not surely consider the frugality and sparing-tax-gatherer: in such a case, I believe, our ness that must be observed in trade. I am landed-gentlemen will not get much by the resure there is not a merchant in Europe, that lief that is now pretended to be given them. has occasion to freight a ship, but will think But besides this additional family expence 40s. a very great difference in the freight be- upon the farmers, we know that they make use tween two ships of 150 tons each, if they be of of a great deal of salt for several uses in husequal goodness in every other respect; and he bandry: the advantages made thereby they will always employ that ship which he can have must now give up, or otherwise they must pay 40s. cheaper than the other. This must put a dear for the preserving of them. full stop to the employing of any English ship, or to the victualling of any ship in England, where another ship can be made use of, or when a ship can be victualled in any other part of the world; and therefore it must be not only a burden upon our navigation, hut we must consider, that it would soon be the entire destruction of our navigation, and consequently of our navy, if it were not for the Navigation Act, and some natural advantages which we have over the rest of the world. I do not know how some gentlemen may get, or how they may spend their estates; but in an affair which chiefly regards the trade, and the tradesmen of this nation, I am surprised to hear shillings and crowns, nay even pounds sterling, talked of in so light and trivial a manner: The poor tradesman may be properly said to earn bis living by the sweat of his brow; and if he does not consider every farthing that he is to lay out, he will soon come not to have a farthing to pay for a bit of bread: To such a man, even the half-farthing, which is now so contemptuously talked of, would be of mighty consequence. I come now, Sir, to consider this tax with respect to that honest, industrious and frugal set of people, the farmers of England. I hope there are but few of them as yet obliged to live in the manner as hath been represented. I hope no farmer in England is as yet obliged to make his family dine upon bread and cheese, or upon boiled cabbage, without a bit of pickled pork, salt-beef, or bacon, to give them a savour. I do not know indeed what they may be brought to, if we begin to multiply excises upon them; but I must now consider them in their present way of living: in that way I must look apon them and their servants, as making use of some salt-provisions almost every day in the week, for the whole year round: in such a. view, I am sure, a family of sixteen working persons will consume in salt a deal more than a shilling's worth a head, according as it must sell after this duty is laid on; I believe they will consume above two shillings worth a piece; and it has been computed by men who understood thoroughly the economy of their family, that a family of ten persons would for all uses generally cost the master at least six-pence a week for salt, according to the price it sold at formerly, when this duty was subsisting. At this rate there is scarcely a farmer in England, but must pay above twenty shillings a year towards this tax, and if he pays a rack'd rent, I do not know where he is to get this twenty shillings, unless he runs in arrear to his landlord, in order to answer what he must pay the I hope, Sir, I am as sensibly touched as any man with the difficulties, that many of the landed-gentlemen in England labour under; and I shall always be as ready as any man to approve of any measures for giving them a real relief: but I shall never pretend to amuse them, or to impose upon their good sense, by calling that a relief, which is only taking a burthen off one of their shoulders, and putting it upon the other; and that this is the only relief now proposed for them, I can, I think, de monstrate as clearly, as ever any thing was demonstrated by numbers. I believe no man will pretend that any gentleman of a free estate of 500l. a year in land, or upwards, is in the present case an object of compassion, or that the relieving of such men from the payment of a shilling in the pound land-tax, can have any weight in the present debate; and as for those gentlemen who have large estates in land, but heavily charged with mortgages, if they will, for the sake of grandeur and the name of a great estate, continue to pay the land-tax and the interest upon the mortgages, it is certainly their own fault, and therefore they do not deserve the consideration of this House. The landedgentlemen then, whose estates are under 500%. a year, are the only persons whose condition and circumstances can in the present case be of any consequence; and as to such, let us examine whether what is now proposed will prove to be of any relief to them. It is well known, that there are many landed-gentlemen in England, whose estates are valued so low, that they do not pay above a groat of the shilling in the pound land tax; it is certain, that there are few or no lauded-gentlemen who pay the whole shilling; there is not, I believe, one estate in England that is rated at the full value, with respect to the land-tax; it may therefore be reasonable to suppose, that all the landestates in England are, one with another, rated for the land-tax at one half of the real value. It has been admitted, that a farmer of 100l. a year, has generally sixteen persons in family; I think we may then reasonably suppose, that the landed-gentlemen in England of 400l. a year, keep one with another twenty persons in family; and upon these suppositions let us see what relief the gentleman of 4001. a year is to receive from the fine scheme now before us. Such a man's estate is supposed to be valued at 2001. a year as to the land-tax, consequently at 1s. in the pound he saves only 101. in the whole, by taking