Star.
London, England, 1822-06-29 00:00:00

SALT TAX.

Mr. BROGDEN brought up the Report of the Salt
Tax BID.

Mr. CURWEN resisted the continuance of the duty
on the fisheries, and called for a repeal of the tax
altogether. The Dutch draw ten millions from their
fisheries, while we draw but one million ; and there-
fore they ought to give every encouragement to our
fisheries, especially those of Ireland ; and by taking
off this tax and granting bounties to the extent of
£lOO,OOO or £200,000 a-year, they would enable the
Irishman to obtain a herring to his potatoe. There
were 28,000 tons of salt used in the mines of Potosi,
in smelting the silver ore; and, if we could use salt
in our iron smelting, we might derive the greatest
benefit from it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
should also take off all the duty on salt for the benefit
of the farmer, and the general consumer also. By
doing so the Right Hon. Gentleman would receive
the thanks of the country ; and if it was not for the
patronage, it was for the benefit of the revenue itself
to give up the whole of this tax. He then moved
that the duties on British salt should cease and deter-
mine after January, 1823.
Mr. LEICESTER supported the motion. He was
sure the salt monopolists did not wish to have the
whole tax taken off, because then they could not have
enormous profits on their articles. He suspected
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken ad-
vantage of the advice of a French politician, never to.
give alga tax, because if they did not want the money,
they wanted the patronage.
Mr. J. SMITI4 said, the Public would not be able

4n derive the benefit to have been expected from the
partial repeal of the Salt Tax.
Mr. DENISON thought the remnant of this odious
tax should be done away.
Mr. LITTLETON also supported the Amendment
of the Hon. Member for Cumberland. lie regretted
the resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
extend the period of paying the Army and Navy Pen.
sions; because, though it was paying but little at a
time, yet its tendency was to break up the Sinking
Fund altogether. This measure was intended to pre.
duce a monopoly is salt to those who were now pos.,
sessed of salt-mines.

• Alderman C. SMITH was no friend to taxation,
but if this tax were taken off, they must find some
substitute: besides, if it were totally repealed, it would
throw a great many poor wretches of Excise o:licers
out of employment.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER re-
gretted that it was his duty to the public cleaitor to
keep a surplus revenue, without which he could net
have reduced the interest of the Public Debt. It this
Resolution should pass, it was his intention a haie
proposed a partial repeal of the Leather TAX ; but if
not, he must stop short. He denied that he had arq
view to patronage in keeping up this tax.' He did
not believe that the Lish Fisheries wou:d be !call/
benefited by the total repeal of this tax. lie rather sus.
pentad, that extending the bounties on I: ish Fisheries,
would have the effect of bringing back he period
spoken of by Adam Smith, when they fished fc,r
bounties, and not for herrings. The quantity of'alt
used by a poor man must be extremely small, corn.
pared with that 'of large families. This tax would
realize 12400,000 a-year, and he could not give it up,
because then he could not affordany repeal ri thri
Leather Tax; and he therefore hoped, those who
wished for a relaxation of the latter duty, would give
him their support in this instance.
Mr. WODELIOUSE wished to do good with as
little evil as possible. By taking off a little from or.e
and a little from another tax, was perhaps pleasing
all, but doing no real good ; and he was of opinion that
it was impolitic in Ministers to cling to a wr:tehed
remnant of this most unpopular tax—((leap, hecr.).
Lord ALTHORPE was a great frie:)d to the re-
peal of the Leather Tax ; but he would not consent
Ito the continuance of any part of the Salt Tax, 03
the Chancellor of the Exchequer's promise to repeal
a part of the Leather Tax.
Mr. H.•SUMNEIt declared it impossible to repc:,l
the whole of this tax, with a view to faith to r!.e
public creditor. There was no tax more even in its
re-partition than this.
Sir J. YORKE said, that were he a Chancellor of
Exchequer,, he would not take :off a tax
.by halves.
Ile would be the last to lay on a tax, and the last
to take it off.

Colonel WOOD said, that many of the taxes had
been laid on by halves. lie had no complaint from
the County he represented, of the tax on :3.tit. The
House had never been guilty of x more fatal error
than by the repeal of the Property• Tax. The best
way was to lower those taxes that pressed mos:
heavily on the People.
Mr. It. .\1 AItTIN stated, that he had attended a
meeting of Gentlemen concerned in the manufacture
of kelp, and it was there asserted, that if the pro-
tection was t;:ken away, 10,0Q0 persons would be
thrown out of employ u.ent.
Mr. LUSIIINGTON said, that the plan now pro-
posed would disturb .hat system which had been re-
ceived by the House with acclamation. If there
were to be no half measures, then there would be
no Sinking Fund.
Mr. WETHERELL was against the total repeal
ef the tax, in the present state of things.
Mr. SCOTT sal .1, that if the tax were wholly taken
off, the Public woul,i he n.uch more benefited than
by deducting the same sum from two taxes.
Sir F. O.,;MANEY said, he would vote only for
the partial repeal of the salt tax. Much had been
said about distress ; but did Gentlemen consider the
distresi of our public servants—men sho bad passed
thirty years in the service of the count! y ? Let the
House look to those people—let the House ,o:,k to
some of the people who shot them elves—(Laughter).
'Those faithful servants having been removed Irons
the public offices, thought fir to destroy them elves—
(A laugh). He thought it was the solenin duty of the
House to support those tales which Ateve reee,sary
to support the public servants-,-(coulinweil luudee r).
The Marquis of LONDONDEAtY. said, the
reasoning of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and
of the Secretary of the Treasury, appeared to him
conclusive. If the salt tax was wholly repealA, than
the tax on leather must be continued ; though, from
what had taken place. in that House, the persons con-
cerned in-that trade hid every reason to expect they
would be partially -relieved. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer was entitled to the votes of Gentlemen
opposite, after what had formerly taken place.
Mr. S. WORTLEY, if forced to make an election,
would chuse rather that the whole of the Salt Tax
should be taken off, and the Leather Tax.be kept on.
~The House divided:

For the Amendment
Against it - -
Majority in favour of the Tax - —l2
On the return of strangers to the gallery,
Mr. HUTCHIMON was addressing tl:e House,
stating, that by :he plan of the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, the provision trade mould sustain a serious in-
jury, and numbers be thrown out of employment. He
should resist the measure with all his might; and
should the Right Hon. Gentleman add a farthing to
the burdens of the people of Ireland, he should state
such facts as would make one's hair stand on end.

92
104

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY would recom-
mend his Right Hon. Friend to give up the paint, as
the whole turned upon the difference between Eng-
lish and Irish currency.
Mr. CALCRAFT said, that the amount of foreign
salt consumed in Ireland was much greater than any
other, and upon that species of salt a heavy duty had
been proposed to be laid.
Mr. MABERLY said, that had a reduction been
made of pensions, places, and taxes, the duty on both
the Salt and the Leather Taxes might have been taken
off.—The Resolutions were then agreed to, and a Bill
ordered to be brought in.