The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-05-22 00:00:00

DUTY ON CANDLES.

Mr. SYKES rose, pursuant to a notice he had given, to
call the attention of the House to the duty oil Candles. He
had last Session given !settee of a motion on this subject ;
but his notice dropped lo consequence of there being no
House on the day he had fixed. He made no complaint of
this circumstance ; indeed he seemly regretted it, far he
felt convinced that he should now introduce the motion, with
which it was his intention to conclude, under circumstances
more favourable to his case than he should have done, had
he succeeded in bringing it on last Session. It was then as-
serted that the country would no: be relieved by the reduc-
tion of taxes : and this assertion was directed particularly
against the complaints of the landed interest. Now, he was
happy to say, this assertion had been admitted to be errone-
ous ; for his Majesty's Speech, at the opening of the Session
ha I pointed to the reduction of taxes as the on'y mode of
relieving the country, and particularly the Agriculturist.—
He was happy, too, to find that the delusion which was
held out for some time, of obtaining relief by forcing up
prices, had been now dispelled. and that a diminution of ex-
penditure was admitted to he the only true mode of obtaining
any relief at all. He believed he might consider that point
as conceded tq him i and if so, the only question would be
the measure of diminution, and the mode by which It was to
be effected. He was mach gratified at the repeal which had
taken place of a large portion of the Assessed Taxes ; but
the taking off of taxes on WiDdoWg, hunters, and the rest,
could not, he imagined, he said to assist the farmer. nut,
be that as it might, he contended that relief had not Lees
granted either in the mode or t 3 the degree, which was abso.
lutely necessary. He thought MIA ,tern were perfectly
right in endeavouring to preserve our neutrality in the
course of the struggle which now affected a part of Europe ;
but if we preserved peace we ought to have the advantages
of price. TLe principal mischief of war was alleged to be,
that it would prevent any reduction of the public burthene.
Again, he said, the question was, whether reduction had
gone to the full and proper extent. So decidedly
was he of opinion it had not, that he could not think
of going down into the country and facing his con-
stituents. had he not done his best to obisiu a farther reduc-
tion. Having thus disposed of such general preliminary
observations as he considered necessary, he should proceed
to explain why he thought the tax upon tallow candles a tit
tax for repeal, in preference to any other. It certainly was
not of any great amount; but lee did not expect that this eir-
cumstanee would be thrown in his teeth by those who op-
posed him ; for if the repeal was little to ask, it was also
little to grant. The gross amount produced by the tax was
3'75,0001. in England, of which 3110001. was nett, and a suns
in Scotland which yielded only 10,00:11. nett. The whole
amount was shout 329,0001. nett.—ln Ireland there was no
candle-tax at all ; bat tic hoped that this circumstance would
not deprive him of the support of the Ir,sh Members, who,
he had no doubt, would consider the general interests of the
country. as they had so often called upon others to d s. The
first of his objections to this lex was, that the difference be-
tween the gross and the net amount was extraordinarily
great ; and he believed he might advance it as a principle in
political economy, that this was a serious objection to any
tax. The average ainonnt of the expeece of collecting the
whole revenue, was 31. 16s. Id. per cent., but the expence of
collecting this tax was not less than 17 per cent. on the gross,
and 20 per cent. on the net amount. Indeed, it was the
most expensive in the collection of all the taxes. Another
objection was, that it pressed particularly on the poor. Tree
rich consumed wax, spermaceti. gas, and other articles of
consumption, invented by philosophy or luxury, but the
poor man had nothing beyond the stick in Ids fire to afford
him light, except the tallow candle. Indeed it almost ap-
peared as if human ingenuity had been exerted to make this
tax fall particularly ou the poor. Perhaps few of the Hon.
Members around bim knew any thing of tallow candles ex-
cept by the smell of a tallow-chandler's shop. However-
there were such things as tallow candles ; and were piaci,
Folly divided into what were called moulds and dips. Tao
former he might take as being sold at 9.1. a pound ; the lat-
ter at ?d.; and it so happened that the tax fell heavier
upon the dips, which particularly and especially were
consumed by the poorer classes. Tee disproportion in
this instance was as much as 12 per cent. Another ob-
jection to the tax was, that it operated as a tax upon Is.
hour. Many poor persons worked, particularly in win-
ter, by candle light; and a man who earned but eighteen
or twenty pence a day, was not unfreqttently obliged to pay
three-pence for candles. Thus the tax fell, not only upon
the poor, bat upon the laborious poor. His next objec-
tion was, that this, of all taxes, was the most vexatious in
its collection. If Hun. Gentlemen would look through
the different Acts passed respecting this 'fax, they
would be surprised at the complication of penalties which
were imposed by them. He had received a letter from a,
Tallow Chandler, complaining of these penalties, and of
the visitations to which he was exposed; and adding,
that be and his man were obliged to take no less than 33
oaths in one month,reapecting this Tax. This latter circum-
stance was one, be was sure, which would gain him the
support of some of the Hon. Members of that House, in
his motion for the Repeal. In short, all the regulations
were paltry, and Vet offensive. He trusted that lie had
now made out the fonr propositions which he considered
necessary to support his case. First, that it was an ex-
pensive Tax in the collection; 2d, that it fell principally, if
not exclusively, on the poor ; 31, that of the poorer, it
pressed most heavy on the laouring classes; and fourth-
ly, that it was vexations in its operation. If these were
not reasons for repealing a Tax, he really did not know
on what grounds it could fairly be proposed to repeal
any tax. it might be said, in support of the preset one,
that it was a very old tax, and hail been imposed in the
reign of William and Mary, he believed ; but he submit-
ted that that was not the era of our history in which the
wise principles of taxation were best understood. If be
were to be told that he ought not to propose the repeal of
this tax without being ready to propose another as a sub-
stitute, he would answer, that " he was not Chancellor
of the Exchequer." and that it was not his business to find
a substitute. He was however ready to waive 'his right to
make tbicanswer,and would refer the Chancellor of the Ex.
chequer to a substitute for this and many other taxes; to a
storehouse for substitutes—he meant Economy in the
Public Expenditure.—(Hear, hear.) An economy to be
derived from the reduction of large salari s, and a saving in
the expense of collecting of our Revenue. Much could be
saved from our large Establishments, our Civil List, and
our heavy Salaries. Front such sources as these it would
not be difficult to raise the three hundred ttionsas,l pounds
saved by the reduction of this tax. He knew very well
that a practice bad prevailed of meeting proposals to cut
down salaries, by extolling the u erita of the individuals
who received them. This had been done on occasion of
the Duke of York's 10,0001. a veer fir attending on his
Late Father. It was then urged that he was a good son.
(In etr.rth,te orcasion, when it was propoied to reduce the
salary of an Hun. Gentlemen, the Secretary to the Board
of Controul, his merits were spoken of by time Hight lion.
Secretary for Foreign Affairs. They were iudeed merits
of another description ; for the Right tn. Secretary
stated that the Hon. Gentleman had just had a tenth
child. (A langh.) So that the filial merit of one, and the
parental merit of another, were equally goo I memo% fur
an allowance of large salaries, au t for outweighing the
just claims o: the country. His H in. Friend the Member
for Cumberland had proposed to take off this tax, and find
a substitute fait io a tax upon the importation of fortis
is

