such parts of the said parishes of Saint Martin in the Fields, Saint Clement Danes, and Saint Mary-le-Strand, as are within the liberties, districts, limits, or jurisdictions of the duchy of Lancaster, and of the liberty or district of Saint Martin-le-Grand in the county of Middlesex, and of the precinct of the Savoy; that George Lamb, esq. commonly called the hon. George Lamb, and John Cam Hobhouse, esq. were candidates, and John Cartwright, esq. were duly put in nomination at the last election of a citizen to represent the said city and liberty in parliament; and the said George Lamb, esq. was returned as duly elected; that the said George Lamb, esq. by himself, his agents, friends, and managers, and by other ways and means on the behalf, or at the charge of him the said George Lamb, esq., did, after the vacancy happened in the said city and liberty of Westminster, and after the teste of the writ of election, give, present, and allow to persons having or claiming to have voice or vote in the said election, money, meat, drink, entertainment, or provision, and did make presents, gifts, rewards, or entertainments, and promises, agreements, obligations or engagements, to give or allow money, meat, drink, provision, presents, reward, advantages, or entertainments, to and for several persons so having or claiming a right to vote in the said election, and to or for the use, advantage, benefit, and profit of such persons so having or claiming a right to vote in the said election, in order to procure him the said George Lamb, esq. to be elected to serve in parliament for the said city and liberty of Westminster, contrary, and in defiance of the orders of the House, and in contempt of the provisions of the act passed in the 7th year of the reign of king William the third; that peers and lords of parliament did by themselves and their agents interfere in the said election, by canvassing and soliciting votes on behalf of the said Mr. Lamb, and by using threats to intimidate the electors from voting for Mr. Hobhouse, in violation of the privileges of the House and the freedom of election, and to the infringement of the rights of the Commons of Great Britain; that on Saturday and Sunday the 27th and 28th days of February last, and thenceforward till the end of the election, which terminated on Wednesday the 3rd day of March last, several hundred persons were hired by the said Mr. Lamb, his agents, friends, or managers, for the purpose of obstructing the approach of the electors in favour of Mr. Hobhouse to the hustings; and that such persons, from the time when they were so hired, and more particularly on the morning of the last day of the election, were guilty of several riotous attacks on electors who were approaching the hustings to vote for Mr. Hobhouse, and severely beat and ill used several of such electors; and that by such riotous and unlawful conduct several hundred electors were prevented from voting for Mr. Hobhouse; that Arthur Morris, esq. the high bailiff for the said city, and returning officer at the said election, acted partially and unfairly in the execution of his office as a returning officer during the said election; and that he rejected the votes of several persons who were entitled to vote, and who tendered their votes for Mr. Hobhouse, and that he admitted several persons who were not entitled to vote, to vote for the said Mr. Lamb; that by the said and other undue means, a great many electors who intended to vote for Mr. Hobhouse were deterred from coming to the poll, and the said Mr. Lamb obtained a majo rity of votes on the poll, and was returned accordingly to serve in parliament for the said city and liberty, in prejudice of the legal electors of the said city and liberty, and in open defiance of the law and freedom of elections; the petitioners therefore think themselves much aggrieved, and apprehend that the said election and return is an undue election and return, and they hope that the same will be deemed by this House null and void; the petitioners therefore humbly pray, that they may be heard by counsel touching the allegations contained in this their petition, and that they may have such relief in the premises as the House shall think proper. Ordered to be taken into consideration on the 6th of May. MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.] Dr. Phillimore, in pursuance of notice, rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill "to amend certain provisions of the 26th of George 2nd, for the better preventing of Clandestine Marriages." The immediate object of this bill would be, to amend that part of the existing law which referred to the marriage of minors, and his remedy intended to apply to such marriages whether by licences or banns. As the law now stood, any marriage by licence contracted by a minor, without the previous conenst of his parents or guardians, was null and void. The enactment was absolute, and courts of law were compelled to set aside all such marriages. The evil results of such a system were, that suits were instituted many years after such marriages had taken place. There were instances where parties, after a lapse of twenty years, and with a numerous issue from the connexion had claimed the benefit of their own perjury. The evil, however, did not rest there, for the law inflicted its vengeance on the posterity; it being in the power of the next of kin at any time to interpose his objection, founded on the minority of the father, and thus prevent the property of the parent from being possessed by the child. Such a state of the law was a scandal and disgrace. The object of his bill was to limit the time for instituting such suits. He should propose that the parent or guardian should be limited to the time when the minority ceased, and that the suit of