SALT DUTY BILL.

HC Deb 04 March 1805 vol 3 cc696-704

On the motion being put, that the salt duty bill be read a second time,

Lord William Russell

said, the effect of this tax upon the labouring parts of the community, would be most deplorable. He confessed, he did hope that the second reading of the bill would have been deferred until gentlemen should have had lime fully to consider the report of the salt committee of a former session, which the house had, on a late day, ordered to be printed. The labours of that committee were valuable; and he hoped that the members who composed it would that night follow up the wise, humane, and patriotic resolutions, by opposing the present tax. By the report, it was obvious that the committee under the last administration purposed, by their report, to lead to the abolition of the tax on salt altogether. Salt was an article important to all descriptions, and as it was used by all for the most beneficial purposes, he trusted all descriptions of persons, in that house, would oppose the tax now sought to be laid on it. It would be recollected, that bread was a principal article of sustenance used by persons of all descriptions throughout the kingdom: now, by this tax it was unavoidable, that the price of bread should be raised; in fact, bread had been already risen an assize by the mere report of such a proposition. There was a petition, at that moment, before the house, from the baker's company, praying for relief, in consequence of various alterations in the, sources of their profits, and in particular because of this tax. Throughout the country the effect must unavoidably be the same. It would affect the price of salt used in all kinds of salt meat, so as to place them above the reach of the poor. Salt-fish was an extensive article of sustenance in many of the labouring parts of the kingdom; this would experience a rise of price amounting to little short of prohibition. The tax would entirely alter the condition of the lower orders. It would render them totally dependant on the affluent for support. It would prevent them from maintaining that state of independence which was their birth-right, and which it was peculiarly the business and duty of that house to preserve to them in all its integrity. For these reasons, and thinking most unfavourably of the lax; thinking it, in fact, pregnant with all degrees of wretchedness to the lower orders of the community, he should move, "that the bill be read a second time this day six months."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

observed, that the committee in the report which they gave in some years ago, and. which had been alluded to by the noble lord, proceeded on the ground of rendering salt applicable to many general purposes, among which was even that of manure. It was certainly their object to give facility to the circulation of that article, but the chief hindrance to a free circulation was the regulation which the duty necessarily demanded, and these regulations would equally affect, the circulation whether the duty amounted to 5, 10, or 15s. a bushel, so that the noble lord ought not to be satisfied with advising a rejection of a revenue of 500,000l. which the proposed additional duty would produce, but should proceed to advise the taking off the duty now 'existing, which produced a revenue amounting to double that sum. It was singular that the noble lord should call on those persons, who, when the country was at peace, approved the report of the committee, and yet did not venture to institute any measure upon it, to come forward, and in the midst of war declare their opinion on the present bill. The report had slept for 3 years, and the consideration of it was now urged, at a time, than which, none could be more unfit. The noble lord had asserted, that this tax pressed heavily on the poor. It was a most unpleasant thing for him to be under the necessity of imposing taxes which in any degree affected the lower classes, but he had a sacred duty to perform. We were engaged in a contest for the defence both of rich and of poor; supplies must be found; and no mode of raising them seemed to him so little liable to objection as the present. On the day when he first introduced this and his other measures of finance, it was objected by an hon. gent. that they did not fall sufficiently on articles of consumption. The noble lord had not been just in saying, that govt. had abandoned the interests of the lower classes. Let him look at the taxes from the year 1793 to the present time, and he would find that they have been in every instance exonerated at the expence of their superiors. The income tax, the wine duty, the duty on foreign spirits, and a variety of others sufficiently proved this. The sum estimated as likely to be raised from this additional duty on salt, was 500,0001. at 5s. per bushel, and therefore proceeded on a calculation of two millions of bushels being consumed. There were eleven millions of consumers, and it must be obvious to the house, how much greater a proportion of this tax would fall or the higher classes than, on the lower. On a fair calculation, the consumption of a cottage containing a family of five persons, would be considerably short of a bushel in the year, making an annual duty of only 3 or 4s. and this it should be recollected, was collected gradually, and from week to week, so that its influence would scarcely be felt. Taxes on consumption to be productive, must be laidon articles of general consumption, As to the apprehended increase in the assize of bread, it never varied, unless a fluctuation of at least 1s, 8d. took place on each sack of flour, and the quantity of salt used in this case was so small, it was such a trifling fraction, that it could not possibly affect the price. He hoped, therefore, however specious the arguments used by the opponents of the measure, however they might affect to be the advocates and protectors of the poor, that the house would see through the fallacy of their objections; and that in the support of a cause in which the higher and the lower classes were equally concerned they would not hesitate to afford to his majesty's government those means which were proved by them to be the least objectionable for that, purpose.