tallow. He (31r. S.) did .nut admire this proposal. His
object was to take away the burthen altogether, and no•
merely shift it about. If, however, he could not obtain
the total repeal of the tax, he would fall in with the pro-
posal of his Hon. Friend. He had now discharged his
duty; and it we, for the House to discharge theirs. It
was no treat boon that he asked; hut as for as it went,
it would afford a very seasonable relief. In every point
of view he thought the subject worthy the serious consi-
deration of Ministers, and was of opinion that thn repel
of this tsx was most adviseable. Before he sat down, he
would shortly anticipate an argument which he believed
would be urged against his motion. lie knew the House
had resolved that a Sinking Fund should be mein a'ned
to the amonnt of five millions t hut this resolution did
nut. he apprehend, bind the Hansa to shut itself out
Against discussion. For his own part he confesse I that
he wes no great admirer of the Sinking Fund. He liked
to ree a Surplus Revenue over expenditure; but he had
witnessed much of the delusion which had been worked
by a Sinking Fund from its first suggestion by Sir Robt.
Walpole to its completion by Mr. Pitt, and from that np
to the present time, and the result of his ob4ervation was,
that the Sinking Fund was an engine in the hands of
Government fur raising taxes and spending the public
money. The Honourable Member concluded by mov-
ing fur leave to bring in a Bill for repealing the duty on
Tallow Candles.

