HC Deb 29 April 1819 vol 39 cc0-1492

On the motion of Dr. Phillimore, the resolutions of the salt duties committee were then read. They stated the repeal of the laws on this subject to be highly expedient; and that the then state of the finances alone prevented the committee's recommending that repeal.

Dr. Phillimore

said, he conceived that the resolutions just read would furnish the best apology for his obtruding himself on the attention of the House. They had heard that nothing short of the state of the finances prevented the committee appointed to examine into this question recommending the immediate repeal of these duties. The income of the country within the last year was increased 3,000,000l.: if the committee, then, came to so strong a resolution last year, he was unwilling to think the House would be now disinclined to enter on the subject. In the spirit of those very resolutions, he meant to call upon the House to record upon their Journals, that it is highly expedient, at an early day, to take into their consideration the propriety of repealing the salt duties. When that committee first met, it was under circumstances which promised very little unanimity in their report; but the evidence before them was so unanswerable, that they came to the resolution now before the House. He was aware of the disinclination which at all times existed to entertain a question that excited no party feeling. It possessed, indeed, little party interest; but it was one every way important, not merely to the agriculturist, but in its relative operation on the poorer classes. This was a decided tax upon the necessaries of the poor; one which effected every article of their subsistence: in short, it operated with immense hardship upon them, the bushel of salt being taxed at 40 times its value. No tax operated more on their morals; and it had been found, that wherever it prevailed, it was the sure forerunner of crime. It was distinctly stated in an address of the grand jury for the county of Chester, that the profit derived from selling untaxed salt was so great, and operated so powerfully, as to taint the morals of that part of the community. The evidence before the committee, derived from various sources, all tended to establish the same conclusion. The temptation to steal, and conceal what was stolen, was such as to cause the practice too generally to prevail. But another argument, equally pressing, might be derived from the effect of these duties on the fisheries of the country, and on that spirit of maritime enterprise and achievement which they were so naturally fitted to promote. To these injurious and discouraging duties might, in a great degree, be ascribed the misfortune of this country being for many years precluded from the enjoyment of a commerce properly belonging to herself, but actually beneficial to her neighbours alone. The fault could not be traced to any change in the character of our fishermen, and sprang entirely from the operation of those duties, which threw that important branch of trade into the hands of capitalists and monopolizers. The Dutch, by their capital, and the Norwegians by their activity, were Carrying off all the advantages which it was easy for this country to retain in her own hands. They were, in fact, underselling us in our own markets, from the comparative cheapness of salt. He was apprized of the indulgencies extended to persons engaged in the fisheries; but he knew also that they were attended with restrictions and conditions, which greatly detracted from the relief that might otherwise be afforded. There were few who heard him who were not aware of the severity of the excise laws, and the heavy expense which might attend a supposed infringement of them. The collection of any tax on such an article as salt must be a matter of difficulty, and perhaps could only be enforced by severe enactments, Amongst the innumerable cases that attracted the notice or awakened the vigilance of excise officers, many instances of hardship and oppression might be discovered. Such cases, although their example might have no effect on minds of great force or cultivation, had a bad general tendency. It was indeed a sufficient objection to a tax of this description, that its necessary operation was to produce such cases as those to which he had alluded. In these cases the bonds and securities required were enormous in their amount. Upon inquiry he found that during the last three years the penalties included within these securities amounted to the almost incredible sum of 107,844,707l. He did not wish to fatigue the House; but he thought it necessary to draw its attention to one part of the evidence respecting the fishery on the west coat of Scotland. The agent for lord Seaforth and Mr. Macdonald, of Clanronald, declared, that he had heard frequent complaints of the state of the fishery, and that in his opinion it was impossible for the common islander to preserve fish on his own account. The only object of justification of the duties must be the extraordinary revenue which they produced; and here he might be allowed to quote the authority of one of the secretaries of the Admiralty, who had frankly avowed his opinion, that if the duties were removed 20,000 additional seamen would be employed. It was satisfactory also to witness the accordance of opinion on this subject between the committee which sat in 1801 on the herring fishery, and the committee of 1807, on this subject of the salt duties. The chancellor of the exchequer, was chairman of one of those committees, and its report had only expressed the opinions of all who had turned their minds to the subject, or well-considered the situation of the country. He knew that it was a question with many, whether such a tax ought to be continued under any circumstances; but his own immediate views were limited to the placing on their Journals, a record of opinions which might serve as a guide for future judgment, and the substratum for practical measures hereafter. He conceived this course of proceeding to be more expedient than the adoption of another project which he had in contemplation—that of framing a scale of diminishing duties, the result of which would be to increase their positive amount. It was to the dispassionate judgment of the House that he now appealed, and he deprecated the interference of any party spirit on a question so nearly involving the best interests of the country. He should conclude by moving, "That, considering the severe pressure of the salt duties upon the lower orders of the community, and the great advantages which would accrue to the fisheries, agriculture, and manufactures of the United Kingdom, from the unrestrained and unlimited use of salt, it is highly expedient that the earliest practicable opportunity should be taken for the gradual reduction, or total repeal, of the said duties."