off this shilling. Now let us consider what he must pay to the duty on salt consumed in his family: a common farmer with ten persons in his family, is supposed to pay ལ 1 6d. a week for the salt consumed in his family, Having thus shewed to what sort of people and therefore a common farmer with twenty this salt-duty will be a disadvantage, I think it persons in his family, must be supposed to pay would not be just in me, not to take some no1s. a week, one with another, for the salt con- tice of those to whom it will be an iminediaté sumed in his family; and if we consider the advantage. As to all the gentlemen in England great waste that is made of that commodity of very large land-estates, it will be an immeabout a gentleman's family, and the many visi-diate advantage; it will, indeed, sàve a trifle to tors and their servants, and the poor necessi- them. With respect to them, I hope, I may tous neighbours, that will always be hanging in he allow'd to make use of the word trifle; a or about a gentleman's family who has an estate sum of money may be called a trifle when apof 400l. a year, we cannot allow less than plied to the rich, but to the poor no sum of eighteen pennyworth of salt consumed weekly money can be properly said to be a trifle. But about such a gentleman's family; we must this immediate advantage accruing to the rich therefore suppose, that every gentleman of such lauded-men, will be soon overbalanced by the an estate, pays yearly for salt consumed in his ruin that it will bring upon their country, and family 31. 18s. and since, by the laying on this upon their own particular estates; and I am duty, we raise salt to above ten times the price glad to find, that most of the rich landed-gentleit formerly sold at; therefore we must con- men in England are upon the same side of the clude, that nine tenths of 3l. 18s. that is, about question with me. It shews a generous con31. 10s. is yearly drawn from every gentleman tempt of private advantage, when opposed to of 400l. a year, by means of this duty on salt; the public good; but those who will reap the and as he is to pay this sum yearly for three greatest advantage from the measure now proyears instead of the 107. land-tax, which he is posed, are those who are in good posts and by this means, to be made free of, is it not plain places, and have handsome salaries coming in. and evident, that he pays ten guineas in three It is very true, that their salaries are rated at years, for the sake of getting free of the pay- the full value of the land-tax: the taking off 1s. L ment of 10l. in one year? The utmost then, in the pound land-tax, is really putting that can be pretended, is, that he saves by this cent. into their pockets, which cannot be drawn fine scheme about half a year's interest upon out again by the salt-duty, because they either 107. Is this the relief so mightily bragg'd of? keep no families, or they keep their families in Will any gentleman of common sense choose town, where most of their servants are at boardto have his farmers, his cottagers, his labourers, wages. To such gentlemen the measure now and the manufacturers that consume the pro- proposed will certainly be advantageous, and to duce of his lands, heavily taxed, in order to such only that compassion which we have heard save 4 or 5s. interest upon the 10l. that he was so much of, is properly to be applied. to have paid to the land-tax. one would not think that a man who has 100/ a year from the public, should grudge to pay 51. a year out of it to the public expence; or that the saving 57. a year in such a man's pocket, should be such a mighty concern to every man who has the good of his country at heart. I am persuaded that every gentleman who has the good fortune to be in any such place or employment, will shew as generous a contempt of self-interest, and as honourable a regard for the public good, as is or can be shewn by the gentlemen of great land-estates, who with them are the only persons in the nation that can reap any benefit from the measure now proposed. This is the case, Sir, as to landed-gentlemen of 400%. a year, but as to all the landed-gentlemen of smaller fortunes, they will be losers by this measure that is proposed for their relief. Their families cannot be a great deal less numerous than the others; their servants will be as wasteful, and they must entertain their visitors as well as the other; therefore we cannot suppose that any gentleman's family in the country will cost him much less than 1s. a week for salt; at this rate he must pay yearly towards the duty now to be laid on, about 21. 7s. this amounts in three years to 71. so that a gentleman of 2001. a year, will be 27. out of pocket, and a gentleman of 100l. a year, will be 41. 10s. out of pocket, by reviving the salt-duty for three years, instead of 1s. in the pound land-tax for one year; and whether those gentlemen that have great families to maintain, many children to provide for, and but one, two, or three hundred a year land-rent, to answer all their occasions, are not the greatest objects of compassion, nay, are not the only objects of compassion among the landed-gentlemen in England, I leave the world to judge. Every gentleman that ever kept an account of the expences of his family, must be a judge, whether the suppositions I have made are just: if they are just, I am sure the figures cannot be controverted; and therefore, I hope, we shall hear no more of the great relief that is to be given to the landed-gentlemen of England. per But Since then it appears plain, that what is now proposed can be no manner of relief, but will certainly be an additional charge upon the landedgentlemen of small estates; and since they are the only landed-gentlemen in England, who stand in need of, and deserve the compassion of this House, I think all the arguments that can be drawn from pity and compassion, come