Sitting of 7 March 1805

Preamble
[MINUTES.]
Mr. Johnstone,from the chief secretary's office in Ireland, presented an Account of the Pensions granted ort the Irish establishment, together with the dates and amounts of the same, and the lives for which they were granted, up to the 1st of January, 1805. Ordered to lie on the table.—Mr. Bully, from the exchequer, presented an account of the sums issued by his majesty's command, in pursuance of addresses of that house, and not provided for by parliament-Ordered to lie on the table—Mr. Kinnaird presented several petitions from the inhabitants of the towns of Perth, Sterling,, and Dumfermline, in Scotland, praying for a repeal of the late corn act, which were or-
788
dered to lie on the table. Me then stated, that in presenting these petitions, so transmitted to him, he by no means pledged himself to support any motion for the repeal of the bill, as he had yet no opportunity of making up his mind upon the subjeet.—Mr. S. Bourne brought up the Sugar Drawback Duty bill; the Legacy Additional Stamp Duty bill; and the Isle of Man Revenue Improvement bill, all of which were read a first time.—Mr. Alexander brought up the report of the committee on the Property Tax bill. Ordered to be read a 3d time to-morrow.

SALT DUTY BILL.
Mr. Alexanderappeared at the bar with the report of the bill for imposing an additional duty on salt. On the question being put from the chair, "that this report be now brought up,"
Mr. Johnstoneobserved, that though the subject might appear to have been pretty nearly exhausted already, yet he could not refrain at this time from stating his objections to the bill, which he considered as involving in it every thing mischievous that could possibly accompany a tax. It was surprising, that after a report of the committee of this house had been so long on the table, recommending the entire abolition of the salt duty, the first thing we should hear was a double duty being laid on that article. It was a breach of faith-in some measure, and must give the country a bad impression of parliament itself. Suppose a case in private life, where a superior should hold out hopes to a dependant, that he should be relieved from grievances of which he justly complained: what would be thought of that superior if, instead of relief, he should double the burden It was trifling with the people to hold out expectations to them without attempting to realize them. So much for England. But the case was worse with respect to Scotland. There it would be impossible to go through with this bill. Formerly when the duty was 10s. in England, in Scotland it was 6s. 6d. From this it was found necessary to lower it to 4s. If it was scarcely possible to collect it then, what could be done now, when the duty was so much more? The difficulty of making salt in Scotland would not account for the impossibility found in collecting the duty there. This difficulty arose from-making salt there from sea water, instead of salt springs, which contained more saline matter; but in Scotland, they used the rock salt of Chester in general, as well as, in- England. The tax fell much more severely on the poor than

