CONTINUANCE OF THE SALT DUTY.

HC Deb 13 May 1824 vol 11 cc741-8

Mr. Wodehouse

rose to bring forward his promised motion for the continuance of the Salt Duty; and to enable the House to ascertain if some more substantial relief could not be obtained for the country by the diminution of an equal amount in some other part of the public burthens. He was aware that the great objection which had been urged, as it were in limine, on the consideration of this subject, was, that the faith of parliament stood pledged for the entire abolition of the salt duties [loud cries of "hear"]. He hoped he was not particularly prone to any laxity of principle; but he confessed he could not see how a vote of that House could be held indissoluble. Parliament was a collective body, its faith was its united pledge; perhaps this pledge might have been given when one third of the collective body were not present. But, be that as it might, his idea of the honour of parliament was, to measure its conduct by the present view of what it would be best for the true interest of the country to adopt, under all the circumstances of its present situation. Their duty, and the express order of their institution was, at the time of their being called upon to consider a proposition, to see what was then best for the interests of the country to adopt. What, then, was the best course for the House to take, under existing circumstances, with respect to the remaining salt duties? He was aware that the objection was not so much as to their present amount, as it was to the operation of the Excise regulations which still accompanied the payment of what remained; and the particular inconvenience of which was felt by the class less able to bear that infliction. It must be obvious to all, that the details of such a subject must be left practically to the individuals engaged in the regulations. He had, therefore, for information upon that point, referred to Mr. Carr, the solicitor of the Excise [cries of "hear," from the opposite benches]. He begged to inform the hon. gentlemen who had just cheered his refer- ence, that he was no advocate for these severe Excise laws, or their accompanying penalties; but, he must declare, that both the one and the other ought to be considered with patience, and not with passion. He begged to call the attention of the House to what had been said by Mr. Carr, when he was examined respecting the operation of the Excise laws, before the committee on the criminal laws. Mr. Carr, before that committee, had justly laid it down as a principle, that if low duties were imposed, low penalties would suffice; but that it was the imposition of high duties which necessarily led to high penalties, and these in their result, to the desperate schemes of smugglers. Something had been said of the anomalous difference between the English and Irish salt duties, and an argument for the total abolition had been founded thereon. Upon that point he would merely remark, that as they had now a consolidation of the English and Irish Excise boards, some regulations might be made to obviate the objection to which he alluded, consistent with the fair retention of the remaining portion of the duty. The amount of duty retained was 300,000l., and the expense of collection, estimated at 5 per cent, was 15,000l. In viewing this object, he had called for returns, showing the state of Excise prosecutions in England and Scotland during the last five years, and the result established his opinion, that the diminution of the duty had repressed smuggling in the article. In 1819, the general amount of Excise prosecutions was in number 191, penalties recovered from 3,000l. to 4,000l. In the year ending 5th Jan. 1824, there were twenty-three prosecutions, and the penalties recovered were 53l. The state of prosecutions actually originating with, and carried through the court of Exchequer, was, in 1819, 37 prosecutions; penalties recovered, 2,400l. In 1824, three prosecutions; penalties recovered, 11l. 18s. 8d. In Scotland, in 1819, there were 513 prosecutions, and 4,000l. recovered. In 1824, 212 prosecutions, and 604l. recovered. The smuggling in salt was, therefore, almost wholly done away with. There was one man in Cheshire who used to employ 25 of these men during the high duties, and he had discharged them all when the tax was reduced. He knew, from what he could learn from the bakers of Norwich, that no smuggling in salt was carried on there; and the hon. member for Yarmouth could Say whether, he had or had not received similar information respecting the fisheries at Yarmouth.—On the subject of the fisheries, he was far from wishing the adoption of any measure calculated to discourage them; but it was well known, that their fisheries could not be carried on to an indefinite extent; sometimes the 6sh would come, when the men or their nets were not there to catch them; and, at other times, when the nets were spread, the fish would not approach them. There was not the same quantity of fish consumed here, as there was in Catholic countries. The next point to which he should allude was the quantity of salt used for the purposes of agriculture. He was aware that, under the existing law, it was necessary that a person using it for these purposes should give a certificate, stating the quantity which he used, the land on which he used it, the sheep, or other cattle, to which he gave it, and the result which he derived from it; and that, if he failed to give such certificate, he was liable to a penalty of 40s. a bushel for every bushel of salt he consumed, or to a penalty of 100l. for the whole quantity, at the discretion of the Board of Excise. He had no objection to do away entirely with the necessity of giving this certificate. With regard to the utility of salt for agricultural purposes, he believed it to be much magnified. The hon. member