full against our agreeing to the revival of this duty upon salt; and therefore I may now in my turn plead with all those who hear me, to have pity and compassion upon the poor landed-gentlemen in England. How hard will it be to make a poor landed gentleman of a hundred a year pay 77. instead of 50s.? Why should the poor landed-gentlemen be so much over-charged for the sake of a small ease to those who have plentiful estates in land, or con siderable salaries coming in from a post or place that gives them little or no trouble? This is really, if I may be allowed to make use of the words, Giving to the rich, and sending the poor empty away.' But in the present case, our compassion pleads not only for the poor landed-gentlemen, but for all the poor of the nation. Let us but consider how many poor families are maintained upon 8d. or 1s. a day, which the father carns by hard labour and toil: A bushel of salt is the least that can be consumed in a year by a poor man, his wife, and three or four small children: How cruel is it to take four or five shillings a year away from the support of such a poor family, more especially when one half of that money, at least, is to be made a compliment of to wealthy or fraudulent dealers, or to idle and profligate tax-gatherers? I hope every man that hears me, will allow his pity and compassion to exert itself to its utmost height. I hope every man will consider upon which side of the present question are the cries of the poor and the wretched, and the blessings of those that are yet unborn. The happiness or misery of posterity, the flourishing or decay of our trade and commerce, the preservation or loss of our liberties, in my opinion, depend in a great measure upon the question now before us; and therefore I am persuaded that every gentleman will consider it thoroughly, before he determines what he is to do. Then the question being put upon sir Robert Walpole's motion, it passed in the affirmative, by 225 against 187. Feb. 10. Upon the report of the Resolutions of the Committee, and the motion made for agreeing to them, the question being put, it was carried in the affirmative, by 205 against 176, and a Bill was ordered to be brought in pursuant to those Resolutions. The Pension Bill passes the Commons.] This day, upon the motion of Mr. Sandys, the Pension Bill was read a third time, without any one speech being made against it; and Mr. Sandys was ordered to carry the Bill to the Lords, and desire their concurrence. Quarrel between Mr. Pulteney and Mr. Pelham.] February 11. The House being informed, that, from some words, which had been spoken in the House by Mr. Pelham and Mr. Pulteney, it was apprehended, a Quarrel might ensue; and that Mr. Pulteney was gone out of the House; Ordered, That the Serjeant at Arms, attending this House, do go, and summon Mr. Pulteney to attend the service of the House immediately. Ordered, That Mr. Pelham and Mr. Pulteney be enjoined not to prosecute any quarrel, or shew any further resentment, for what has passed between them in this House. Then the Serjeant at Arms being returned; and Mr. Pulteney being come into the House; Mr. Speaker acquainted him with the information, which the House had received in relation to himself and Mr. Pelham, and with the injunction of the House thereupon: after which, they severally stood up in their places, to explain themselves; but not having given the House satisfaction, as to their complying with the said injunction, and it being insisted upon, that they should be more explicit, they stood up again in their places, and severally declared, that they would obey the order of the House. Debate in the Lords on the Pension-Bill.] Feb. 17. Commons by Mr. Sandys and others, with a A Message was brought from the Bill entitled, "An Act for making more effectual the laws in being for disabling persons from being chosen members of, or sitting or voting sion during pleasure, or for any number of years, in the House of Commons, who have any Penor any offices held in trust for them;" to which they desire the concurrence of this House. After reading the Bill, . The Lord De la War stood up and spoke as follows; My Lords, I find that the Bill which has been now read to your lordships, is to the very same purpose, and almost in the very same words with that which has already been twice refused by your lordships; and therefore I cannot but look upon the sending up of such a Bill as an indignity offered to this House, for which reason I must be of opinion that the Bill ought to be rejected. The Earl of Strafford spoke next: It is very true, my Lords, that a Bill to the same purport, and almost in the very same words with the Bill now before us, has been twice sent up, and as often refused by this House: But we must remember that the Bill never came the length of a Committee. If your lordships had last year thought fit to take the Bill then sent to you under your consideration in a Committee, the several clauses thereof would have been particularly examined, and it would have been known what were the clauses or words which your lordships took exception to; but as no such thing was done, the gentle men of the other House could not know how to amend the Bill, or what alterations they should make; for which reason I must think that the sending up of this in the same words with the former, is shewing the utmost respect to this House, by leaving it intirely to your lordships to alter and amend the Bill in such manner as you shall judge proper. Corruption, my Lords, is an evil that has been always thought to be of a most pernicious consequence, and therefore there have been many acts of Parliament made for preventing it: In the very Act of Settlement there is a clause for this end; in the reign of queen Anne there were several regulations made for the same purpose; and in the very first parliament of his late majesty, there