advance from the sinking fund into the exchequer several sums [which Mr. H. specified] by four equal quarterly instalments, payable on the 15th of January, 15th April, 15th July, and 20th of Oct. in each year, the first instalment to be paid on the 20th Oct. 1822; and that after 15 years shall have expired the said commissioners shall pay from the exchequer to the sinking fund the said annual sums above specified." The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not think it necessary to trouble the House with any observations upon this amendment, as it was substantially the same with that which had just been negatived. The amendment was negatived, and the original resolution was then agreed to; as were also the two resolutions immediately following it, without any further discussion. When the fourth resolution was read, Mr. Grenfell moved, that the following words be added to the resolution: "That it shall and may be lawful for the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt, if they shall think it expedient, to apply any of the monies which shall have been placed to their account towards the purchase of the whole, or any part of such portion, of the said annuity of 2,800,000, terminable at the end of 45 years, as the said trustees shall find it expedient to sell in any year, or of any other terminable annuities created by the authority of parliament." The chancellor of the exchequer acquiesced, and the amendment was agreed to. On the resolution, relative to the repeal of 13s. out of the 15s. duty on every bushel of salt, from and after the 5th of January 1823, Sir J. Sebright said, it would be of great relief to the agricultural interest that the tax should be taken off before the autumn, because then the greatest quantity of cattle was killed and salted. Mr. Curwen observed, that there was another inconvenience by the mode proposed, as the poor people who laid in their salt would incur a great loss. For his part he was induced to move the taking off the whole tax [Cheers]. If it was necessary that the government should have the 250,000l. which they expected to raise by what was left of the salt tax, there were many other ways of raising that sum. He then moved as an amendment, "That from and after the 10th October 1822, all Duties on Salt shall cease and determine." The Chancellor of the Exchequer objected to the amendment, on the ground that there could be no material alteration in the existing financial arrangements without breaking down the system altogether. If the whole of the salt tax were repealed, either some new tax must be imposed to supply the deficiency, or the integrity of the sinking fund must be invaded [A laugh!]. Did gentlemen mean by that laugh, that the resolution which had recently been agreed to, trenched on the sinking fund? If so, the House ought to adhere with the more pertinacity to what remained. But he denied that the resolution in question involved any incroachment on the sinking fund. If, however, this amendment was adopted, the present surplus of the income over the expenditure, on which the existing sinking fund was founded, would be diminished. With respect to the proposition, as viewed with reference to its effect on the community, he believed, that the remission of 13s. of the duty would afford to the public all the advantages that would result from the remission of the whole duty. For all the domestic purposes to which salt was applicable, a reduction of the price of salt from 17s. or 18s. a bushel, to 4s. or 5s., would operate in such a beneficial manner, that the difference of 2s. would not be perceptible. As to the question of the duty on the salt employed in the fisheries, that might be discussed when the bill went into the committee. It was of vital importance, however, to the whole system of our finance, that this amendment should not be acceded to. By retaining the 2s. a bushel of duty on salt, parliament would retain for the public a considerable revenue. It was probable, in consequence of the increase of consumption which the diminution of duty must necessarily occasion, that the produce of the duty of 2s. a bushel would amount to 300,000l. That sum would be immediately lost by the adoption of the amendment. Such a proposition would with more propriety be made when the particular bill should be before the House. Mr. Brougham congratulated the House on the great light which had broken in upon the right hon. gentleman's mind since the commencement of the session. The right hon. gentleman had then talked as if no relief could be experienced by the country from any remission of taxation. Nay, the right hon. gentleman had tional grounds, to keep up a disproportionate patronage. There was a third objection to the continuance of any part of the duty. Let the House make what alterations they pleased in the salt laws, it was impossible, while any portion of the duty existed, that there should not co-exist those regulations which were the worst part of the worst laws of this country not seen the operation of those laws in our courts of justice-who had not witnessed the intolerable regulations which were brought together under this branch of our revenue system-could form any idea of the extent to which they cramped and fettered industry-of the snares which they strewed around its progress, or of the downright galling oppression that belonged to this part of our jurisprudence. Were it only for the sake of getting rid of all this odious machinery, it would be well to abandon the tax; but when, in addition to all this, they considered the undue patronage, and that all these evils were to be encountered for a sum at the utmost of 300,000l., he thought the House could not hesitate to relinquish it entirely. even gone farther than the noble lord opposite did in 1816, when he chid "the