Mr. Davenport

said, that the question was so narrowed by the inquiries which had been already instituted, that all that was necessary appeared to him to be to refer the House to the reports of the committees. Those reports, in common with the doctrines of all modern writers of authority on the subject, agreed in pronouncing this to be the worst of all bad taxes. It originated in a blind policy, and was in its operation as injurious to the poor, as it was discouraging to agriculture, and destructive of the fisheries. Foreigners were enriching themselves from the greatest source of wealth that Providence in its bounty had bestowed upon us. By an enormous duty on an article of necessary subsistence, we at once deprived ourselves of a nursery for seamen, and held out an irresistible temptation to fraudulent practices.

Mr. Wallace

could not perceive the advantage of passing a resolution, which, without repealing a tax, should cause the people to be dissatisfied with it. Impolitic as the measure might appear, one thing was certain—that in every state in Europe there was a tax on salt, and there was no reason to believe that in any of them it was considered as oppressive. He agreed that in France it was considered by some classes of the community as burthensome; but in that country it was not so much the tax itself that was complained of, as the manner in which it was levied. There the higher orders were exempted from its operation almost entirely; for the tax was not laid on the actual consumption, but every man was obliged to account to the government for so much, whether he consumed it or not. These objections, however, were not applicable to the tax as levied in this country. It ought also to be remembered, that this tax had been long borne by us; it had been laid on soon after the Revolution, and though increased from time to time, it had been borne without even a murmur, until the feelings of the public had been excited by the exertions of an hon. baronet now no more (sir T. Bernard) who, although he represented it as an evil which had long blighted the prospects of the country, never paid any attention to it till he himself felt it attended with a personal inconvenience. But was it possible that this grievance, if it was so great as it had been represented, should have so long escaped the observation of so many men of talents in that House? Was it possible that it could have escaped the observation of the people themselves, who were said to suffer so severely under its pressure? He was far from saying that the sentiments of the people were always to be collected from the petitions which were laid before that House; yet he thought that as no petitions had been presented, and no complaints made, it might fairly be assumed that the practical grievance was not great. He admitted that the laws on this subject had considerable defects, and of these the greatest was the temptation which they held out to evasion; but although in some respects this temptation was strong, yet in certain points of view it was not so much so as in other taxes. In general, the facility of defrauding the revenue was the great temptation to smuggling, and he admitted that it was easy to elude this tax; yet in smuggling salt, the evasion must be great indeed before the profit could be considerable, while in many other cases immense profit was derived from a small evasion. Another objection was, the necessity of guarding this tax with severe penalties. But that these penalties were not severely exacted appeared from the report of the committee, in which it was stated, that the number of prosecutions during a period of 20 years did nut exceed 11 each year. Whatever severity there might appear in the spirit of these regulations, it could not be denied that they were highly beneficial, since they secured a revenue of 1,500,000l. a year. The principle of this tax was perfectly equitable, because it fell alike on all classes; it was easily collected for the expense did not exceed 2½d. per cent.; and its pressure was imperceptible, it being paid in small sums. In this last point of view it bad been alluded to by Adam Smith, as a tax that might be carried to a great extent without being much felt. He believed, indeed, that there was no tax of which the poorer classes were beard to complain so little. He was surprised the hon. gentleman should say that the operation of this tax was to make the poor pay a greater proportion than they ought. If the labourer paid in the first instance, it was clear that he must be repaid by his employer, and that in fact the former only advanced so much in the course of the week to be reimbursed by the latter at the end of it. [The hon. member contended, at considerable length that neither the labourer, the cottager, the agriculturist, nor the manufacturer, felt any inconvenience from this tax.] The fisheries, it was worthy of remark, bad been improving, even under these severe restrictions. There never was a more prosperous year for the fish-curers than the last, the quantity of salt, used had been greater than at any former period. The quantity of herrings caught last season on the east coast of Scotland, was so great that every market was glutted with fish, and not one herring had been uncured that could have found a market. The price obtained left only a profit of 3s. 6d. on each barrel, which was ruinous to the parties engaged in the business. Here was the effect of extending the fisheries: all the markets were glutted and the curers were obliged to sell at a price that ruined them. Yet to have heard the hon. gentleman one would have supposed that we had only to extend our fisheries, either by the repeal of the salt tax, or by any other means, and numberless advantages would instantly follow; we should have 20,000 seamen ready at the call of their country, and every acre of the sea would become as productive as an acre of land. The hon. gentleman had said that we were prevented from competing with the Dutch, by the cheap price at which they sold their fish; but if the hon. gentleman had looked at the evidence he would have found that Dutch fish sold at a price one-third higher than ours. He fully admitted the evils that resulted from smuggling, or from evading the duties; but they were not greater in this case than in others. The smuggling was not greater in evading the salt duties, than in the introduction of lace, gloves, and other articles from abroad. Neither was there any symptom of demoralization arising from this source evident in those districts where most salt was used in the fisheries, and where there was the greatest opportunity of evading the duty. He might appeal to the state of Scotland, of Cornwall, and of other fishing districts, for a proof of this remark. In the course of 7 years there had been in Cheshire, one of the great salt-mine districts, 1880 committals for all offences, but only ten of them for transgressions of the salt laws. The right hon. gentleman concluded by several other observations in defence of this duty, and contended that at this time, though it were even more liable to objections than it had been shown to he, the country could not surrender such a valuable source of revenue.