was an act made for preventing the effects of this dangerous evil. Appointed Treasurer of his Majesty's House hold in June, 1781. This shews that the bringing in of such Bills as the Bill now before us, was never thought to be doing any injury to the crown; upon the contrary, the honour and safety of the crown depends upon the honour and integrity of the members of Parliament, and therefore we can never presume that the crown will be against any measure that can be proposed for preventing any illegal and corrupt influence upon any of the members of either House. One design of bringing this Bill in, and passing it in the other House, was to wipe off any suspicion of corruption, that there might be against them: do not let us, my Lords, deprive them of the only means they have of convincing the world, that there is no such thing among them. If there be any word, if there be any clause in this Bill, that may seem to be of bad consequence, your lordships may amend it, or you may leave it out. An objection against any particular clause, may be a reason for altering or amending the Bill, but it never can be a reason for throwing it out altogether; I shall therefore be, my Lords, for ordering it to be read a second time, that we may have an opportunity of considering it seriously, and making such amendments as shall be thought proper. Lord Falmouth * replied; My Lords; The Bill now before us bears a very specious title or preamble; from the first view thereof one would be apt to conclude, that something very beneficial for this nation were intended; but upon a more serious perusal, we find, that at bottom there is really nothing intended, that can in the least contribute to the public good. We all know, my Lords, how some motions come to be made, and how some Bills come to be brought into the other House. Such Bills as this now before us, are often brought in by would-be ministers, that is, by gentlemen who affect popularity, and set themselves up as protectors of the liberties of the people, and under that pretence encourage and promote faction and discontent, in order thereby to raise themselves to be the chief men in the administration of the public affairs of the nation. I shall always be ready to join in reasonable measures for insuring the liberties and privileges of the people; and if any attempts were making against them, I should be as ready as any man to concert measures for shortening the arms of the crown: But, my Lords, when I find that no attempts are made by the crown, against the liberties of the people; when I find that the popular cries for liberty are raised and spirited up only by the factious and the discontented, I shall never be for diminishing the power of the crown, especially when I see that it has but just enough to support itself against the factious and the disaffected. I remember, my Lords, that a noble lord put the question last session of Parliament, when this very affair was before the House, how the Pretender would desire one to vote in the case then before us: If the same question were now again to be Vice-Treasurer of Ireland, put, I believe the proper answer would be, that he would desire us to vote for the Bill now before us: I do not doubt, but that he would be for diminishing his Majesty's power of rewarding those who should happen to merit well of their country, by a zealous and hearty opposition to him and his faction. I hope, my Lords, that there will always be men of honour and integrity enough in this country to defend us against that faction, or any faction, without the hopes or expectation of a reward; but if it should be found necessary for our defence, to give rewards to many of those who assisted in the protecting of the government against faction,' I would rather chuse that the government should have it in its power to give rewards to those that contributed to the preserving of us, than that the factious should have it in their power to give rewards to those that assisted them in the destroying of us. The methods proposed by. the Bill now before us, are so far from being proper methods for preventing bribery and corruption, that I am afraid they will give such an encouragement to faction, as may lead us into confusion, and therefore I shall be for rejecting the Bill. As this Bill is the very same with that which was refused by your lordships the last session of Parliament, I am convinced that the same reasons which prevailed against it last session, will now likewise prevail against it; for my own part at least, I am sure, that there is nothing since happened, that can af ford ine the least pretence for being of a different opinion. The Lord Carteret spoke as follows: My Lords; I am for receiving this Bill in the most respectful manner; first, because of the dignity of the subject, next for the respect that is due for the other House; and lastly, my lords, for the respect that is due to ourselves. The subject of this Bill is of the utmost consequence to the liberties of this nation; the title or preamble is in my opinion very proper for such a subject; but if it were not so, why may it not be altered? One thing, my Lords, I am sure' of, that if we treat the Bill with so much contempt; as to reject it upon the first reading, the whole people of the nation will make a preamble for us. I do not know how this Bill was brought into the other House, nor ought that to be a question in this; I do not know whe-, ther this Bill was brought in by would-be-ministers, or no, but I am very certain, that as good ministers as ever were in England, have laid the foundation for such Bills; and if men do act for the public good, it signifies nothing to us, it signifies nothing to the people, what were the motives that prompted them to act in such an honourable manner. If it is an ambition of being ministers of state, that prompts men to act for the public good, I hope the