ignorant impatience" of the people on the subject of taxation [Lord Londonderry denied having used the ex pression]. He (Mr. B.) must have dreamt, then, that the noble lord had said so. And yet the idea was so singular, the collocation so peculiar, the whole phrase so extraordinary, that it was dif-the revenue laws. No man who had ficult to suppose any one could fancy such an expression had been used when it actually had not been so. The right hon. gentleman had not only characterized a remission of taxation as a most ridiculous project for the relief of the country, but had absolutely asserted, that he was not sure that such a remission would not increase the existing evil. The House and the country had, however, reason to rejoice in the new view of the subject entertained by the right hon. gentleman, who now talked very fluently, of the great relief which the taking off 13s. out of 15s. in the duty on salt would afford. Far be it from him to say, that such a diminution of the duty would not afford considerable relief;-a relief for which the country had to thank, not his majesty's government, but those who compelled them to concede the remission. The right hon. gentleman, however, refused to take off the remaining 2s. of duty. On that point he (Mr. B.) perfectly agreed with the member for Cumberland. Was it nothing, by refusing to abolish the duty, to keep up the whole expense attending its collection? Perhaps he should be told that the amount of that expense would abate with the amount of the produce of the duty. But, if he might judge from the present expense of collection in Scotland and England, no such effect would be the result. On the salt duty in England of a million and a half, the expense of collection was not more than 55,000l. whereas, on that of Scotland, which amounted only to 100,000l., the expense of collection was 21,000l. The same result might be expected here. But there was another objection to preserving the duty independent of the expense of collecting it; he meant the patronage which it gave the Crown. If a large revenue were to be raised by any particular impost which there was no means of avoiding, a certain extent of patronage in the collection might justly be allowed to the Crown. But if the revenue so raised was trifling, it was unjust to the people on constitu The Marquis of Londonderry said, that any stranger who had heard the learned gentleman, would really suppose that his right hon. friend was so fond of laying on taxes, and so inimical to taking them off, that he had preached a lecture to the House on the delights and the utility of taxation. Now, he would appeal to the House, whether his right hon. friend had not invariably declared, that whenever taxes could be remitted without detriment to the public credit, it would be a great relief to the country to remit them? What his right hon. friend had argued against was, the assertion of the learned gentleman, that taxes should be taken off to such an amount as immediately to remove the agricultural distress. The learned gentleman contended, that if the remission of five or six millions of taxes did not relieve that distress (which he very well knew it would not), the remission ought to proceed farther. His right hon. friend, on the contrary, maintained that the remission could not proceed so far; and à fortiori, that it could not proceed farther, without shaking public credit, and issuing in national bankruptcy; and therefore that an accordance with the learned gentleman's suggestion would be followed by additional suffering. With respect to the patronage, it was adminis tered not by the government but by the board of Excise. In one word he would state to the House why the learned gentleman supported the amendment. Either he wished to take from his right hon. friend the merit which belonged to him, or he wished to destroy the system which parliament had sanctioned. The learned gentleman felt himself so completely beaten, that he perceived there were only two games open to him. He hoped, either that the House would listen to the insinuations in which he was always indulging in order that he might appropriate to himself the suggestions of his right hon. friend, or on the other hand, that parliament might be induced to degrade itself, by breaking down piecemeal the system which it had hitherto determined to maintain. If the learned gentleman could once get his wedge in, he knew it would be difficult to prevent him from driving it farther. Unless, therefore, the House were prepared to retread their steps, they would reject the amendment; if the House allowed the learned gentleman to do what he wished, he would not only trench on the sinking fund, but would apply himself to the appropriation of a part of the general income. Mr. Ricardo said, it was asserted by ministers that the annuity scheme was no infringement on the principle of the sinking fund. If so, instead of forty-five let the period of that scheme be extended to fifty or sixty years, and that would afford a sufficient sum to enable parliament to remit the whole of the salt duty. General Gascoyne was of opinion that the reduced duty would be much more productive than was anticipated. He was satisfied with the diminution proposed. Mr. Benett, of Wilts, characterized the salt tax as the most mischievous of all imposts. He hoped it would be entirely got rid of, and that, no longer existing as a nucleus of taxation, no minister would be hardy enough to propose its revival. Mr. Calcraft allowed that the chancellor of the exchequer's proposition went in the first instance farther than his (Mr. C's.) had done. But it should be recollected, that his ultimate object had been the annihilation of the tax, although he was ob liged to suit his primary proposition to the palate of those to whom it was made. To make