The Sun.
London, England, 1822-05-31 00:00:00

WOOL TAX.

•• • Mr. S. WORTLEY presented b.- Petition from-the •Mer-
chants". and Woollen Manufacturers. of the- County of Y.ork, 'to.
which he begged to call the attention of die. House., When the
tax on wool was proposed three years ago, he had "oPposetl it,
and had stated that it would.have the effect of raising the price
of British..wool.- The evcntjustifiedbis prediction,-for Bri-
lish wool was now, a- mere drug. . Ue had iaio stated that in
his opinion the tax would-operate so injuriously to the woollen
'xnarrufacturer,.. that he cauld.not 'compete-with the, foreign ma-
Jiufacturer in the,foreies market. 'ln, that also had• the event,
proved. his anticipations 'to 'have been well founded. He haa,
•comintinications' from' Bile:.-fia and Moscow,' declaringlhat as
long as the tax ion- theimpartation of for,eigilii.vrboi-Should con-.
tin,ue, the woollen manufacturers of Great Britain. would be
undeAold. in'thOse markets The House would recollect that
in the manufacture of woollen • cloths .a certain li-ciportioli of
foreign Wool. must be: used,. . Any' thing, therefore,: which-
tended to increase the price of foreign wool,here must. opertite
against the sale of our manufactures, and Consequently to the
injury•of the British wool groWer,• whose prodUce also entered
into our manufactures. ft followed, therefore :naturally, that
the more of foreign wool that was consumed, the more would
British wool also be worked up. It was therefore h mis
take to suppose that the duty on foreign wool acted henefi6ally
for the British wool grower. As far as hid .understanding
enabled him to judge, he was convinced that a. worse measure
had never been resorted to for raising money *than' the tax on ,
foreign wool. -
Mr: BURRELL contended, the Hon. Gent, was•in a mistake
when he stated that the :British wool gibw:er and the British
woollen manufacturer had suffered exactly in the same propor-
tionfrOm the operation of the tax. • In laying .'on that tax;
the Chancellor of • the Exchequer had calculated it as likely
to produce only 10;0001. ahnually ; but it would be found
to have amounted to 367,2901. in the
.year ending 18th De-
'cember, 1821, which proved • that the importation of foreign
wool must have increased.. The -manufacturer had•enjoyed a
monopoly for Many years ; and if the prayer of the petitioners
came before the House in the,shape. of a-resolution, he should
move as an amendment, that tha tax should .be increased 'ls.
per. pound. .
Mr. COKE agreed with the Hon... Member who presented
the Petition in thewiew taken 'by him.. of the subject ; . and as-
sured the House that,,,from• the' passing of. the Act imposing
the duty on foreign wool, the price of British wool had. declined
year after year. He therefore trusted- the prayer of the Peti-
tion would be,attended to..

Mr. CURWEN. fully concurred with the Hon. Member
(Mr. Burrell); but hairing remarked that the iimojortation.of
foreign wool had continued to increase, .he (Mr. C.) could
not tee how that ilia conld be.used as an argument to prove that
the consumption of our own wool had decreased: He, for one,
would rejoice in any measure that could tend to relieve the
country. He knew that it was. not only by tlio importation of
foreign wool. that the British wool-grower had been injured, but
also by the importation of woollen rags, of.which 168 tons were
annually 'imported. Thoie rags were pulled to pieces by ma=
chiriery, reduced to wool, and were then applied in the manu-

PRICE SEVENP.ENGE.