the minor should commence within one year after he came of age. With respect to his second object, the marriage by banns, it was notorious that in the metropolis and in other large cities, the publication of banns was a mere nullity. His remedy would be, to place minors under this description of marriage on the same footing as the amended law would place minors by licence, with this addition, that the parties marrying by banns should have a complete residence of one fortnight in the parish where the banns were published. He assured the House, that in submitting this measure to its consideration he was actuated by no visionary ideas of improvement, but solely by the desire to correct a growing and admitted evil [Hear, hear !] Leave was given, and Dr. Phillimore and sir John Nicholl were ordered to bring in the same. SALE OF ORDNANCE STORES.] Mr. Alderman Wood observed, that he had so shaped his motion on the present subject, as to allow him to hope that the information he sought from the board of ordnance would not be refused. And he begged to premise, that in seeking for that information, he had no intention of urging any charge against the ordnance department or the Treasury for their conduct in the transaction. Sales had been made of articles principally consist ing of iron, brass, sulphur and muskets to the amount of 200,000l. It was on commercial grounds that he wished to know the precise prices at which these respective articles were sold. He therefore moved, "That there be laid before this House, an Account of all Stores sold to Mr. Samuels, by the Board of Ordnance, from the 1st of January 1818 to the first of March 1819; specifying the different articles, dates of sale, and total amount paid for the same." Mr. Robert Ward said, that the particulars and sales of such stores had already been minutely inquired into and reported upon. It would be in the recollection of the House, that that report stated, that there was a great quantity of stores on hand, which it was the duty of the board of ordnance to dispose of as soon as possible; not only because they were of a perishable nature, but because of the expense which would be incurred by the buildings necessary for their deposit; and it was also their duty, in a financial point of view, because of the money to be raised by their sale. The committee on the peace-establishment desired to know to what extent they might depend on the proceeds of Ordnance stores during three years. It was found impossible to raise any considerable sum, by the regular sales at the Tower, and by other tenders-say 100,000l. for three years together. The stores were of various kinds, viz. brass, iron, sulphur, gunpowder, and saltpetre; but of these gunpowder was the principal, both in point of value and quantity. By the usual course of proceeding, the board of ordnance would have been six or seven years in raising the sum which had now been procured. He must contend, therefore, that so far from any blame attaching to the board, they had acted like good stewards. The purchaser, a Mr. Samuels, had speculated in gunpowder and other articles, to an immense amount-220,0007. for which he had given the Treasury the most unquestionable security, that of Mr. Rothschild. Mr. Grenfell said, he should like to know why the board of Ordnance had departed from the principle usually observed by all other public boards, of giving an opportunity of fair and general competition? The hon. gentleman had stated that that departure was in concurrence with the suggestion of a finance committee; but that was no reason for the adoption of a course so directly contrary to all former usage. The sale might be very proper, if the stores were directed to be sold; but why did it take place in that clandestine manner? It was well known that the purchaser Mr. Samuels, was the brother-inlaw of Mr. Rothschild, who was also known to have large money dealings with government. What had been the result? Why, that the country had not gained so large a sum for the stores by this private dealing, as they would have done by inviting competition. He must therefore suppose that some reason existed, for the keeping back of this contract. The hon. gentleman had said, that the articles sold were of a perishable nature; why, among them he observed 500 tons of old brass cannon! He should like to know what part they formed of the sum of 220,000l. If they had been sold for less than 50,000l., they had not been sold for as much as persons whom he himself knew were disposed to have offered for them. He should therefore move, as an amendment to the motion, that the dates and prices at which the several stores were sold should be also specified. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the proposed amendment increased his objection to the motion. The contract was still going on, and it was proper to have a scrupulous regard for the interest of the person with whom the contract had been made. Mr. Baring could not help thinking, that no sufficient reason had been assigned for departing from the principle of public competition. He knew little of the nature of the contract in question; but he could not conceive what harm could possibly accrue to the gentleman who had contracted, by making public the terms of his contract. Mr. R. Ward said, that the hon. mover was too intimately connected with the interests concerned, not to be biassed in his views of the matter. As for the hon. gentleman who had spoken so much of fair, honest, and open competition, there was one other word which might have been very properly substituted he meant combination; for the effect of such a proceeding as he recommended was always rather a combination among individuals, than a public competition. The average prices obtained for the articles in question, by means of