the residue of the tax productive, it must be extended to the fisheries, than which nothing could be more injurious. It would be in vain otherwise to expect an increase of consumption at the rate of 50 per cent on an article of the first necessity. It was evident that on the ground of constitutional principle, it would be better to get rid of the tax altogether. While any part of it remained, the people would suspect, that on the occurrence of any necessity for raising money, it would be restored to its present magnitude. It was well worthy of the consideration of a financial minister, that the repeal of the tax in question would afford the people the means of indulging in the consumption of other exciseable commodities; so that the revenue would not suffer. The House divided: For the original motion, 111, for Mr. Curwen's amendment; 67. On the CORN IMPORTATION BILL.] order of the day, for going into a committee on this bill, Mr. Canning rose, to move an instruction to the committee, the subject of which, he said, was not new to the House, having been introduced to its attention in a petition from the holders of foreign corn at Liverpool. It was undoubtedly a great object to get rid of the accumulation of foreign corn, and the holders entertained the hope, that if it were ground into flour there would be an opportunity of exporting it to the West Indies or some other place, and it was wished that permission should be given that it might be taken out for the purpose of being ground for exportation, and failing of exportation, that it might be returned into warehouse. The first regulation would be, that the person taking out foreign corn should enter into bond to return even a larger than the usual proportion of flour. It might be permitted to remain for the chance of exportation a certain time, say six weeks, and then be returned into bond, and not suffered to come out for home consumption until the ports were opened. would move, the committee, that they have power to make provision in the bill to allow the taking of foreign corn out of warehouse, for the purpose of being ground into flour, for exportation." He "that it be an instruction to Sir T. Lethbridge said, that the agriculturists had been so completely ground already, that he must take the liberty of opposing this grinding clause, in whatever shape it appeared. Nothing was more likely to promote the introduction into 1 our market of foreign corn, in the shape | had not been importing corn; but we had, of flour. Mr. Ricardo agreed, that if the clause could not be introduced with a full security against the flour coming into the home market it ought not to be admitted; but, if that security could be found, it would be most unjust to deprive the holders of foreign corn of it. He thought the bill of the noble lord would be a great improvement on the present law. The hon. member for Cumberland founded all his arguments on the value of corn in pounds sterling; but he (Mr. R.) did not regard the pound sterling. He was anxious that the people should have an abundant supply of corn and an increase of their comforts, and he thought a greater freedom in the trade calculated to produce those effects. He differed entirely from the hon. member, as to the ill effects which it would have upon the demand for labour. Mr. Western would acquiesce in the clause, if security could be given that the corn reduced to flour should not be brought into home consumption; and he was disposed to think that such security might be given. Sir J. Newport had no objection to the clause, on the understanding that proper means would be applied to prevent the flour from being brought into home consumption. The House divided: For the instruction, 136; against it, 49. On the question, "that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair," Mr. D. Browne moved as an amendment," that this House do resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider the laws relating to the importation of foreign corn." The amendment was negatived. On the question, "that the Speaker do now leave the chair," the House divided: Ayes 149; Noes 41. The House then resolved itself into the committee. On the question, that 70s. be the permanent price at which wheat shall be imported, Mr. Whitmore said, that the bill had two objects to raise the price of corn in this country above the level of other countries, and to induce the agriculturists to grow a sufficient quantity of corn for the whole supply of the country. He decidedly objected to both these proposals. In a country densely peopled like this, it was necessary, that much of the supply should be obtained from other countries. Without imports we could not expect to have exports. It was true that of late we from the necessity of our peculiar situation been largely importing gold, which had given an artificial stimulus to commerce. High prices of the articles of subsistence in this country must destroy its trade or its capital. There were two opinions as to the effects of high wages, which high price of food rendered necessary; one, that they entered into and increased the price of the commodity to the consumer; the other, that they lessened the profit of stock. Whichever of these views was correct, the effect must be ruinous to commerce. He was convinced that corn could not be procured in any great quantities from the Baltic, at a lower average than 40s. to 45s. to which the import charges and duties were to be added. As to currency, he expressed his doubts, whether the demand in behalf of this country for gold in the foreign markets, had not raised the value of that metal, and consequently the value of our present currency, to a greater degree than was calculated by his hon. friend, the member for Portarlington. The supply of gold also it was to be recollected, had been