facture of- coarse woollens,- to the great injury 'of the wool-
gower of this country: would therefore recommend that,
instead Of`dribriiinal ditty, one"slioUld'he'invosed 'which would
give every possible protection to the British wool-grower.
-- BE NETT (of WiltSbire) thought thall-in soliciting the
repeal, of the duty ou the importation of foreigli wool, the
manufacturers Ought hi "eiftial justice to haVe proposed -that the
tax which operated as a prohibition to the expOrt of Thitisli wool
should also be repealed. He thought it very strange that the
manufacturers should seek the rePeal of the tax on foreign wool
aethe precise Moment when the agriculturists of st:he country
Were labouring under such distress. He tissught tlicsalarm of the
Hon. Member for Yorkshire was unfounded, that fOreigneis
would be deterred froni purchasing our Manufactures while the
tax remained tinrepealed. Ile felt cpthe convinced that, if the
tax were taken Off,-it would not increase the Manufacture of the
country ; and that the manufacturers.. of York • ought. to he
silent on the subject of their distress until , it reached to th.s.
pitch at which that of the agriculturist had arriVed.'
Mr. T. 'WILSON sitpuorted. the Petition. Ile contended
that the produce of the Six did not ate ail prove it to be a wise
or proper one.' With respect to the present price ef long wool,
he did not. think•it at ail unfavourable.
ROBERTSON spoke in faVotir of the'Petithm. lithe
tax Were continued, it would be 'impossible for the. taish manu•
facthrer to compete with foreigners. The majanfactin'es of
France, which ne had an opportunity of Secing; Were as well
managed as those Of LeedS. An idea pretioe-it- that the Eng-
lish manufactureri derived superior advantages the steam
engine andthe use oinadir-x,Y141411).!eW"4. fm*ClUr
from competing with their. Ths was` erroncbus notion. No
new machinery of any importance, in the manufacture ofcloth;
had.been invented for forty years. Steam engines and ma-
chinery were used in France, as Well as here. If :a; drawback
was allowed, it would be of advantage to the Cloth manufacturer.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said the tax was as unfavourable to the
agriculturist as to the manufacturer, and it was upon that
ground the petitioners prayed for, the repeal of it.- If a draw-
back was allowed, they would be perfectly s:atisfied. 'He would
put it to ,his Majesty's Ministers, if it Wilk Worth 'While to keep
up this tax. As to a free export of fine wool, it could do no
good ; the only kind that would find a market on the Continent
was the to wool. - •
After a few words from Mr. PE.IIISE, Mr- BEszETT, and -
Mr. RotsEnrsosi, thepetititin was road, aid ordered to be
printed. „
SCOTCH JURIES. .
31r...113ERCROMBY presented a Petitionfrom the Bankers.
:Merchants, and others-of the City of Edinburgh, in favour of
the Bill for altering the mode of selecting Juries for. criminal
cases in Scotland. These Petitioners stated, that they had
given great coniideratitin to this subject, and it was their opi-
nion that the law would be mach improved by the proposes'
alteration in this Bill. It was COriSidered In them more satis-
factory, that fifteen Jurors 'should be chosen by ballot, and
named or selected by the presiding Judge,' than according to
the present-mode. It would add to the confidence reposed: in
Jurors, and had always been done in' civil cases,andfound
...beneficial. It was to be remarkod, that these Petitioners wens
of the class of persons among whom the larger portion of Jurors
for. Civil and Criminal *cases were -chosen. These Petitioner's
' comprehended 'the'Principal Bankers, the princiPal Merchants,
and most opulent Shopkeepers in' Etlinburgh, inani_of whom
were' as enlightened—as firm of .purPose, and as 14a1 as any
class qt' subjects in the empire. Ile particularly called on tree
Right Honourable Gentleman, the Secretary of State, to give
the subject his most serious consideration. lie hoped the
Ilightlionourable Gentleman would not be misledl4,the
mis-
takes of others, and he could assure him that the measure
now,callcd for could not be re.sisted; with Out diminishing the
respect of the people for, and their confidence in, thp..zdminis-
tration of justice. The case was a dear one—it involved -no
subtleties, no nice points of law, of which the Pethioners could •
not be judges. It had been fully discussed in ScotFand ; all
saw the evil, and concurred in calling foi the reniedy,. Thd-5.„4.
present Bill would of course be suceessfth, if favoured-by die-.
Right'Hon: Gentleman and his colleagues, hitt whatever might
be its fate now, he was confident that, sooner or later, the race.
sure must be carried.