for Cumberland, could, however, afford to the House the best information upon that subject, as he had frequently employed salt upon one portion of his estates, and not upon another. He understood, that not only the members for Wareham, and Shaftesbury, and Bodmin, were opposed to his proposition, but also all the members of the western counties; and that, too, chiefly on account of the advantages which the employment of salt conferred upon the agriculturist. There was, however, one gentleman connected with the western counties, whose support he expected, and whose vote he would rather have than that of all the other gentlemen of the western counties put together. That gentleman was the hon. baronet, the member for Westminster. On a former night, that hon. baronet had said, that it would be of the greatest advantage to Ireland, if the House voted to her service the million of money which it was going to expend on much worse objects; and had added, that he should feel great satisfaction, if the 500,000l. which the House was going to expend on new churches, the 300.000l. for there pairs of Windsor Castle, and the 200,000l. which was derived from the salt duties, were to be transferred to the use of the population of that distracted country. He inferred, from this declaration, that the hon. baronet was in favour of the proposition which he was now going to submit to the House; for he could not see how the hon. baronet could derive 200,000l. from the salt duties, unless he was prepared to continue them for a longer period. The hon. member then proceeded to contend, that the repeal of the existing salt duties would he of very slight advantage to the country. He was aware that Mr. Parks, when he was asked by the committee, "what new manufactures from salt, or otherwise were likely to originate from the repeal of the salt duties?" had answered, "that it was impossible to ascertain the number of new manufactures that might rise upon the repeal of the salt-tax; for such an impetus would be given by it to every branch of trade, that all the manufacturers would set about examining in what manner it be could best applied to their particular trade." Now, if Mr. Parks would come for-ward, and state any particular trade to which the recent reduction of the salt duties had given the slightest impetus, he would immediately withdraw his motion. Nay, if the hon. member for Bodmin would lay aside his affection for pilchards, and standing forward in the dignity of an abstract man, would assert, that the fisheries had derived from that reduction the benefits which it was asserted that they would derive, he would also withdraw his present motion. The hon. member for Shaftesbury had declared to the same committee, that if the salt-tax were repealed, the small house-keeper would use 14lb of salt where he had formerly used one; and the larger house keeper would use a bushel where he had formerly used a gallon; and he had further added, that if salt were used in the potteries, which he promised it would be, were the tax repealed, the health of the workmen, who, at present, were much liable to paralysis, would undergo great improvement. Now, without meaning the slightest disrespect to the hon. member, he would ask, was there any man who could believe this statement to its full extent? Sir T. Bernard, speaking of the salt-works at Northwich to the same committee, had said— Vestibulum ante ipsum, primisque in faucibus Orci Luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia curæ, Pallentesque habitant morbi;"— meaning by the "pallentes morbi," the 147 excisemen who were stationed there to prevent any fraud upon the revenue. Really, when hon. gentlemen talked in such a strain, and when they inveighed upon the demoralization which was likely to arise from the continuance of the small duties upon salt, he must say that, for his life and soul, he could not understand them. He then proceeded to argue, that if these duties were continued, the country might be freed from the window-tax paid by small houses, and supported his Proposition by references to the last popuation returns. He had been told, that his motion for their continuance was inadmissible, because a positive pledge for their repeal had been given to the House by the members of his majesty's government. Now, that proposition he for one could not understand. He would illustrate what he meant, by an example. He had maintained, and he did still maintain, in common with his majesty's ministers, the policy of keeping up a sinking fund. But he would ask, whether he must vote for the sinking fund remaining at 5,000,000l. in perpetuity, in case it should appear to his majesty's government, upon mature deliberation, to be expedient to diminish the amount of it, and to relinquish a part of it to diminish the amount of taxation? Certainly not; and yet the House and the government were as strongly pledged to support the sinking-fund at 5,000,000l. under all circumstances, as they were to repeal the remaining salt-duties. His reason for moving to continue them was, that he did not consider them to be in themselves objectionable, and that he wished to keep up a source of income with which little or no fault could be found, and to get rid of another which was liable to much and serious abuse. Contending that it was the duty of hon. members to look at taxation, not as it affected their particular constituents, but the country at large, he called upon them to judge of the present motion, not by their private interests, but by its general merits. The hon. member concluded by moving "That it is expedient that the present rate of duty on Salt be continued, in order that his majesty's government may be thereby better enabled to give a more effectual relief to the country in the ensuing ses- sion of parliament, by the remission of the duty payable on windows."

