The Sun.
London, England, 1818-04-07 00:00:00

WI TERNIEN.

Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a Petition from Olt: Wa-
termen plying at the several stairs on the River Thames,
against the Bill for building a bridge at Rotherhithe.
Mr. WROTTESLEY thought; that instead of suspending a
public work, it wonld he preferable to increase the fares of
Watermen, and to introduce a Bill into Parliament for that

purpose.
Mr. Alderman WOOD stated that the Court of Aldermen
of the City London had the power to inalte such an alte-
ration without any Bill. lie had ❑o doubt that if the Wa-
termen petitioned that Court. to that effect, the object
would he obtained.--The Petition was then read, and laid on
the Table.
Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a Petition from Mr. J.
Jennings, in the County of Somerset, who co••.•ilained
of having been charged differently from his nelghbours
for th,, Pool's Rates.—Referred to the Committee on that

suyeet.
Mr. Alderman WOOD then moved for a Return of the
Dnt paid on Coals in the Pool of London, fur the last three
years.—Ordered.
Lord MILTON presented Petitions from Bridlington and
Halifax, in the County of York, in favour of the Cotton Fac-
tory Bill.—Laid on the table.
CO-I'l'oN MANUFACTORIES.
Mr. PEEL stated, that the opponents of the-
Bill for regulating the working hours of Cotton-
manufacturers had hitherto contended that the
House was not possessed of sufficient evidence to
show that those hours were excessive, and their
consequences injurious to the persons employed.
The opinions hitherto given had been repre-
sented as the speculations of Physicians re-
siding in London, and who could have bad
no opportunity of properly investigating the
subject ; or as those of the parties themselves,
who were said to be actuated by a spirit orr'
Luddism, in opposing their employers. If there
were any defect in the evidence already before the
House, he held a Petition which would supply it,
gild was exempt from all the charges made against
the others. It was signed by the names of se-
venteen hundred and thirty-one
.of the most re,
spectable inhabitants or Manchester, who feel-
ingly deplored the situation of the persons em-
ployed in Cotton Manufactories, on account of
the excessive hours and the temperature in which
they were made to work, which produced the
most injurious consequences amongst them.—
Among the Petitioners 7 were Magistrates,
9 Physicians, 21 Surgeons, and 20 Clergymen,
and 17 of these of the Established Church. One
of the Physicians had attended -the Infirmary for
27 years, and three of the Surgeons for thirty
years. The Hong': would, thereftire, now be in
possession of the opinion of 30 medical men, who
thought the working hours excessive, and their
consequences injurious to the individoais employ',
ed ; and it could no longer be maintaed that
sufficient evidence had not been proditced. -. •
The petition having been read,
Mr. PHILLIPS thought it rather extraordinary,
that in so populous a place as Manchester, only
1731 individuals should have signo4l a Petition
which was represented as expressing the senti•
!petits of the town. As to the opinions of medical
men, he knew that a difference existed: But cer-
tificates had been given by physicians and
sur-
geons, who spoke from actual observation and
trom facts, and not from general impressions, and
who considered the persons employed in cotton
manufactories at Manchester in a - sit nation far
superior to those engaged in other• labours, and
more free from complaints.
. Sir F. BURDETT though the assertion that chii.

dren of a tender age, called out early in the morn-
ing at all seasons, and kept closely at work till
ten o'clock at nigh-t, were not injured by such
treatment•, wad-a-most monstrous post ion. lie
therefore hoped that the Hon. Baronet would
persevere, and that the House would not &lay to
adopt a remedy to so crying an evil.
Lord STANLEY entered into a comparative esti-
mate of the prowess of disease in children thus
employed, contrasted with it in others not so em-
ployed, front papers nod estimates laid bet,o-e the
[louse, and felt disposed to infer that the [eresentations contained in these Petitions had been
at least in .this respect overcharged nearly one-

third.
Mr, PEnt. and Mr. PrTILLIPs explained, and the
Petition virus ordered to lie on the rabic.
• COTTON FACTORY RILL. -
Sir ROBERT PEEL postponed the Report on the Cotton
Factory Bill to ntna Friday,