The CHANCELLOR of tl.e EXCHEQUER said,
that in the reply, which it was his duty to make to
this motion, he sit mold be as brief as possible, A con-
siderable portion of his simecir did not mvut to require
an answer, and he should, therefore, limit himself to
very few of his points. Two wor.ls would explain the
views which Government took of this Ttestion. In the
first place, it was quite impossible that 350,0001. more
could, with any safety, be taken from the revenue.—
(Hear.) Secondly, if a reduction of taxes to that
amount could be made, this certainly was not the quar-
ter in which such a reduction could be made most bene-
ficially. This was not a tax which pressed with any
peculiar severity: for notwithstanding sonic partial in-
stsn:tes of hardship which were common to all taxes,
it did not se-rn to have excited any general or loud
complaints. There were, therefore, many other taxes
litter objects For remission than this if remission was
practicable.—(hear.)lfonourab'le Member did but
justice to the economical intentions of the present Go-
vernment, but they were not to be lauded at the ex-
pense of their predecessors. When reductions were call-
ed for hitherto, they were met by the declaration, that
the state of the revenue would nut prruit them. It
was his (Mr. Robinson's good fortuue to come in at a
time that the state of the revenue permitted him
to comply with the wishes of the people, hut he could
not take credit to himself for that which was the effect
of a c.rmhivatiun of circumstances. No less than
2,300,0001. had been reduced this Session, and he had
reason to think that in selecting the taxes a hich were
to he reduced, he had secured the sanction of the
thinking part of the community. Further and impor-
tant reductions were in contemplation, particularly in
the duties on Scotch and Irish Spirits. These redac-
tions would affect the revenue for a time, although they
risieltt be eventually beneficial to it. With such actual
losing% then, an I in the prospect of more, it would not
be wise to give up this 350,0001. The Honourable
Member had ridiculed the argument of supporting this
' tax by its antiquity. He (Mr. Robinson) would not con-
tinue any tax, because it was a century old; but it should
not he forgotten that within that time the impost had not
been increased, though its amount had been greatly enlarged.
It was said that the tax was oppressive and expensive ; its
increase in value yearly, and the silence of the people on the
subject would seem to prove the contrary.—(Hear.) In fact
it was not so expensive ire its collection as the Hon. Mem-
ber stated: for he was mistaken in supp ,sing that the differ-
ence between the gross and the net produce was the exact
expense of .effecting, a considerable portion of that sum
being given In drawbacks on exportations and premiums.
But even If It cost mere in collecting than any other tax, it
still was not that which ought to be first repealed. The
people were the best judges of the pressure of any particu-
lar tax; and tits silence open this subject, whilst the table
was covered with petitions for repeals of the Coal, Beer,
Tobacco, and Tea Duties, formed a strong presumption in
Its favour. Every one of these taxes then had a prior claim
to this tax on candies. But the Honourable Member seem-
ed to forget that a tax which now produced 330,000 f.
would cease altogether on the 3th of January, 1823.
This was the remaining two shillings on salt. Its place
must be supplied in some other way; but if this tax was
now remitten, the House would, at the time stated, have to
make good 703,00 d., instead of 330,000/. Besides, its re-
peal would cramp the efforts of Government in reducing
other taxes which were universally objectionable. For in-
stance, they Gould not carry their intentions into effect re-
specting the lottery—(Hear), which they meant to propose
this year for the last lime.—(Hear, hear, hear.) As to the
savings which might be made la the collection of the re-
venue, much bad been already done, and more was in con-
templation. Whatever, however, was saved in that way,
would be applied to the remission of some other tax be-
sides that on candies. For all these reasons, he felt it his
duty to oppose this motion. Notwitstanding the happy il-
lustrations of the Honourable Member, he did not feel am-
bitious of imitating the example of the Duke of Beaufort ;
for he believed that, even if his candles were made at home,
they would not be much cheaper than at the manufacturers.
Mr. CURWEN contended that his Hon. Friend had made
out a strong case for the repeal of this tax. It was a tax
upon labour—upoa a calculation, every cottager paid ten
shillings tax for light. He contended that, if the tax upon
foreign tallow was doubled, the revenue might well spare
this tax.

Mr. MONCK spoke in support of the motion.
The Gallery was then cleared, but Mr. SYKEi said he
would not press the motion to a division.
The motion was negatived without a division.
CRIMINAL CODE.