Mr. Fox

declared that he had seldom risen to give his opinion against any tax ' which appeared to him more objectionable. The right hon. gent. had asked why, if the suggestions of the committee on the salt duties were politic and expedient, they were not acted upon during the existence of peace? To this the answer was at once simple and conclusive. The house would recollect that the report was made in 1801, and it was only in that one session that the interval of peace gave any opportunity for bringing forward a proposition for the repeal of the salt duties. At that time those at the head of affairs, and those who brought forward the report, had hot time to make up their minds how far a bill for the repeal of the duties was expedient, or in what manner the deficiency arising to the revenue should be supplied. But it was, indeed, a very different thing to talk of the absolute repeal of a tax allowed to be obnoxious, and to come forward with a proposition for augmenting it to a monstrous extent. Whenever this country was restored to peace, he hoped and trusted that the tax would be totally annihilated, But, said the right hon. gent, if the old tax cannot now be renewed, on what principle was it that gentlemen objected to the increase? This, truly, was a very singular and novel sort of reasoning. He would ask the right hon. gent, if the tax amounted only to two hundred thousand pounds he would object to the repeal? He believed the right hon. gent, could then have no doubt as to the policy of the repeal. The old tax amounted to a million, hence arose the difficulty of destroying so large an amount of revenue. But the new tax proposed to render this revenue greater by five hundred thousand pounds, and hence the difficulty of the repeal was greatly enhanced. On this ground, if he had no others, he should therefore object to the fresh imposition. It was not only oppressive now that war existed, but would infallibly throw fresh obstacles in the way of the repeal, whenever peace came to be restored. Now, as to the tax itself, he further objected to it, that it attached to one of the direct necessaries of life. With respect to many articles of consumption to which taxes applied, the lower orders had a remedy, either by discontinuing them altogether, or by using them in a more sparing manner. But here the evil could not by any means be avoided. The right hon. gent, had said, that the fisheries would not be affected in consequence of the drawback to be afforded. The very necessity of the drawback was, however, an argument against the tax. Difficulties srpse out of drawbacks in two ways. In the one case, the revenue was defrauded, pr in the other, the individual would not derive the advantages intended by the legislature. He could suppose the case of a poor man who cured a small quantity of fish chiefly for his own use; but perhaps, partly for a retail trader. Now, in this case, it was next to an impossibility to make the distinction betwixt the salt used for this trade, and that employed for his own use. As to the tax generally, he condemned it in its application to the poor, as countrary to every principle, on which taxation had hitherto been founded. It had always been hitherto acted on as a general principle, that wheat, corn, and butcher's meat, should not be directly taxed. Here, however, butcher's meat was indirectly taxed, and that sort of food which the lower orders principally depended on for their subsistence. The right hon. gent, had argued that the tax would fall lightly on the poorer classes; but how did this appear, when it was to attach chiefly to salt provisions, which, with the exception of bread and potatoes, where salt too was indispensable, constituted the sole support of the laborious orders? He did not pretend himself to have much information on this subject, but he had felt it his duty to inquire into the business, and he found, that if twenty score were to be salted, it would require no less than a bushel and a half of salt. It was true that a hog of this size was not likely to be in the hands of a person in the lower orders of life. But this, so far from weakening, strongly corroborated his argument. It was well enough known, that if a bog of a smaller size was to be salted, a greater quantity, of salt in proportion would be required. Supposing then that a small hog was to be salted, and a quantity of salt, which now paid a duty of 14s. was required, the same quantity would cost 20s. for though the tax was only 5 shillings, yet the retail dealer would certainly raise it to six, if not to a still higher price. He wished gentlemen to bear in mind, whether this addition would not, to a poor cottager, prove a very serious addition. Now, as to the effect of the tax, so far as respected our agriculture, he had consulted many of the best judges in the kingdom, and they were all of one opinion, that the total repeal of the salt duties would be one of the most important measures which could be adopted. They all allowed, that if salt free of duty could be employed on a large scale, it would be productive of incalculable benefit. It behoved gentlemen then well to weigh this before they consented, to a fresh, imposition, by which the use of salt in agriculture would be in a great measure prohibited. Here the same arguments as applied to the fisheries could not be employed, because a drawback could by no possibility be employed. Conceiving, then, the tax in all points of view impolitic, he most heartily supported the motion of his noble friend.

Mr. Egerton

said, he had received the most positive instructions from his constituents in Cheshire, to oppose a measure always so injurious to their interest, at the same time, he could not refrain from returning his thanks to the right hon. gent. for the candid hearing he had given to the gentleman deputed for Northwich on this subject, although unfortunately their arguments had not produced the desired effect.

Mr. Giddy

also spoke shortly against the tax. From his own intimate experience, he was sure that it would be highly detrimental to the fisheries. When the last tax on salt was imposed, over a great extent of coast, the curing of fish was for a considerable time almost wholly suspended. In many parts of the country where the people almost wholly lived on salt provisions, the tax would be productive of much serious inconvenience, even misery. He strongly recommended the substitution of some other tax in its room, as the present was unjust in its principle, and impolitic as well as oppressive in its operation.

