Star.
London, England, 1822-03-02 00:00:00

SUPPLIES.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved
the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself
into a Committee of Supply.
The order being read—on the motion that the .
Speaker do leave the Chair,
Sir JOHN NEWPORT wished to ask the Right
lion. Gentleman whit allowance was to be made to
the brewers and maltsters in the remission of Is. per
bushel malt tax upon the stock on hand ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that the intention of Government would be fully ex-
pressed in the Resolutions upon which the Bill to be
brought in would be founded.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT wished to understand what
proportion would be alioaed to the maltsters?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER sail
that no alloWance would be made to them for the
stock then on hand.
Mr. FARRAND said, that the purpose cf
Right Hon. Gentleman had been anticipated in t':e
corn-market, and would cause a loss of 4s. a bushel
on the stock on hand. That was the preent ea. ct of
the measure, and there were no purchases of tetriee
made. What then was to be done with the immense
stocks of barley ? He had an account of the real
state of the market to-day, which he would read to
the House :••••46 The great uncertainty as to the in-
tentions of Government in regard to the malt on
han4 has made the market dull, and few sales have
been effected. Wheat from 3s. to 4s. lower than (ea
Monday. Barley from 3s. to 4s. lower also. Bea
barley, from 20s. to 225. per quarter."—But for that
circumstance barley must have been at least as high
as on Monday, the supplies were so short. But why
was this to be the regulation on the repeal of the tax?
In June, 1819, when barley was 70s. to 80s. a quar-
ter, the duty was imposed on the stock on hand. The
consequence was, that down went the malt. There
would be no malt made after May, if the light lion.
Gentleman persisted. What then was to become of
the barley ? Here was a method for relieving agri-
cultural distress !
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that the fluctuations of the corn market must have
arisen from other causes, or they would not have af-
fected wheat as 'well as barley.
Mr. FARRAND said; that there were large-stocks
of barley and malt now on hand. The tax was to be
taken off with a view to the relief of agriculture. It
would produce an opposite effect if the Right Hon.
Gentleman persisted.
Mr. GOOCH understood that agriculture was to
receive an immediate relief. if the Bill did not
ai-
ply to the stock on hand, the malting season would
be over, end then there would be no relief in it.
Sir Nik RIDLEY was glad to observe the new light
which had enabled the Hon. Member to discovei
that the measures of Ministers really were likely to
I bring no relief.
Mr. G(X)CH explained. He had n:t.said that the
measures of Ministers would yield no relief—(Order !?
Sir M. RIDLEY understood the Hon. Member to
complain that the measure could give no immediate
relief. Immediate relief would not arise to agricul-
ture from any measures which the Noble Lord could
adopt, especially if they went to force up artificial
prices for artificial produce, to the detriment of all
the rest of the community. The reduction of taxes
would give relief by. leaving the means of increased
consumption, and the consequent increase of demansio
from which the most effectual remedy would be de-
rived to agricultural distress.
Mr. HUME wished to have particulars of the suer
of 1,n00,0001. for wear and tear, or ss, tear aad
wear," as the corrected expression furnished them set
a former night wear, It was ao reason for refusing.

i

...

txplanaticat that ittod Mt been given before. Before
Islo there were no detailed Estimates of the Nave
ftireislied at all. But softly it was a Mockery togi,
in a charge of 500,0001. for wear and tear. Would
the House ask no information as to wages and vie.
tualline, when provisions had fallen one-half, and yt
the old rates were still charged ? The fourth item
Was the Ordnance Sea Service, valued at seven shi:
lings a man. On what principle was this calculation
founded ? The GoVernment should let them know ;-
The Finance Committee of 1817 recommended that tin
charge should be kept down. to 49,400/. They ex-
pected it to become still smaller in times of peace,
on account of the great stores laid in. Instead of
which, in 1819, it was 91,0001.—in 1820,104,0001.—
in 1821, 100,0001. —and for this year, 95,0001.
There were expenses under the head of Navy Sea
service, which ought not to be brought there—such
as the ordnance craft in the rivers. 1-le would move
For particulars to be laid before the House of the
sum of 95,.5501. for the Ordnance Sea Service ; also,
of 8.59,6501. wear and tear of /the ships for the
Sear ensuing. Would the Hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site give the details of the Estimates of 1821 ?
(Hear, hear,,front Mr. Croker). If they would, he
Would not press his motion—(A pause). He must
then submit his motion, for particulars of the Est-
imates for Ordtance Sea Service.
Mr. CHOKER hoped that the Hon. Gentleman
would suffer them to go inm a Committee, where he
could ask for details, and the information would be
readily furnished to him. The House were aware a
the advantages of that course, and of not calling on
Government for any prospective accounts.
Sir 1. COFFIN said, that he would give the Hon.
Member the information he asked, in three minutes.
There were 191 ships in commission. It had been
found in the American war, that one of our ships was
suddenly attacked and blown up•by one of inferior
force, because her guns had not been cast loose for
twelve months. The Admiralty had therefore or-
dered that a certain quantity of powder and shot
should be fired of every month. And if the discipline
of the Navy was Ira worth 95,0001. a-year to keep it
up, wit) the ships had better be blown up altogether!
Mr. WARD said, that it was a mistake to repre•
sent the expense as being spent in powder and shot.
A considerable reduction had been effected in the
floating magazines and the ordnance craft. There
was considerable expense in replacing the fixed am-
munition of ships under sailing orders.
Mr. G. BENNET could find no mention of 191
ships. He imagined that the Hon. Member near him
must have misplaced the figures, and put the 9 be-
fore the 1, as the return was 119 ships.
Sir I. COFFIN said, that he had Returns of 191
in commission. He had forgotten to mention a large
expense which took place in firing salutes.
Mr. HUM E said, that he only wanted information,
and that being promised in the Committee, he would
withdraw his motion.