Mr. Curwen

said, that the right hon. gentleman observed, that the tax was fair and equitable, because it was general; but did he not know that it pressed much more grievously on the lower than on the higher classes of society? Did not the right hon. gentleman know that four ounces of salt were required for every stone of flour used in bread, which constituted so large a portion of the subsistence of the poor? From the income of the rich the tax on salt did not take more than a thousandth part, while from the wages of labour it cut off a twenty-sixth. The right hon. gentleman had asked, why, when this impost was borne so long, it was now objected to, adding that it was not, more intolerable now than for some time past? The fact was not as he had stated. The tax was more oppressive now than formerly, as other taxes had increased, while the ability of the people to pay them had not increased in proportion. The right hon. gentleman ought to have known, that the wages of labour had not risen according to the price of the taxed articles of consumption, and that they were regulated, not so much by the necessities of life, as by the demand for labour. It had been said, that as the peer man was enabled to give 8l. food of his pig, he could add 5s. more to salt it. This was not always the case fend many poor men sold their pig because they could not afford to pay for salt to preserve it. The right hon. gentleman had stated, that there had been only twenty prosecutions within a certain period far transgressions of the salt laws; but he would ask were there not thousands coin-promised? The fact was, that these prosecutions had become to some parties, somehow of other a monstrous source of revenue. The hon. gentleman went on to mention the advantage that would result, not only to the lower orders, but to the agriculture, commerce, and industry of the country, from the repeal of the salt-duties. The unlimited use of this article in agriculture would produce an immense effect. The quantity used would amount to 3,000,000l. of money in value. It would be used in the fattening of stock, in manure, and for various other purposes. To show this he needed only to state, that in the first year after the late change in the salt duties, 8 tons only had been consumed in agriculture, while the quantity now was 120 tons. The importance of salt to the prosperity of our fisheries, and the consequent propriety of removing those restrictions by which the supply to the fish curers was restrained, were evident to every one who took the slightest view of the subject. In the last year we had paid 10,000,000l. sterling to foreigners for food, a circumstance which showed the wisdom of granting every facility to a species of labour like that employed in the fisheries, by which food could be abundantly procured. The consumption of fish was increasing at home, and the people who formerly were averse to it were now compelled to use it. He knew that government could not well do without the tax; but he was convinced that less oppressive substitutes might be found. Five per cent on the rack rent of land, and half that sum on houses, would produce a greater revenue, and would not lead to to hurtful consequences. It was vain to talk of any relief to the lower orders from an alteration of the poor-laws. All the alteration would be merely matter of regulation. He would beg his hon. and learned friend to allow an alteration in his resolution, and to word it to the effect of a total repeal, and not a gradual reduction of the tax. The great evil were the regulations which would remain with any reduction. About 50,000 tons now paid duty, but more than double that quantity would be used if the tax were repealed.

Dr. Phillimore

said, that his resolution gave the alternative of a reduction or a repeal.