Sir J. MACINTOSH said that, in rising to bring un-
der the attentions of the House the state of the Criminal
Law, he should hardly expect that they would willingly
listen to the repetition of arguments so often urged in
that place. In the course of- the few observations which
be should offer to the House, he would endeavour to aim
at some variation in the ()tweeter of the discussions. He
remembered very well, on his return to this country, the
first public debate which he witnessed was in another
House on a measure of his late lamented friend Sir S.
ltomilly. He heard, on that occasion, a speech delivered
by a person of the greatest authority ; and it ivas there
said that if a foreigner were to form an estimate of the
character of this country by the letter of its Penal
Laws, he would conclude that we were a race of feroci-
ous barbarians. The expression was strong, and it
required all the weight of such a person as toe author
of it, to carry it through, without severe animad-
versions. But he could venture to state, that due re-
flection would satisfy any man of the justice of the
statement. What would a foreigner say, it' he were told
we had 209 capital crimes in oor Statute Book ; and that
we earned only twenty of them into execution—that our
Criminal Code was founded on principles, which in theory
were odious, and in practice were impoteot : what would
he say, when told that innocent children are punished
with the father, in ca:,...sof forfeiture; and in cases of cor-
ruptions of blood, puniiheit without the father, and to a
greater event. And, finally, what would the foreigner
say to the Legislature, which carried imaginary punish-
ment to such a degree, a 3 to wreak vengeance even on the
inanimate rem iins of the dead. If then the foreigner were
informed, that in :hie country, where these abuses flou-
rished,, that great principle 01 sin; ve-sal safety, the Trial
by dery—so defective in theory, hut in practice found to
he the wisest and most useful of institutions—was pre-
ierveit: that we had devised that simple, plain, and admi-
rable suitable engine, for the secarEty of but liberties, the
Habeas Corpus Act; and that to vs the world were in.
debted, so to speak, fot the -disown of the Auble pand-
a

pie of popular representation. If he were told of ail thi ,
he could only wonder at human nature, and hesitate upon
the character of the people, that combined, in oae plan,
materials so irreconeileablr. But it might be hinted to
this foreigner, that these darker parts of our system were
the remnant of a barbarous age, which waited only a rea-
sonable moment to remove. The foreigner might relent
at this explanation, and begin toentertain milder feelings
towards those,of a h )9) such things were asserted. But were
he told, that though the offspring of a barbarous dme,these
abuses were upli-eld by a great combination of teaming,
ingenuity, and even humanity—that men of great natu
cal, great artificial endowments, were I iagned tozether
to vindicate them; an I that, grossly repitznant as they
were to our coinnion feelings, these cruel punishments
these n measured sacrifices of human life, were the buil'
wicks of the Constitution, and the landmarks of the law.
If the foreigner were told all this, his original feeling of
indignation would revive, and be transferred from the
barbart its practice itself to its civilized au I ingrnioue
advocates. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman
then read an extract from the publication of Mr. Crag.
atonal. of B linhnrgh, which, he said, described the Cr:-
minal Law of England with witch brevi!y, bait, at the
same time, with as much comprehensiveness and fidelity
as it was possible to observe in the same spare. The
writer described the Criminal Code of England to be, in
general, admirable' and adapted to the people ; that it.
was administered by pare and upright Ju fees, who act-
ed by the intervention of Juries; and they administerel
the taw under the rontroul of public opinion, through a
free press. But still the system was defaced by mans-
anoaialies, which were handed down by a bar liarntis
axe, and retained by modern misgui led legislation.—
That, in those CuSeS, the punishment bore no proportion
to the offence—that some offences were raised to the same
level wits respect to punishment as those to which, they
bore no comparison in the degree of guilt—that it ars-
flounced 'leach equally against him %silo destroyed a tree
as against the base in and the pArrieitle. The
writer traced the effects of this confit•iini in themoral
feelings of the community. The geutleirialt who:e wori:s
he had lost read was one who was too distant fraat tie
theatre of those laws to have been a partial comment-
ator, but who was sufficiently near to observe their piae-
deal operation. He should perhaps have, at the outset,
mo-od that the Resolutions on the subject of the triad.
1141 Laws of the 4th June last be entered as read. INt he
would take it for granted that it was now hefute the
House, and would remind them of the positio a in which