Mr._ PEEL was unwilling to be considered as regarding this
subject 'With indifference. He considered it to he his duty
to give it fair and _impartial attention, nor .would he,stiffer the
-ideas of others (if these appeared to be 'erroneous) to'have any
influence on his conduct. It was for him to inquire whether
the Judges in Scotland ought to retain their present ji6wer or
not,- and whether or not the mode of administering justice in
Scotland ought to be changed. Nor could he limit Ills view
Of. the subject* to the consideration of the particular amend-
ment which hid been proposed—he Most compare the advan-
tages enjoyed. in Scotland with. these Which greW Ont of the
system acted upon in • England. 1-16 must 'inquire* what was
the effect of the mode..preterred in Scotland—whether-it was_
Satisfactory or not—whether injustice was sustained-under it or . .
,not—and whether the criminal law'efSe:otland,•as it.new ex-
isted, ought under all circumstances
to continue. If he found
that a variety of advantages were enjoyed 7 tinder it, _and that
the system worked practically well, he should be slow to aban-
don it, to'adopt..any theoretical improvement, however favour-
able he might be to the principle of such improvement. If the
mode of selecting Jurors might-be. advanta.ge,ouslychanged in
Edinbiligh, he *as by no means convinced that such a change
'of system could; hrenerally 'adopted in 'Scotland with advan-
tage. -He, however, repeated the assertion, that he'Wbuld give
the subject fair and impartial consideration- _
--• Mr. KENNEDY begged to ask the Learned Lord 'opposite,
if the rpmour was true that he was •ahout to leave London;. to
perform a public duty elsewhere ? He - put this question new,
because a subject was to come under the -consideration of the
House on Monday, which had already been repeatedly post-
poned, but which he was unwilling to postpone longer • . and if
the runimfr he bad alluded-to was true;• -he -felt •ft lilsduty to
bring it forward in the absence of-the Learned- Lord.
The LORD ADVOCATE briefly_ answered the question,
but was not' istinctly heard in the gallery.
The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.
-.IIIr.'•COKE presented a.. Petition-from Diss, and from.one of
the, Hundreds in the County of ,Norfolk, on the subject 'of
Agricultural Distress.__,Ordered to be printed.
MR. PINSEN'f.
Sir T. LETHBRIDQE presented a petition from Mr. Jo-
seph Pinsent, praying for the appointment of a Committee to
inquire into the comparative value of all. British interests, with.
a .view of ascertaining to what degree of attention each was
'entitled. The Hon. Baronet had considered the petitioner had
a right to have his petition laid on she.table of the House, and
as he made-the Agricultural interest the basis of all the, other
interests—the source fitn. which all must be -enriched—the
-hinge on which every thing must turn, he thoUght his principle
sound - and • wished- it to be fairly discussed. He hoped
therefore that the petitioner wouldhave an opportunity-afford-
ed to him of communicating the information which he described
himselffti possess to a Committee of that House. ,
Sir.W.•DE.CRESPIGNY spoke -in favour of entertaining
the petition. - -
Mr. Sergeant ONSLOW. said Mr. Pinsent's ideas were not
new. They were similar .to those' on • which Bonaparte had
acted, and 'which had led to' his ruin,-..Whetl.he determined'tnat
nothing Should be consumed-in France Inif'what .conlcLbe-woa
_duced from her soil. The _Petition, proposing diat. &Corn,'
..mittee should be appointed to. inquire into. the compaicttiVe
-state of all British interest; proposed to inlstitute'an•endlessin,
quiry. • -
Mr. HUME should notnppose the bringing -UP,of the Pe-
tition, but wished the principles which it contained to be exa-
mined. If thalsystem which Mr. Pinsent recommended were
athipted, it would put an.end.to.:all foreign commerce. It-had
..been truly describete- to resemble the plan of.-Bonaparte,.-and
would go to persuade us to grow sugar and, make Wine in
England; instead of producing those articles ,which better
suited our soil and our habits, -and which .might be so...hene-
flcially exchanged for other:eommodities' the growth of, other
countries. Ile wished the subject to be- discussed,- that it
might- be fully- understood, and the absurdity of the ,seitense •
opposed.. , I •
• .7811- MAXWELL wished to afford every facility to those
• Who•had infOrmition to. communicate, and therefore wished the
petition'tObe received. .
. The Petition-was read and ordered to be.pzinted. .
• PETITION FROM PERTH.. • . s'
- Mr. LINDSAY presented' a Petition from the Lord Provost,
• Bailiwick and- of the Royal .Burgh of Perth, calling
the attention of the House to certain circumstances-connected
• with the revenues of that. Burgh.
-BANK. MONOPOLY.
•\ •
Mr. GRENFELL:gave notice, that he should to-morrow-
present a' Petition from some
.inClividualS. residing. within- 65
miles of_London, who conceived themselves aggrieved-. by. the
preposition to continue the Bank llonopoly•in that District-be-
yond the term 9f the present Charter. . -.a.
Mr. DENMAN patiented a Petition from the Parish of•-ora