Sir William Pulteney

was decidedly against the measure. He had no doubt that if the war had not broken out, the suggestions of the committee on the salt duties would have been carried into effect. The only question was; if the salt duties had been repealed, what other duties should be resorted to to cover so great a deficiency in the revenue? The argument of the right hon. gent, opposite, that the tax would not be oppressive, because it would only make an addition of 4 or 5 shillings to each family, was totally unfounded. The fact was, it would create an addition to this amount in every individual of a family, and would any one deny that this would be a most heavy and serious pressure? Hitherto it had been the object of the house to exempt from taxation all articles of indispensable necessity to the sustenance of life. Other articles of convenience or luxury might be given up, but here, it was proposed to lay a very severe impost on an article admitted on all hands to be an article of primary necessity, and one which was essential not to the comfort only, but the very existence of the lower orders. Salt was like leather, and candles, and a few other articles, which only deserved the name of necessaries in the strictest sense of the term. The house were aware that a tax on such articles was attended with inconveniences far greater than the bare amount of the impost in the first instance. The moment the tax was promulgated the, retail dealer took advantage of raising the article taxed to a vast tax for the consumer. This rise was in all cases exceedingly oppressive to the labouring classes of the community. He referred the house to what had been found to be the effect of the salt tax in France. There it was found to be a most odious, oppressive impost, and more than almost any other cause excited disgust against the government. There too the rise of the price counteracted the views of those who projected and persevered in the tax. The people in most cases diminished the consumption, and in others totally disused it. It was a fact that, when the price was comparatively small, there were twenty-eight pounds consumed, while in the same family there was not a consumption of twelve pounds when the price became exorbitant. The hon. baronet desired the house to look to the state of the northern counties, and the sort of bread which constituted the principle food of the laborious classes. Salt was indispensable to the formation of this bread, and surely it was the height of impolicy to augment burdens among those who were the least able to afford them. He should ever set his face against taxes affecting, as this did, the middling, and he would contend, the most valuable part of society. If such taxes were accumulated, it was easy to foresee the consequences. We could not raise the public burdens. We must come to a stand. The state, like other declining empires, must see its last day. He conjured the house by throwing out this measure, to shew their desire to avert so dreadful an evil.

Mr. Rose

would not follow the hon. baronet through all his observations on the public expenditure and economy. He had expressed great alarm lest the additional duty should decrease the consumption, but he could inform him that the last duty laid upon salt had had the effect of of increasing the consumption. Ah hon. gent. on the other side (Mr. Pox) had been most egregiously misled in the calculation he had submitted to the house of the quantity of salt necessary for salting pork. He had been informed by his cook, that for a bacon hog of 14 score not more than 13 or 14 pounds of salt was necessary. As to finding a substitute for this tax, it was utterly impossible to find a substitute for a tax that produced a revenue of a million sterling. It was very easy for gentlemen to abuse any tax that might be Offered for their consideration, but he was convinced that under all the circumstances of the times, no one could be found less exceptionable than the present.

Mr. Fox,

in explanation, said, that it was not the quantity of salt used in gentlemen's families for salting that should be stated, but that used by cottagers; in the former many parts of the hog were, perhaps, thrown away, while by the latter no portion was suffered to be wasted.

Mr. Rose

explained, that his calculation went to the whole, of bacon hogs salted for the use of his family.

Mr. Alderman Combe

alledged, that the wholesale dealers would make this tax a pretext for an enormous rise on the retail dealer, and consequently on the consumer, and he also wished to correct a mistake into which the chancellor of the exchequer had fallen; namely, that it would have no effect upon the price of bread. It was very true, that by the former act the price of bread was regulated according to that of flour only; but, by the last act, every article of expence to which the baker was subjected was taken into account, and the price of bread for the week regulated accordingly.

The Secretary at War

wished also to correct a misstatement made by the hon. baronet (sir Wm. Pulteney) when he said that the new tax would be an addition of 4s. on each individual of a family; whereas, by referring to the consumption of salt, and comparing it with the population of the country, it would be found to amount to no more, on an average, than 4s. a year upon each family, and not on each individual.

Mr. Huskisson

replied, that Scotland had not been subject to more than 4s. duty, when England paid ten, and that the whole amount of the duty for Scotland never exceeded 50,000l.

Mr. Johnstone

vidicated the statement of his hon. relation (sir W. Pulteney), that this sum must apply to individuals and not to families. In the report of the committee on the salt duties it was stated, that each person on an average consumed 14 pounds of salt in the year, and this by the old tax made 2s. 6d. The new tax would make 1s. 3d. more, being nearly the sum alluded to by his hon. relation. He was clearly against the tax, and maintained that it would hold out new temptations to smuggling, which, in the northern parts of the island, was already carried to au enormous extent.—The question being called for, the house divided,

For the second reading now	93
Against it	60
Majority	33

—The bill was then read a second time and odered to be committed to-morrow.—Adjourned.