Star.
London, England, 1824-05-14 00:00:00

less a sum than 1,100,060/. he again greatly overshot
the mark, for the actual amount of. the difference to
which he alluded, as paid into the Exchequer, did not
exceed from 1120,0001. to 150,0001. Taking, however,
that part of his Honourable Friend's proposition, he
musts say that it ought to be prolipunded in a different
shape. If that change in the condition of the Slave-
population were to be effected by a fiscal measure of
economy considered in the way his Honourable Friend
had put it, then let it be broadly put to Parliament,
whether they were ready to work what might be deemed
a salutary change, and to pay such an amount in cash
to the masters, to purchase the emancipation of such a
number of Slaves? As to what his Honourable
Friend had said respecting the prosperity of Sierra Le•
one under a different system, did he mean to say that
what was practical in the education, discipline, and in-
ternal regulations and improvements of a small Co-
lony so placed, and so paid for, could be practically
introduced, and with equal practicability managed,
when transplanted and applied to the condition of the
West Indian population of 800,000 Slaves?—(Hear).--
•I'he distinction between the two cases was obvious, and
need not be further argued. That the comme:cial
policy of Great Britain was altering, was indeed clear.
His Honourable Friend could not be unaware of the
immense change which was now working in the old
commercial system of the world, by the recent events
which had occurred, and were still in progress, in the
new world. A great commercial country like this,
must more or less adapt her policy to a state of things
which arose in these huge and important colonies, which
had separated themselves flout their previous state of,
European dependence. New interests were created,
and still creating, and England must regulate her po-
licy according to circumstances, many of which were
not yet fully developed. This again was a point of
discs-pion into which he thought it would be improper
for h:m incidentally to embark with his Honourable
Friend, for these reasons he trusted the House would
agree with him, that there was no necessity for ap-
pointing a Committee to ascertain facts which were not
in dispute, :ind more pat ticularly for the purpose of dis-
cussing conclusions vr hich could not fail to awaken jea-
lousies and alarms which it were more prudent not at
the present moment to excite—(Hear )
WHITNIORE, in reply, denied that they were
agreed upon facts, and offered to verify that denial in a
Committee. W:th respect to the difference of the
amount of payments in the Exchequer—it did not
follow, that because the money was not paid into
tote Exchequer, that therefore it was not drawn out of
the pocket of the consumer. He would not, certainly,
press his motion ag:.inst the sense of the House.
The motion was then put, and negatived without
a division.

SALT MITI LS.
Mr. WODEIIOUSE rose to bring forward hi; mo-
tion for the continuance of the Salt Duties. He stated

that the object of his motion was, to see how far it Was
practicable to continue the Duties on Salt, with a view
to an exemption from the Window Tax. He was aware
that it was generally supposed that a pledge had been
given for the repeal of this tax. but he did not see how
any such notion ought to prevail. Parliament was bound
to act according to events, and to pledge itself to any
line of conduct without qualification was not only to,
stultify themselves, but to oppose the very object of
their institution. He was aware that the chief objet-

Lion to this duty arose from the Excise regulations
which accompanied it. He felt it to be his duty to refer
to Mr. Carr, the Solicitor of Excise. This Gentleman
had been examined before the Committee of Criminal

Laws, and he stated that it was a principle that, where
low duties were fixed, low penalties necessarily at-
tached ; and where high duties were fixed, high penal-
ties of coarse were necessary. The first point to which
he would call the attention of the House was, the num-
ber of absurdities in the laws which regarded the Salt
Duties of England and Ireland. It .could be a great
object to find out if an amendment could not be made
in the laws in this respect. He (Nlr. Wodehouse) also
wished to impress on the House the propriety of di-
minishing the expense of the collection, which amounted
to 15,000/. on 800,0001. The next pint to which he,
would advei t, was the great reduction in the number of
Excise prosecutions. The number of prosecutions in the
Court of Exchequer in 1819 was 37; the penalties arising
from them was 2,4001. In 1324, the number of
prosecutions was only four, and the amount of pe-
nalties received was 11. 18s. Si. He believed it would
be found that smuggling in salt was entirely done
away with. He had a notion of submitting to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer some facts on this sub-
ject. lie had intended to bring a deputation of smug-
glers before the Right lion. Gentleman---(A laugh).
lle believed it woulJ be found that the trade in the
smuggling of salt was now entirAy at an end. In Che-
shire he believed this was found to be the case, and he
believed it was equally so in Yarmouth. With respect
to the fisheries, he was ready to assist them as far as he
could consistently with the general good. He did not
think that fishing could be carried to an indefinite ex-
tent. Nothing was more precarious than that trade.
Sometimes the fish did not come, and when they came,
it remained to raise a bargain for disposing of them.
He now came to the consideration of the use of salt for'
agricultural purposes. He dwelt on the absurdity of
requiring a certificate, and contended that it should
be expunged from the Statute. He believed that the ad-
vantage of using salt in farming was very. much ex-
aggerated. On this subject they might expect to hear
much valuable info, mation from the Honourable Mem-
' ber for Cumbetland. He understood that it was the
intention of all the Western Members to oppose him
on this question. But there was one Honourable]
Member on the other side, whose support he owned
he would rather have than that of all those on the same
'side. He meant the Honourable Baronet, the Mem-
ber for Westminster, because that Honourable Member
on a former night wished to appropriate a sum of
1,000,0001. to the poor of Ireland, and he made up that
sum, amongst other things, of the produce of the Salt
Tax. Therefore he was justified in concluding that the
Honourable Baronet would vote for the continuance of
, that Tax. He then referred to Mr. Parkes's evidence
before the Board of Trade, who stated that the effect of
the removal of the duty would be to stimulate people to'
Ivy what way an article of such general application
could be put into more extensive use. But what impe-
diment was there in the existence of a low duty to the
general use of the article ? Would the Member for
Bodmin say there was any? Let the Honourable Mem-
ber forget his partiality for pilchards and rise up in the
'dignity of an abstract man, and only say that Mr.
Parkes was right, and he (Mr. Wodehouse) would aban-
don his motion at once. He then recurred to the opinion
of a variety of individuals who had given their senti-
ments on the subject, and contended that there was no