the subject was placed at present. In 13.9 he had moved
fur, and sueceeded, after ranch opposition, in obtaining,
the appointment of a Co.Lenittee to inquire in.° the state
of the Criminal Law in the allegation of certain defects
which were to be found in that code. The motion was
carried in defiance of the statement which was warmly
urged against him, that the measure would be construe:l
into an undietinguishing censure of tbe whole body of
the Criminal Law. In the year 162 i/ several laws were
proposed in purulence of the tecommendation of the
Committee, which, indeed, were lint little calculated to
twisty bim. However limited and imperfect as were
these beginnings, yet the /louse would learn with surprise
that they were the only inetaneeg of reform in the• Code
since the accession of E :ward VI. Fer2so a capital
felony succeeded to capital felony. The facility of the
Legislature in in altiplymg capi climes knew no heends,
and it was t:ot nc til the begienieg of the reign of his•pre-
sent Majesty, when ten of these felonies were erase'( front
the Statute Hook, that the a tneuin try spirit was relaxed.
He would first of all beg the House to bear in mind.thac
the abolition of the capital panisliment in the cans of
fraudulent hankrnptcy was founded upon the principle.
which he had always advocated, namely, that the extent
of the punighment hearing no propurion to the nature of
the crime, gave impunity to the criminal. It was in vain
to coil tend that, in this case, there was a slaw of that de.
liberation, and that ext..nt of m'schief, which, in the eves
of some, formed the reason for applying the extreme pu-
nishment. But it was necessary that, in order to suppress
the cringe!, the law should be more lenient in its punish-
ment. yn tbe year 1821 a Bill pissed that House by the
conenrrence of a great majority for removing the cepiesl
part of the paniehmeet in the case of forgery. How-
ever, the Bill did not surcee I elsewhere, and lie should
not say that its failure was effected by open hostility, but
in conseeetence of an appeal to one of those Parliament.
ary stratteema, which, perhaps, in cases whore party
animosities are to be indulged in, might be treated with
forhearance; but on a question that was conducted with-
out the least reference to such interests, deserved the
strongest ani tnadversion. Hat to proceed. I n the course
of the last year the House came to an unauinlo is resolu-
tion, that they would, in the next Session, take info con-
sideration the !trans of increasing the efficacy of the cri-
minal laws by diminishing their vigour. And here be must
beg to take advantage of a case which was the more va-
luable, as it came from those who never admitted the ne-
cessity of a reforming hand. It was one of the strongest
engines which could be placed in his power. It teas sent
out of the enemy's camp—the quarter from which thy
I would least expect it—

---- Grace pandetur ab urbe.
He saw in a publication, na matter what, that a Bill
was under consideration, no matter where, to regulate
Marriage LAWS. He rejoiced that this Bill repealed.
the 26th George 11., that disgrace to the Statute Book ;
that it took away the abominable principle of void mar-
riages, the fertile source of misery, s, acre. and lasting.
It was remarkable that the five capital offences created
by that precious Act, were amongst those which he
(Sir J. M.) attempted to abolish witnont effect. He per-
ceived that the Bill to which he alluded accomplished
that object. When he proposed the measure lie etas met
by reproaches—he was sapping the foundation of the
Constitution—he was putting the most useful of our
institutions in jeopardy. But by his very accusers—hie
most assiduous opponents did he now see his principle
fully recognised, that the best way to increase the Oh.
cacy of criminal laws was to abate their rigour. if after
this event the proposition for a further mitigation of the
Criminal Code should be assailed with the former impu-
tations, he should say to his adversaries," 1 appeal from
you to the great patriarchs and elders of your principles
—your selected organs—the leaders of your sect—they
have decided against you; they have promulgated that
by abating the rigour of a law to a certain extent you
increase its efficacy." Year after year had shown the
unreasonableness of the objections which had be.m sr-
ged against his repeated attempts—year after year had
shown the weakness of their argument. These instances
authorised him to say that his principle was estab fished
by Parliamentary decision, and on that footing he was
prepared with confidence to ask the House to joint teitb
Lim in recording the opinion that you increase tit r elb•
cacy of the law by abating its undue rigour. Under
these circumstances, he should propose certain R esola-
tions, which would in the first place embrace, al I that
had been already done, and secondly, a declarati en sf
an opinion on a series of measures which woo II be
brought under their attention. And here he wish- led to
observe that those measures were so few that he th IsoFbt
he should rather be open to the charge of b waif
proposed a deficient reform than oneof an mini rib's
extent. However, It would be more grateful to I Cur to
be arraigned as k lukewarm friend than deserve t' te.
ar-
cusation of being a rash innovator. Though he a stilt
be well content with the adiuissidna of his former oppo•
Dents in favour of his principle that undue rigour cow
teracted the efficacy of a Criminal Law, yet he th
it necessary to add some few further observation f wtbe
purpose of still more clearly illustrating that pri se'P
No greater error was committed in Criminal 101 l 4.00
than to assume that the were mischief of an acts tit tv‘i
the reason for punishment. He admitted that sew°