the contract with Mr. Samuels, were as good as would have been obtained for a much smaller part of them, had they been publicly disposed of. The hon. gentleman opposite had stated, that a certain house would have given 50,000l. for 500 tons of old brass. He could only say that last year the offer made to government for that article by the house with which the hon. gentleman was known to be connected, was the lowest of all! viz. 59. per cwt.; whereas 721. was the price actually obtained. Had they closed with the hon. gentleman's offer, would the House ever have heard a single syllable from him about competition? No. He would have said that the sale was perfectly justifiable, having been sold after fair and public competition. Mr. Grenfell said, the hon. gentleman was not justified in attributing to him any motives of personal interest. The amendment was withdrawn, and the original motion agreed to. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, March 18. SALT DUTIES.] Mr. Calcraft rose, pursuant to notice, to move for some returns respecting the salt duties, and though he was aware there would be no objection to his motion, yet he felt it necessary, upon this important subject, to state what he intended to do individually upon it. He was fully aware, when considering this subject in the committee, of the many evils and hardships which the duties produced; but he could not shut his eyes to the necessity of supporting the revenue at that time, and particularly so at the present. He could not lose sight of the fact, that these duties produced the sum of 1,500,000l. to the public treasury; and when he khew that the real applicable amount of what was called the sinking-fund was not more than that sum, he conceived it would be extremely delicate to touch the former. He felt that nothing could be effectually done to remove the evil, unless the tax were taken altogether from the excise; and that, he knew, was a thing which could not be done in the present state of the country. Between those two alternatives then, he had determined not to bring in any measure upon the subject in the present session. He hoped his countrymen would be induced to bear the tax a little longer, until some better financial prospect should open. At the same time, he thought some very useful regulations self believed that the article was a fair subject of taxation, and that the tax did not press with that severity which was described. It did not check any of our manufactories; the fisheries were not in cient to meet the demand; nor did he think it went to destroy the comforts, or subvert the morals of the poor. When he had heard, on former occasions, of the great quantities of salt which were to be used in agriculture, he was surprised that so small a share had been applied in that way. He hoped, however, that the time would come, when a much greater quantity would be used, with a less tax and a greater improvement to the revenue. He agreed that many improvements might be made in the regulations of the duties. The object of the bill which he intended to bring in would be to make such improvements. might be made; and these he had no doubt, would be made, by his right hon. friend (Mr. Wallace), in the bill which he intended to introduce. The hon. gentleman then went into some detail upon the severity with which some of the pre-jured by it; for there was a supply suffisent arrangements bore upon particular branches of business; amongst others, he observed that bleachers suffered con. siderably, in consequence of the regulation, by which no less a quantity than 50 bushels were allowed at a time. This bore very heavily upon the smaller dealers, who, in consequence of not being able to take so large a quantity at a time, were obliged to pay 37s. per cwt. for salt, while it cost the large dealers no more than 7s. When he thus expressed his intentions of not bringing forward any measure upon the subject this session, he begged it might not be understood that he did so from any alteration of his opinions upon it, or from a fear that, if he brought forward any measure that it would not be supported; he knew that, if he did bring it forward, it would be supported; but he refrained from doing so from the conviction that it was necessary to keep up the revenue, in order to keep faith with the public creditor. He was not in despair as to the hope, that something would soon be done in the abolition of the tax. The hon. gentleman concluded by {moving, "That there be laid before the House a return of the quantities of Salt delivered, duty free, in England, during the year 1818; distinguishing the purposes for which the same were so delivered." Mr. Wallace perfectly concurred in the statement of the hon. gentleman, that in the present state of the country, so large a portion of the revenues as the amount of the salt-duties could not be taken away. He heard, therefore, with pleasure, the hon. member's declaration, that he did not intend to agitate the question during the present session. The hon. member had alluded to the committee; he should say, that though the labours of that committee had not been productive of the result of removing the tax, yet great good had been obtained by them: they had examined into all the arguments and objections against the tax: they saw what were the evils to which it gave rise in some instances, and they also saw that many of those objections were without foundation, and that many of the evils were highly exaggerated. He him Mr. Curwen observed, that the tax under consideration was the most unjust and oppressive of which the country had to complain, and especially in its operation against the interest of agriculture. He was, from experience, enabled to speak of the great good that might be derived to agriculture from the use of