§ Upon the resolution being read which proposes an additional duty upon salt,
§ Colonel Calcraftexpressed a hope that the right hon. gentleman would reconsider that proposition. At a time when the lower order of the people were peculiarly 566 pressed on by the high price of every sort of provisions, he conceived it to be the duty of that house to consider that nothing which could be avoided should he added to the burdens which they so patiently bear. Salt was an article so generally and so necessarily used by every class of people, that an addition of 50 per cent, to the duty on that article must be severely felt by those who had already had the misfortune to feel too seriously the pressure of the times. While he was on his legs he should also notice the hardship of the tax upon horses used in husbandry being nearly doubled Person who were employed in raising the first article of necessity were entitled to some consideration. If they were not supposed to merit this consideration, the right hon. gentleman would recollect that they, like other dealers, might raise the article upon the consumer, and that the poor, who would be most likely to suffer by the operation of the additional tax on salt, would feel the pressure double by the advance which most probably would take place in the price of bread. The salt tax, however, he considered as most seriously affecting the lower order of the people, and hoped that if the right hon. gentleman could not provide a substitute for the additional tax on horses employed in husbandry, that he would endeavour to remove that now proposed to be laid on salt to some other article Which was not of such immediate necessity,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he had already given the salt tax the fullest consideration, and that he should certainly persist in it, as he was certain it was not liable to the objections which the hon. gentleman who spoke last had urged against it.
§ Mr. Sheridandid not rise for the purpose of entering into a debate, but was called upon by the peremptory tone in which the right hon. gent, had declared-his intentions to persevere in the tax. The right hon. gent, had stated his opinion that the tax would produce more than any other he knew of with less pressure; but he could assure that right hon. gent, that no tax could operate so grievously, oppressively, and grindingly, Salt was an article of the most indispensable necessity to the poor. All their provisions of fish, pork, & c. required a considerable quantity of it, and potatoes, now so happily become a general source of food for the poor, were 567 not sufficiently nutritious without a large proportion of that article. He could not but advert to a report of die committee on the table, which, as his hon. friend had stated, declared that a diminution of the duty on salt would be beneficial to the trade, manufactures, and commerce of the country, and if the present proposed increase were to be adopted, would have the effect of entrapping the manufacturers of that article who had entered into numerous speculations. The right hen. member for Christchurch could bear evidence, that the ruined salt works at Lymington, had been renewed on the Strength of the report of that respectable committee. What would it prove, then, but a trap to engage the manufacturers in a misapplication of their capital, when by the reduction of the duty it was expected that salt might be used as a manure, if the duty should be, on the contrary, increased? The late chancellor of the exchequer, whom the right hon. gent, would not now be disposed to run down, had also sanctioned the appointment of a committee, to inquire into the propriety of reducing the duty on salt. On the whole, therefore, if the present addition should be persevered in, he thought it his duty to oppose it in every stage.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad but one word to say in reply. He was disposed to pay every respect to the, right hon. gent, to whom the hon. gent, had alluded; and he could not prove that disposition better than by adopting his conduct. The report had been made about 4 years since, when there was no war; and yet while that right hon. gent, continued a member of this house, no motion had been made for the reduction of the duty on salt, or for carrying into effect the report of the committee. He insisted, that both the hon. members who had spoken against this tax were mistaken as to its operation; for, considering how small a proportion fell on the lower orders of the people, he did not think there was a single article of general consumption that could be found better adapted to the purpose of raising a large sum of money with so little, pies-sure and inconvenience to the mass of the people.
§ Mr. Egertonsaid, it always gave him pain to be obliged to say any thing against the taxes proposed for raising the necessary supplies; but, as the representative of the county of Chester, he could not avoid saying that that county would feel the 568 weight and burden of this tax in a very severe and exemplary degree indeed, as there were more salt works there than in any other county; and he hoped, therefore, that if the right hon. gent, did not agree to give up the tax altogether, he would, at least, devise some means of alleviating its pressure, in regard to that particular county.
§ Mr. Kinnairdsaid, he had been expecting every moment to see some member from the North follow the patriotic example of the hon. gent, who had just sat down. As none of those hon. gent, however, had yet thought proper to rise, he would take the liberty of taking that duty on himself. The North in general, and the Highland* of Scotland in particular, that depended so much on their fisheries, would be considerable sufferers from this rise in the duty on an article so essential to the fisheries. The drawback he would allow removed in a considerable degree that objection; but there were many instances in which the drawback could not be easily obtained, particularly by such as employed the salt for their own use only. He contended that the exhorbitant rise of this article was every way impolitic, and believed that it would add considerably to the discontent of the lower orders, against the war in which we had engaged.
Mr. Roseargued, that the drawback was a complete answer to every objection that could be drawn from the fisheries against this measure. The additional tax, in fact, was calculated to operate rather as a bounty, as it increased the amount of the advantage the fisheries already enjoyed over others. In regard to the injury individuals might sustain from having speculated in this article without receiving any previous notice of the measure now in question, he did not think much was to be apprehend* ed. In Hampshire, the county with which he was perhaps best acquainted, he was not aware that any such speculation bad taken place, or that any Lad consequences would result from it. He denied that it was a duty, the collection of which was attended with any extraordinary charges. The charge, he stated, did not amount to above 20,000l. and that therefore the duty was collected for not more than 2 per cent. This additional duty besides, he added, would be attended with no additional charge, as the expence attending the collection of the present duty would not be increased by its rise.
§ Colonel Calcraftstated, in explanation, that according to the report of the committee in 1801, the collection of the salt duty was attended with an expence of 100,000l. a year. Since that period perhaps the duty might have been collected at less; but if they might trust the report of that committee, the annual charge of that duty was as he had stated it up to the period of that report.
§ Mr. Johnstoneallowed that the salt employed in the fisheries was free of duty, but contended that there were so many difficulties and impediments thrown in the way, that it was often difficult to get at the drawback.