest ; At,
'the same time, he could not refrain from returning.
his thanks to the 'flight Hon. Gentleman for the'
candid hearing he .had given to the Gentlemen
puted for Northwick.on this subjear although un-
fortunately their argument had not produced the de-
'sired Ord.

Mr. G/DDY.spoke against the- Bill. Be knew
that the rise in salt, •oceasioned by the last duties
that were imposed on it, had prevented many from
laying in a stock for the fisheries.
Sir W. PULTM EY knew that had not war
broken out soon after the Report of the committee of
18ot had been given in, a repeal of the Salt Duty
would have been proposed ; the great difficulty was
to discover a substitute for a Tax which produced so
large a revenue. It was a Tax that bore heavily on
families' consisting old number of individuals. One
great objea of Parliament had ever been not to
tax the absolute necessaries of life; there was a
material distinelion to be made between those and
articles of occasional consumption. Salt was one
of those indispensible necessaries ; leather was an.
,other. The injury done to agriculture by this duty
was considerable.. When we computed: the addi.
tional expence which the potir would incur by this
new tax, we must recoiled that the retailers always
doubled the amount of it in their charge. The pro. _
fittof themanufafturers of salt were very trifling ;
they Ilepanded on Are extent of their sale, and to
curtail this would be the obvious tendency of the
new duty. It had been so in Fiance, •where,..when
the tax on salt WAS high, the consumption did not
exceed twelve pounds weight per annum for each, in.
dividual ; hut wlien low, it amounted to twenty.
eight pounds. In Scotland, when salt is dear, the
poor are obliged ,to cat their oatmeal without it ;
and it is well known that oatmeal requires more salt,
to season it than wheat- flour does; the operation of
'the tax' would tliereinte be partial.
Mr. ROSE would not follow the Honourable
Baronet through all his observations on the public
expenditure and economy. (4- loud cry of, Bear!
Hear!) He had expressed great alarm lest the ad.
ditional duty slmuld'tlecrease the consumption,. but
he could inform him that the last duty laid upon salt
had,had the effect of increasing the consumption.
An Honourable Gentlemen oo Ate whet side had
been most egregiously misled in the calcolation'he
had submitted to the House of the quantity of salt
necessary for salting Pork., He, had been informed
by his cook, th,it tor a basion loig of ra. scare not
more than 13 or r 4. plinth of:salt was necessary.—
AS to finding a substitute for this tax, it was utterly
impossii)l:: to find a substitute for a tax that pro.
duced a revenue of, a million. sterling. It was very
easy for:Gentlemen to abuse any tax that might be
offered fottheir consideration, hut be was convinced
that under all the circumstances of the times, no one
could he found lesS exceptionable than the present.
Mr, FOX, in expla'nation, said, that it was not
The quantity offialt used in Gentlemen's families for
salting that should he stated, but that used by cot. •
lagers; in the 'former niiitiy parts of the hog were,
perhaps, 'thrown away, while by the latter, nb pot.
tion was Suffered to Iv. wasted.

Sir W..:YOtitic concurred in opinion with the
Hon. Gewlernan who hail just sat down.
iliderman CO/ti Re sphkc at some length against
the Bill. Hr: rev'eitrd the arguments urged'by Lord
W. ittrssELL, Mr. Fox, and Sir W. PULTONUY,
and obierved, that it thellinise knew how severely
the tax would oi-ierate against the poor, rhey would
pause before they gtve their consent to its being
carried into effect.

'he SECRF,TARY at WAR said a few words
in support of the measure. lie correeltd- several
misstatements, and particularly one by an Hon.
Baronet, who bad alledged ti at the expence of salt
in poor families would he ss. per annum
,for each
individual, when the lad was, that it would only
be p. per annum for each "orally.
Some further conversal jun ensued; in which Lord'
ARCHIBALD HARIILTON spoke against thc tax.—
, Mr. liosittsSort,argued that the tax on salt .in
Scotlind, amounting .only to 50,0001. on three
m pions of people, could nut be oppressive.
Mr.joir msTo a defended the calculation of his Han.
RelaCivi Sir W. Pr.n.reNey), and maintained that
the increase, ten the constimpti,n of etrch individual
'would be, Is. ;he ars°, contended, that the Duty
ni).;tinOng only to 50,0001. on three millions ,cif
pew,ile, was 84cient to spew that smuggling, the
constant attendant of an excessive Duty, prevailed
to a great degree on thii.

Mr. HoitissoN s4id, the Duty in Scotland was
PtTT said a few 'words in support of
tormer reasoning. The .question being called
for,. the 'House divided.

For the Motion 93
Against it . 6o

Majority 33
'Vie Pill was then read a second time, and or.
der, to be committed tomorrow. --Adjourned,

MAI I.S,
Aitai v zr.—; Dublin. Du it—g Ilarnburigh. 4 Gottenburghi
Lisboni 1 Dublin, 2 Waterford.

PRICE OF• STOCKS
TIM DAY AT TWILVA O'CLOCIIC.
COnEOIS • 56 I Omniut4 - 3

TEIE SUN.

soLEg Qvis Dlck;E fALLUNI AVDLAT ?

ONDON,

1t DAY, MACH 5, 1805.'

WE have heard from an 'authority to which We
attac4 considerable credit, that the litochefort &pa-
ilrzn has rctnrned tp that Port in 'a
my Iliaable&

4!atee