Mr. Carlwright

seconded the motion. He thought the duty, at its present amount, not oppressive, and that other taxes might be remitted, which would be mote beneficial to the people. The machinery, by which the salt-tax was collected, was not, he contended, more expensive than the machinery for collecting several other taxes. If the tax were remitted, he doubted whether it would go into the pockets of the people.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that standing in the particular situation which he did as a minister of the Crown, he was anxious, at that early period of the debate, to declare, without reserve, the opinion which he held with regard to the present motion. Honourable members would do him the justice to recollect, that in the statement which he had made to them, at the commencement of the session, he had distinctly informed them that if, in the course of it, there should be a general feeling that the cessation of this tax ought not to take place at the time fixed for it by law, it would not be a difficult task to find other means of affording relief to the public; but that he was of opinion that, as far as himself and the government were concerned, they were pledged—[great cheering.] specifically pledged—to adhere to the law as it now stood. He would not go so far as to say that parliament was pledged to stand by that law, if it were good that that law should be repealed; or that the government were bound not to repeal it, if the repeal of it were either good or useful to the public. He had, therefore, on formerly addressing the House, qualified the pledge which he had given in this manner—that there must be a strong general feeling in favour of this tax before he could venture to propose its continuance. If, therefore, any such feeling had been excited, he should have felt himself at liberty to support the motion of his hon. friend; for he agreed with his hon. friend in thinking, that the objections to the continuance of the 2s. duty on salt had been very much over-rated. Indeed, it was his opinion, that the consumer would not be at all benefited by the repeal of it. It was impossible, he contended, to retain these two shillings duties without retaining the exemptions. He was inclined to say, that if any tax on salt were continued, it ought either to be much more than 2s., or to be reduced to so low a rate as to dispense entirely with the exemptions; for it was out of these exemptions, that all the smuggling, perjury, and demoralization arose, which rendered this tax so generally objectionable. Though he believed, that if the exemptions were removed, and the duties lowered, the produce of the tax, from the greater consumption given to the article taxed, would be as great as it was at present, he was not prepared to say that there was no objection to the extinction of these exemptions. The hon. member for Bodmin would, perhaps, tell him, that the evil created by these exemptions was not compensated by the amount produced by this small tax—a sum which he believed was somewhere between 200,000l. and 250,000l. The question which he had to put to himself was this—is the advantage which the public income derives from this tax sufficient to justify me in retaining it against the indisposition of the House? which certainly was much greater than he had previously expected. His hon. friend had told them, that he anticipated many objections to his motion. He had told them, that he had reckoned among his opponents not only the hon. members for Shaftesbury, and Bodmin and Wareham, but also all the members connected with the western counties. This was a proof that there was no strong feeling in the country in favour of this tax. He therefore felt, that, after the pledge which had been given, government would not be justified in continuing it a moment longer than the period fixed by law. Thinking that there was no general feeling in favour of the tax, he had not waited for the expression of the opinions of the House; but had come forward at the earliest opportunity, to make a suggestion to his hon. friend, which he trusted he would not be indisposed to adopt; namely, to withdraw his motion. As his hon. friend had coupled his project with another, to which he could by no means accede, he should have been obliged to make the same request to him, even if the House had been inclined to listen to his Proposal about the salt-duties. If his hon. friend was not disposed to accede to his suggestion, he must conclude by moving the previous question [loud cheering].

Cries of "question, question," were then raised, mingled with a loud call for "Mr. Wodehouse" from all sides of the House. Upon which, Mr. Wodehouse rose, and, with the leave of the House, withdrew his motion.