ambition of those that are out, will always be a barrier for the liberties of this nation against the ambition of those that are in. It is no argument against this Bill, that it is in the same words with the Bill which was sent up to us the last session. I hope there is no man in this nation pretends to be infallible: your lordships having refused this Bill last session, can never be an argument for your rejecting it now without so much as once taking it into your serious consideration: Some arguments may now be brought for passing it, which were not thought of at that time: The public tranquillity was not then so firmly established as it is at present, and therefore it may now be thought a more proper time for us to take precautions for preserving our liberties against domestic enemies, than it was at that time, when we were not quite out of danger of being attacked by foreign enemies. If your lordships should send down a good and necessary Bill for the amendment of the law, and the same should be refused by the Commons, would that be any argument against ever sending that Bill down to them again in any future session of parliament? Or would their having once refused it, be an argument for their rejecting it at the first reading, upon its being brought a second time before them? No, my lords; if your lordships were convinced that the Bill was necessary, and drawn up in proper terms, you would send it down in the very same words again and again, till its own weight carried it through. I am, my Lords, very far from thinking, that any attempts are now made, or are to be made, during his present Majesty's reign, against the liberties of this nation: His Majesty has too much goodness to endeavour any such attempts. and too much wisdom to admit of any such being made by those employed by him; but it is for this very reason that we ought now to think of, and bring in such Bills as may be any way conducive to the preservation of our liberties: His Majesty's penetration is such, that he will easily see what is necessary; and his goodness is such, that he never will oppose what he sees to be necessary for securing the liberties and properties of his people; whereas if we never think of taking any precautions against arbitrary power, till we have a prince upon the throne that is aiming at arbitrary power, it will then be too late; such a prince will never consent to any measures or to any regulations that tend to the defeating of his own designs. Posterity may have occasion to lament our neglect of that opportunity which his present Majesty's wisdom and goodness daily afford us. There is certainly at present nothing to be feared from bribery and corruption: His Majesty reigns in the hearts and affeccions of the people; his designs are all for the public good, and therefore he has no occasion for making use of any illegal and corrupt sort of influence; but to pretend, that our present happiness is a reason for our not thinking of, or taking proper precautions against the evils that may come upon this nation in future times, is the same thing as to say, you are not to bring in any Bills against bribery and corruption, till a majority of both Houses of Parliament are corrupted: If this should. ever happen to be the unlucky fate of this nation, we may easily judge what would be the success of such Bills, in such Houses of Parliament. The Duke of Newcastle spoke next; My Lords; pre If this Bill had no other aim, but that of venting Bribery and Corruption, I should be for it with all my heart; but we can easily see that the intention of this Bill is to give the other House an opportunity of assuming a power which they never yet pretended to, and their assuming thereof would be the entire overthrow of our present happy constitution. By this Bill, my lords, the House of Commons may assume a power of judging what rewards or gratuities are proper to be given by the crown to any member of that House; for though the Bill says only, that the members of that House are to declare what gratuities or rewards they receive from the crown, within 14 days next after the receipt thereof, yet, my lords, we are not to suppose that the affair will rest there; we may easily fosesee that the consequence of every such declaration will be, that the House will thereupon enter into the consideration of the declaration that has been made to them, and will take upon them to determine whether or no such gratuity was given by way of bribe; so that thereby the crown will be entirely disabled from giving any reward to a gentleman that has merited well of his country, at least as long as he continues to be a member of parliament. This, my lords, would, in my opinion, put so much power into the hands of the Commons, that it would entirely overturn that balance upon which our constitution depends, and therefore I have been always against this Bill, and shall now be for rejecting it. The Pension Bill rejected by the Lords.] being put, Whether this Bill shall be read a se Then a motion being made, and the question cond time? It was resolved in the negative. Content 25; Proxies 15 ;-40. Not Content 78; Proxies 17;-95. Protest thereon.] "Dissentient' "For the reasons entered in the Journals of this House the two last sessions of parliament, one the 21st of March 1729, and the other the 2nd of March 1750.(Signed) Strafford, Abingdon, Shaftsbury, Litchfield, May nard, Gower, Craven, Bathurst, Foley, Exeter, Masham, Coventry." &c. relating to the Sale of the earl of DerwentFeb. 22. The several Papers, Instruments, water's Estate, which had been presented to the House, were referred to a Committee. Debate in the Commons on the Sugar Colony Bill.]- Feb. 23. The Commons proceeded to the farther hearing of counsel for and against the Sugar Colony Bill, and the counsel on both sides having finished their argument, Mr. Winnington stood up, and spoke as fol lows: |