stopped from political causes. This was a subject which required to be sifted to the bottom; and he lamented that the plan of his hon. friend for a paper currency payable in bullion had not been resorted to. He concluded by moving to substitute 64s. for 70s. Mr. Wodehouse, instead of agreeing to reduce the import price to 64s. said, he should move an amendment to raise it to 75s. as it appeared from the whole tenor of the evidence, that 80s. was necessary as a protective price. Mr. Ricardo expressed his surprise at the proposition of the hon. member for Norfolk; since the most active supporters of the agricultural interest had declared that 67s. would afford adequate protection to the farmer. He thought the proposition of the hon. member for Bridgenorth deserving the support of the House. High protecting prices would only benefit the landlord at the expense of the rest of the community, not excepting even the farmer. The committee divided on Mr. Whitmore's amendment: Ayes, 42; Noes, 87. Mr. Wodehouse's amendment was withdrawn and the original resolution agreed to. Mr. Bankes then moved an amendment, that the importation duty should be paid at the time of importation instead of the | respectably-signed petitions which had time of taking it out of the warehouse. Mr. Robinson saw no sufficient reason for adopting the amendment. It would have the effect of preventing the warehousing of corn under any circumstances. Mr. Marryat contended, that the amendment was in opposition to the whole warehousing system of this country. been presented to the House. Those pe-. tions, attested as to their value by the hon. members who presented them, spoke the deliberate opinion, the decided feeling of a great majority of the enlightened and reflecting inhabitants of England; and he, standing upon the foundation of public opinion, and about to examine a question which no one could deny to be of the very first importance, claimed excuse if he asked that same patient Mr. J. Benett contended, that there was little or no analogy between the warehousing of corn and other articles. The committee divided: For the amend-attention from the House with which he ment, 33; Against it, 70. Mr. Canning then had been honoured upon former occaproposed a clause to authorize the grinding sions. At such an advanced period of of foreign corn into flour, for the purpose the year, he could have no hope of introof exportation. The clause was agreed to ducing a bill to be passed during the prepro forma; and the farther discussion of sent session. Any proposal to that effect, it being postponed, the House resumed. at such a time, would be unreasonable; and he had been prevented, partly by the course of public business, partly by a sense of the difficulty of his subject,: and partly by his own ill state of health, from bringing the matter forward at an earlier period. But although he had no hope of a full discussion of the subject in both; Houses of parliament this year, he should hold it unpardonable if he did not make some effort to advance a cause which the community had so deeply at heart; and he therefore intend HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, June 4. merely affirming a general principle which he believed had already been recognized, and virtually adopted in various cases by the House, and by the legislature; and that resolution might serve as a basis for measures to be taken in the next session for the revision and reformation of British criminal law. CRIMINAL LAWs.] Sir James Mackintosh rose, to entreat the attention of the House to that very important subject, the criminal law of the country; and he felt that in mooting a question already so often discussed, he should have occasion for the patience and for the indulgence of honourable members. The fact of the repeated discussion of the subject-that fact alone-impressed upon him the diffi-ed to propose a resolution to the House, culty of his task; but he was also aware, that the very nature of the question was calculated to do any thing rather than to excite general interest in the House. The question, however important to the community at large, touched, at no point, the interests of any particular class: it neither promoted the views of any party, nor could it be rendered subservient to the ambition of any individual: it formed no field for that kind of personal contest in the House which was the principal amusement of the parliamentary bystander; nor was it likely to produce any of those more serious contests between bodies of gentlemen threatened with ruin, and ministers compelled to defend their own measures, which the House had unfortunately heard so often during the present session. Not one of those various and opposite kinds of interest belonged to the subject upon which he had now to treat; but the deep importance of the subject had left him, in his own feelings, no choice but to undertake it. Under the difficulty which attached to the handling of a question so repeatedly discussed, he was sustained by the numerous and The better course, with that view, would perhaps be, to read the resolution at once. It was this- That this House will, at an early period of the next session, take into their most serious consideration the means of increasing the efficacy of the Criminal Laws, by abating their undue rigour; together with measures for strengthening the Police, and for rendering the punishment of Transportation and Imprisonment more effectual for the purposes of example and reformation." Upon this resolution he would first say, that he attached little value to any peculiar form of expression in which it might be couched: he wished to get a declaration generally in favour of the principle, and he wished that declaration to be recorded as a resolution on the Journals of the House; but with respect |