789
on the rich, for a poor man especially in Scotland, was compelled to live principally on vegetable food, which required a great quantity of salt to stimulate digestion. The net produce of the tax in Scotland was 47,000l. This sum was nearly all expended in bounties to the Herring Fishery, and in the charges of collection, and therefore scarcely any thing was gained by it to the public. The design of the society for improving the Highlands, as appeared from their reports, was to prevent, as much as possible, the augmentation of the tax on salt, which had so bad an effect on the Herring Fishery. In the year 1769, in the Isle of Man, where the duty did not exist, the inhabitants were about 7000. They had since increased to 30,000, chiefly, perhaps, owing to their exemption from this duty. He had another objection to the tax, which was, that this heavy burden was laid on the people, for paying the interest of five millions subsidy to be given to the powers on the continent. We had no information of the nature of the services to be performed for it. It was vain to subsidize the northern powers, because, in order to make an impression on France, the co-operation of one, or both of the great powers contiguous to France was necessary.
Mr. Roseinsisted, that the different bounties to which the committee and the hon. gent, alluded, on the exportation of printed linens and cottons, whale oil, refined sugar, &c. had no connection whatever with the duties imposed upon salt. The gentlemen who opposed this duty in the present instance, and even wished for the repeal of all the duties upon salt, would find themselves under very great difficulty to point out a substitute which would produce a revenue of 500,000l. and not be liable to much greater objection than this was. He denied that the duty at all had any application to the fisheries, which were exempted, and stated, that in the course of the present session, he hoped to be enabled to bring in a bill for the better encouragement and regulation of the fisheries.
Mr. Kinnairdsaid, that when the report of the committee of 1801 was ordered to be reprinted, he thought there was reason to expect that it would have been before the house before the bill should be pressed -forward. He wished to remind the house, that in recommending the taking off the duty on salt, that the committee illustrated the advantages of it, by slating that all the prosperity of the Isle of Man was ow-
790
ing to the free exportation of salt, but since the union, the parliament of this country found it impossible to raise the same duties in Scotland as in Englandi When the union took place in 1707, there was a salt duty of 6d. per bushel in Scotland, and from that time they never paid any duty till the year 1725, when an addition was proposed, which it was aftewards found necessary to repeal. He contended, that the salt duties in Scotland could never be made to amount to more than 45,000l. a year, as there was a great chymical difference between the salt produced from sea-water in that country, and what was in England produced from springs impregnated with rock salt, insomuch that one bushel of Liverpool salt was equal to three bushels of Scotch salt.
Mr. Huskissonobserved, that the difference to which the hon. member had alluded had been formerly considered by parliament, but that was done for the relief of the manufacturer, and not for the benefit of the consumer. As to the consideration of the northern fisheries, parliament would doubtless continue the same bounties to them as had been granted for a century past. The allusion which another hon. member had made to a situation in common life, was not exactly analogous; in Ins opinion the comparison would be more correctly made with the situation of a sailor who complained to his captain of the hardships which he suffered while at sea in tempestuous weather; and the captain gave him hopes that he should have better weather, and said that he then would have less labour. However, contrary to the expectation of the captain, the gale rose with considerable increased fury, when he had thought that it had nearly subsided, and the vessel sprung a leak. The captain then says, now you must do double work, for, if you don't work away at the pumps, the ship will inevitably sink; there is no other means of saving her. Now, if any other measure of equal benefit to the sate could be proposed, he should be very glad to hear it.
Mr. Hurstsaid, that the policy of parliament had always been to spare, amongst the objects of taxation, as much as possible, the indispensable necessaries of life, and he should therefore give his strenuous opposition to a duty which went to raise the price of all articles of human sustenance, in which salt was made use of. It was the duly of his majesty's ministers, when a tax was fairly objected to, to endeavour to find out