Lord Ebrington

thought the House indebted to his hon. and learned friend, for bringing the question before them; for after two committees had been appointed to inquire into the subject, the country would have felt disappointed if the House had separated without expressing any opinion. He was astonished to hear the manner in which that tax had been defended; for it was reserved to them that night to hear, that a tax so heavy as this, on a necessary of life, could be endured without difficulty, and was on its merits fit to be continued. It was one of the first acts of lord Sidmoath's administration to declare that it was fit that this tax should be repealed on the first opportunity, and on the renewal of the war the same declaration was again made. It had been said, that till the late sir T. Barnard moved the subject, the burthen of the tax had never been felt. Those who made this assertion knew little of the lower orders; it had always been considered as a grievance; and how was it possible that this should not be the case, when a labourer in husbandry, with a wife and three children, whose wages in many parts of the country did not exceed from 18 to 20l. a year, paid nearly 27s. for salt alone? As to the indulgence, as it was called, which had been granted to the fisheries, by the bill of 1817, it had been productive to those for whose benefit it was expressly intended, of distress and inconveniences; as he in common with other gentlemen connected with the Western Fisheries, had stated that it would be when the chancellor of the exchequer brought in that bill. He cordially supported the Resolution.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that he had not, after the able speech of his right hon. friend, intended to trespass on the attention of the House, but having been alluded to as chairman of a Commit-tee connected with the subject in a former administration, he felt it right to explain the reasons why he held an opinion now which might seem different from that which was then entertained. The circumstances of the country were since wholly changed, at least so much that it would not be advisable to carry into effect the resolution then agreed to. It had been stated, that in consequence of our great increase of duties upon salt, the Dutch were able to undersell us considerably in the market; but it should be recollected that in the 16th and 17th centuries, when we had no duties at all upon the article, the Dutch fisheries surpassed ours; and it would not be said that our ancestors were less bold or adventurous than their neighbours. The present tax could not be considered excessive in proportion to the increase in our manufactures, agriculture, &c. In the number of prosecutions under the salt laws, which had been alluded to, there should have been included the compositions which had been made. He contended that the operation of the tax within the last few years had not diminished the fisheries, or our exports in that article; that they were rather increased, compared with recent years; and that the fishermen, by the productiveness of the trade, were enabled to increase their number of boats, and consequently to give employment to a greater number of hands. In conclusion, he observed, that if he were now of the same opinion which he formerly held, he should still oppose the motion, because he thought the only effect of condemning a tax, without repealing it, would be to render it more oppressive and less productive. He should therefore move the previous question.

Earl Comptain

said, he should vote for the previous question—not because he coincided with the views of the chancellor of the exchequer respecting the tax, but because it was imprudent for the House to pledge itself to do hereafter what it was unable to do at this time. He should however be glad to vote directly for the abolition of the tax, and to replace it by the best substitute, a direct tax,

Mr. Davies Gilbert

observed, that in maritime places the regulations with regard to the salt permitted to be used for home consumption, were so vexatious that no person of property would become responsible for the dealers. The hon. member dwelt upon the various disadvantages resulting from the operation of the salt duties, and therefore he was an advocate for their total repeal. But yet, in the present circumstances of the country, he could not accede to the destruction of the resource arising out of these duties; nor could, he admit the policy of their gradual reduction, because such a course would be productive of confusion in the collection of the revenue, without any commensurate advantage to the people. But still he felt it his duty to vote for the resolution, in order that the House should stand pledged to repeal the duties alluded to, as soon as the circumstances of the country might admit of such repeal.

Mr. Protheroe

spoke in favour of the resolutions, and urged the necessity of considering the means of collecting the revenues of the country generally in a less vexatious and expensive manner than at present prevailed.

Mr. Alderman Heygate

said, that when he considered the state of the revenue, which was so far from overflowing, that the sinking fund, to which the faith of the country had been so often pledged, might almost be said to exist only in name, combined with the difficulty of laying on any new tax in lieu of the duty on salt, he felt it impossible to vote for the motion.

The House divided on the previous question: Ayes, 50; Noes, 127: —Majority against the motion, 77.

List of the Minority.
Althorp, vis. Gipps, G.
Allen, J. H. Hollywood, W. P
Bennet, hon. H. G. Hutchinson, hon. C.
Burnett, James Holdsworth, A. H.
Barham, J. F. Lamb, hon. G.
Browne, Dom. Lemon, sir W.
Becher, W. W. Maule, hon. W.
Bastard, E. P. Methuen, Paul
Belgrave, vis. Morland, S. B.
Bernal, Ralph Monck, sir C.
Burrell, sir C. Primrose, hon. F. W.
Clifford, capt Parnell, sir H.
Clifton, vis. Protheroe, Edward
Crompton, Samuel Pares, Thomas
Curwen, J. C. Ridley, sir M. W.
Colborne, N. R. Rumbold,C.
Deerhurst, vis. Robarts, Abraham
Douglas, hon. F. S. Smith, Wm.
Davis, T. H. Smith, hon. R.
Duncannon, vis. Strathaven, lord.
Ebrington, visc. Tremayne, J. H.
Egerton, W. Webb, Edw.
Fremantle, W. Wynn, C. W.
Fellowes, hon. N. TELLERS.
Grenfell, Pascoe Phillimore, Dr.
Gurney, R. H. Davenport, D.
Gaskell, Benj. PAIRED OFF
Gilbert, D. G. Wilson, sir R.