salt. But this article was not merely beneficial to agriculture; for it was found of great utility to sheep, horned cattle and horses. Following the plan of that able and diligent individual, sir Thomas Barnard, he had made use of salt to some extent, and so had other agriculturists with whom he was acquainted. He was convinced it would be generally used by farmers, if it were not for the amount of the tax. He had indeed, no doubt, that the duty might be very materially reduced, without any diminution of the revenue, because that reduction would very much increase the consumption of salt. His calculation was, that were the duty materially reduced, the annual consumption of salt among the agriculturists, would be equal to between 2 and 300,000 tons. The reduction ought, with this view to amount to the difference between 347. and 5l. a ton; for the latter sum was quite enough; and he was sanguine enough to hope, that the propriety of such a reduction, would shortly be recognised by his majesty's ministers, and by that House, as it was now universally felt throughout the country. The hon. mover deserved the thanks of the public for the judgment and perseverance with which he had followed up this important subject. Mr. Davenport implored ministers, as well as that House, seriously to consider the importance of salt to the agricultural interest, as well as to our fisheries, and expressed a hope that some measure would be adopted upon this subject, agreeably to the just claims of both. Mr. Kennedy said, that persons complained to him that the regulations were so vexatious, that they would rather forego the advantages held out, than subject themselves to the vexation and inconvenience imposed upon them. Mr. Egerton supported the motion, and recommended a reduction of this tax. Mr. Calcraft said, he still retained the opinions with which he entered the committee of the last session, which opinions were indeed strengthened by the evidence taken before that committee, and therefore he adhered to the first resolution, which it adopted, namely, that it was desirable to repeal this tax, but that, from the state of our income and expenditure, the committee were restrained from instructing its chairman to move the House for a total repeal. He was himself thoroughly persuaded, that so long as salt was under the excise, the consumption of that article would not be as extensive as it might be, especially among the agriculturists. But an opportunity would next year offer of entering fully into the consideration of the subject-when a revision of the Irish taxes was to be expected. The difference between the Salt tax in Ireland and in Great Britain was very remarkable indeed; for while in England the tax was 15s. a bushel, and in Scotland 6s., the amount in Ireland was only 2s.; but most probably in the revision which was to be expected next year, arrangements would be made advantageous to all parties. Mr. Tremayne said, that every man who had read the minutes of the last committee must be satisfied of the necessity of the repeal of the tax, or the great lowering of the duty. The farmers would never use it generally, unless the duty was lowered. Dr. Phillimore declared his conviction that the salt tax should be repealed altogether, because the existence of such a tax was repugnant to the primary principles of political economy. He therefore should feel great regret if the proceedings of the committee at the last session were to have no other termination than the adoption of such a bill as that alluded to. Thinking the tax under consideration to be totally pernicious, he could neither subscribe to the theories of the hon. mover, nor accede to the bill contemplated by the right hon. gentleman on the treasury bench; for in his opinion the tax should be done away with altogether, oppressive as it notoriously was upon the country. He would ask whether a tax which bore with so much severity upon the poor ought to be tolerated in any shape? Salt was so much an article of necessity, and in such general use among the poorer orders, that even were the tax reduced to the sum suggested by the hon. Mr. V. Fitzgerald said, that he could member for Carlisle, the effect would still not allow himself to overlook the obserbe to subject every cottager to the pay-vation of the hon. mover with respect to ment of about two pounds a year. Thus the imposition would operate as an income tax to that amount upon a very useful, and the most distressed class in the country. He agreed, that the reduction of the tax would serve to render it more productive on the whole; but he was a decided enemy to the entire principle of the tax, because it operated not only to oppress the poor, but to injure the interests of agriculture, and materially to impede the progress of our fisheries, by giving to foreigners who were exempt from any such tax a decisive advantage over our own countrymen. He threw out for the consideration of the House, the propriety of reducing the tax progressively for four or five years, and then repealing the tax altogether. the comparatively reduced amount of the salt tax in Ireland. If the hon. member expected that an augmentation of the Salt duty in Ireland would be the result of any such revision as he had alluded to, that hon. member would, he had no doubt, find his calculation erroneous, since it was understood, that no advance was to take place in the articles of salt and coals. Mr. Grenfell observed, that no tax bore so hard upon the poorer classes as that of salt. He could not, however, in the present state of our finances, press for the repeal of that tax, if a substitute for it were not provided; but so obnoxious was this tax, that he could not hesitate to express his readiness to support any substitute in preference to it. The motion was agreed to. |