791
some other fund to defray the expences of the state.
Colonel Calcraftsaid, that though he did not wish to stop the progress of the bill during the printing of the report of the committee; yet he did not suppose that any attempt would have been made to pass the bill through the house until the report should be before them. He said, that though this might not be a fit time for taking off the tax altogether, yet he could1 not think the present was the fittest moment to select for adding 500,0001. to the 800,000l. which is already raised from an article of general consumption, as the lower order must feel peculiarly the inconvenience of a time of war, from the advance which takes place in the price of provisions in consequence of the increase of taxes, which is unavoidably occasioned by the war. When such a subject, however, was to be discussed in parliament, he thought it would have been more respectful to the house for the minister to have attended in his place. He had not heard that he was ill, or that any unpleasant consequences had followed from the fatigue of last night's debate; he might have been a little galled no doubt, but that was no reason why he should not attend in his place to-night, on the discussion of a subject of such general importance. Instead of adopting such a measure as the present, he would advise the Colleagues of that right hon. gent, to take the liberty of recommending him in private to look at economy in the public expenditure. When his majesty's servants thought proper to have recourse to severe taxes of this kind, he thought it was full time to endeavour to find a substitute for them in the retrenchments, which were so loudly called for in the public expenditure. An hon. admiral (Markham) of high authority, had lately stated, (see p. 684), that a saving of one-third might be made in the naval expenditure, which was now 15 million annually; and if they could retrench even one thirteenth part of it, the people of the country might be saved some of the hardships to which they were now subjected. Should this tax be adopted, the consequence must be that every labouring and Agricultural man in the country would have to pay a twentieth part of his income for the, purchase of salt indispensable for his sustenance.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that many things which he had intended to have offered had been in a great measure anticipated. He would;
792
however, beg leave to add a few words to what had been said on this subject. There, were many people who carried on manufactories for soap in a small way, who used wood ashes instead of the barilla, used by the great manufacturers. They had stated to him that their profits had almost entirely been swallowed up by the late duty on salt. They would now therefore be entirely ruined. One great object with government was the encouragement of the herring fishery, and the right hon. gent. (Mr. Rose) had said that he intended to bring in a bill for that purpose; but no encouragement could ever be effectual without the repeal of the salt duty. He had been on the committee which made the report so often mentioned. The right hon. gent, had said, that that committee had stated that various bounties might be withdrawn if the salt duties were repealed, though these bounties were given for things having no connection with salt. He would perhaps find, however, that in these works salt was employed, otherwise the committee must have been devoid of common sense, which he knew they were not. The restrictions and revenue laws must be multiplied in consequence of this duty. The difficulty of finding a substitute would be increased by the additional duty. He concluded by reading a statement made to him by a person who had long been in the employment of the fishery, explaining the ruinous effects of being restricted as to the quantity of salt used; and said that the salt duty was certainly one of the greatest impediments to the improvement of the fisheries that at present existed.
Mr. Sturges Bournestated, that the report of this committee had been ordered to be reprinted under an impression, that the printing of it should not cause any delay to the bill. The salt duty was collected at an expence of only 2 per cent, being less than any other tax required in the collection. The fisheries could not be effected by the tax, as they would continue still to have the duty free.
Mr. Foxsaid, that there was one point which he wished to have exactly ascertained. It seemed to be agreed that the salt of Scotland was inferior in quality to that of England. He wished to know exactly the degree of difference between them. On the one hand great injustice might be done to Scotland, in case the consumption was great, and on the other hand, in case the food used in Scotland was much easier

793
cured, such as salt-fish, than the food in England, then some injustice might be done to the poor of England. He wished to know exactly how much more than a peck of salt in Scotland, it would take to render it perfectly equal to our English peck. —The repost was then brought up, and agreed to, and the bill ordered to be read a third time on Monday.—Adjourned.

Preamble
[MINUTES.]
In a committee of privileges, Mr. Adam was farther heard on behalf of the claim of lady Ann Fitzgerald to the barony of Rous. Mr. Romilly, on behalf of sir Thomas Windsor Hunloke, another claimant, and the attorney-general on the part of the crown, prayed farther time, on which the farther consideration was postponed till this day se'nnigbt.—Mr. Johnson, from the office of the chief secretary; for Ireland, presented an account of the

787
notes of the bank of Ireland, in circulation from Jan. 1804, to Feb. 1805, which was ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.—The Lord Chancellor expressed a wish to call the attention of their lordships to certain claims of Irish peers to vote at the election of peers for Ireland, which would come before the committee of privileges on Tuesday next. Certain claims which would then be submitted to the committee would, he understood, involve two points on which it might be necessary for their lordships to bestow some consideration. The points were these: that previous to the act of 1782 which established the independence of Ireland, several patents, creating peers of that country, were granted under the great seal of G. Britain, and not under the great seal of Ireland. Subsequent to that period, also, patents of a similar nature were likewise granted under the great seal of G. Britain, and not under the great seal of Ireland. He mentioned these two points, in order that their lordships might turn them in their minds, previous to the committee; they would recollect' at the same time, that they would not have to decide upon any claim to the peerage, but merely as to the right of voting at the election of peers for Ireland. Upon further consideration, he thought it would be better to postpone the consideration of these claims, from Tuesday to Thursday, on which latter day they might have the assistance of the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, who would then; be able to attend.—The consideration of the claims alluded to, was accordingly postponed till Thursday.—Adjourned.