The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-03-01 00:00:00

For the motion 56—Agalost it 184—Majority against
it, 128.

IRV! TAX.
Mr. CALCRAFT rose to bring forward his motion
for repealing the Salt Tax,—a measure which Ile
thought would be attended with the most beneficial
results to a great portion of the community at large.
In the year 1817, when he 6 et moved for a Commit.
tee to enquire into the expediency of this measure, his
motion was lost by a majority of nine. In 1818, a
Committee was granted, and appointed by Ministers
themselves, who came to a Resolution which be would
read to the House. Tbat in the opinion of this
Committee the repeal of the L.lt duties would be an
important advantage to all descriptions of persons, and
that the present state of the finances of the United
Kingdom, alone, prevents them from giving instruc•
Lions to their Chairman to bring in a Bill for the total
repeal of the said duties."—The reason why he bad
not since that period brought the subject before the
House, was, that he did not consider the finances in a
state to bear the repeal until the present year. The
motion which he meant to submit was, for Irate to
bring in a Bill for the gradual reduction of the Salt
Duties. As the House had thought fit to adopt a
Sinking Fund, of five millions, he retrained from the
course recommended in the resolutions of the Commit-
tee, of sweepinf the tax away altogether. He meant to
propose the gradual redaction of the duties, which
amounted to fifteen shillings by five shillings per year,
until the whole were extinguished. The Hotionrable
Gentleman then enumerated the periods of the pro-
gressive imposition of the tax, until, in the 48th of
the late King, it arrived at the sum of fifteen shi:-
hinge per bushel, thus becoming an anneal poll-tax of
twenty-five shillings. It was a tax which nothing but
the direct necessity cbuld warrant ; for it p d upon
the labourer, Ow mechanic, and the artisan, in the
proportion of ten to one, in comparison with the reefs
man. Another objection to this tax, in his opinioe.
wan, that it held out a strong temptation to crime in the
district in which it was most prodnard. This was the
opinion of Mr. Justice Burton, who. for Many yeas was
Chief Justice of Chester, and wan also that of Sir
Thomas Stanley, the Chairmen of the Chester Session*.
The tax had, in fact. always been considered a great
source of crime in Chester; and the material itself, in-
stead of being a blessing, had actually become a curse.
When it was recollected that on the material, value
1001. the duty amounted to 30001. and when to this
thirty-fold tax was added, the melons accumulations it
received before it reached the consumer, it was -oat nn-
fair to say that the price was 36 times that of dm ,taw
material. He was aware that this tax was ultimately
thrown upon the employer, because it increased the price
of wages. New this, he contended. was a circumstance
whiceresdered the repeal particularly desirable; for
the present object ought to be to keep down the plea
of labour. lie of course did not wish the marnsfacturet
to eat dear bread; but he wished for a general refine-
don of taxation, which would fairly reduce the price
of labour. Any one who read the Report of the Com-
mittee in question, must see the effect of this tax upon
the Fisheries, as well as upon Agriculture. He was con-
tent to make the repeal a gradual one, but it was hiS
opinicn, that so long as this article was under the con-
trol of the Excise in any shape, neither the Fisheries nor
Agriculture would receive any advantage from a partial
repeal. With this opinion, he should have moved for the
total repeal in the'first instance; but he feared that a sud-
den repeal might he attended with incoevenience to
many large establishments.—(Hear, hear, bear.)—Un-
fortunately, the tax invited a monopoly of Abe article
to so great an extent, that he understood there
were some large houses that paid as ranch is
WOOL a-year for ditty. With a trade so shackle'', he
was not disposed to meddle abruptly. He hoped, there-
fore, the house would see that be bad net ptocerfleti vier
lently. As the inconvenience and hardship attending
the tax had been amply shewn, he was not inclined to
take up the time of the boast- by any detail ; contend-
ing, as he did, that those who opposed the repeal were
hotted to skew that the consumer was not affected in the
proportion be had mentioned. He would offer a few
words respecting the mode which be proposed sheuld he
adopted respecting the repeal. Should bin proposition
be agreed to, the Revenue would this wear be nominally
reduced to 51.10,0001. There was a Sinking Fend of
5,0011,000/. to be p d ; and the surplus for the pre-
sent year he was told would be 5,200,000/. The reflec-
tion would therefore lower the Sinking Fund to
4,700,0001. ; hut was there any fin ',icier in the coon•
try who would say that the difference could be so
great as to cause any inconvenience to the public er..-
; the future surplus would make good the defi-
ciency; but the Noble Marquess hail himself nail
that taxes would be annually taken off, and the pre.
sent motion was only anticipating uhe intention of
Ministers in a snsall degree,and by a very few months.
He was convinced that the reproduction attending the.
repeal would considerably exceed the nominal loss to
the revenue. -He had brought forward the present
question somewhat ; because if it remained its
suspense after the notice he had given, it might be
attended with inconvenience to the trade. He bad a'
letter in his p ion from some eminent salters at
Birmingham, from which it was evident that tee
tax had a material tendency to drive a considerable
branch of trade out of the country. He alluded to the
salting of beef and pork; and he assured the house,
that had he postponed his motion for a short time, he
could have been enabled to present peti.ion after pe-
tition for the repeal. When he had first peopled the
measure. the Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed it
on the ground that the repeal woeld be attended with
little advantage to the country; and to supiaset this
statement, be observed that time repeal of the tax in
11729, was found• to have been attended with 'so Attie
good, that in 1732 it was revived. Hr (Mr. C.) sad,
since then, referred to the hest acconat of the times of
Sir Robert Walpole, and had found that the .repeat in
lquestion had tab place, becanee, Walpole, who was
then carrying un his Excise Scheme. knee that it
Would be easier to revive an old tal than to propose a
new one. He could not but remark, that in a pasephier
published by Mr. Burke in 1769. on the comparative
situation of the lower classes is Enbland and•Fraace, is