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
Sir F. BUROETT presented a vat iety of Petition., amount-
ing prcbably to a hundred, praying for Parliamentary Re-
forin.—Ordc:.cd to lie on the 'rabic.
Mr. JOHN SMITH presented a Petition from several re-
spectable Publishers, complaining of th, hardship to which
they were subject in consequence of the Act compelling them
to transmit Copies of Works to the Universities, and other
Public Institutions.—Ordered to lie on the Tuttle.
LEAH-lER TAX.
Lord ALTHORPE moved, that the Bill for re-
pealing the Additional Dirty on Leather be now
read a second time.
Mr. C. GRANT was ready,' as well as the rest
of the Muse, to give every possible relief to the
country, and to pay due respect to the requests
of the people. But be could not refrain front
thinking, that, in the present,case, the petitioners
had come before the House under rather• extra-
ordinary circumstances. For a whole century,
during which every other trade has been,subject-
ed to increased taxation, the Leather Trade had
remained free from any additional burden. This
had continued from the time of Queen Anne to
1812. But on what ground should it have been
any longer exempted front contributing its due
share to the service of the State ? had increas-
ed in prosperity like all other branches of trade,
and yet it was now proposed to replace it on the
footing on which it was 100 years ago. Would
this he just towards "the other trades? It had not
been proved that the tax imposed in 1812 had
been attended with injurious effects. If the re-
venue had decreased and the trade too, if the
trader had not had the power of throwing the
tax on the consumer, and if there was no pro-
spect of the trade reviving with others, then
strong prima facie case might be • made out : but
the contrary was the fact, .and this was proved
by the papers laid before the House., The tax
I►ad been imposed in the month of July, 1812.
The produce of the original duty, up to the sth
of July, 1812, had been 363,8901. and that of the.
ngxt year, with the additional duty, .654.000/. or
nearly double that of the former, although im-
mediately after the imposition of a new tax a di-
minution might have been expected. The itt-
crease had continued for two years longer, for
in 1814 the produce had been 667,000/. and 'in
1815, 677,0001. It was therefore evident that the
duty had not injured the trade, since both had
doubled together. It was also clear that the
traders had thrown the tax on the consumers,
for the price of the article had risen even more
than in proportion. In "1812 it was Is. 7d. per
pound, and in 1814, from 2s. to 2s. 2d. Not
only the domestic but the foreign consumers lad
paid off the tax, for the exports had trebled in two
years. As to the depression which had taken
place, it appeared to be as follows : in 1816 the
produce of the Tax had sunk to 599,0001., ant! in
1517 to 595,0001. ; but this was from causes
which were notorious to all when tire period was
considered, and which bad beaten down every
other branch of trade. The almost total cessa-
tion of demand had occasioned that fall, Roil no
diminution of taxes could create u demand which
had no existence of its own. There was another
cause also for the decrease which had taken place
in the Revenue. Previous to the Act of 1812, the
Tanners were not allowed to perform any opera-
tion on the hides while they were undergoing the
tanning process. All the superfluous parts pot
being shaved off increased their weight whets
they went to pay duty, Boil consequently the duty
itself. By the Act cl 1812 this restriction was
removed, and the weight of I►ides being reduced
had occasioned a proportionate diminution in the
produce of the duty, which by some was esti-
mated at half the amount of the depression.—
Supposing that it was only one-t bird, still it
would account fur a very considerable part of the
reduction. In many cases, iron had also been
substituted for leather, and thus another ground
of diminution had sprung up. In January, 1817,
tire produce of the tax, as charged, was 611,000/.
and as collected, 599.0001. There had also been
ant increase of 17,0001. during the last quarter.
If the accounts were ovule up from January to
January, instead of trout July to 'July, the facts
wl►ich he had stated would be confirmed. The
produce bad been •
On January 5, 1812
On January 5, 1813
On Jammu 5; 1814
On January 5, 1815
On January.s, 1816
On January 5, 1817
but charged 611,000/. which were in progress of
collection. It was stated that a proof of the de-
pression of this particular trade might be torn nd
the increased number of bankruptcies, and the di-
minution of licenses. .But it was notorious that
at the close of, the war the trade was more one
of speculation than any thing else, and why should
tanners be exempted from the consequences of
speculations any t►rore than others ? They load
speculated rashly, and now bore the consequences
of their rashness. During the last two years, the
amount of the sums for which Extents in Aid hed
been issued against Tanners did not exceed 20001.
which showed that their distresses could not be
very considerable. • With respect to the diminu-
tion in the licences, it was remarkable that the
licences in the Malt Trade" tad also decreased
since tine repeal of the Malt War Vuty. In 1815,
before that repeal, they amounted to 20,548, and
in 1817; since it Lad taken place, to only 80,272.
He then contended. that the question was not to
be de-C-ided on partial and local, but on general
grounds. The duty of the Hoase, was t© support
the revenue, which requited ita.protection. It the

securities which the public Creditor held were
thus rednced one by one, the foundations of pub-
-1:c credit- would be shaken. The House must ,
come to the discussion with a view to the coun-'
try, to the revenue, and above all to the ptitAlc
faith. He concluded by moving, that the till be
read this day six months.
Lord ALTFIORPE agreed with the Hon. Gentle-
man that the revenue should not be neglected,
but it was a still higher duty to support 'the Ma-
nufactures from which that revenue proceedea.—
It was better to uphold them in time than to have
a nominal income, which won'd vanish with their
prosperity
.He then went Welly through spine
of the arguments which lie had stated oil iliti•o-
dueing the subject to rolte House, and 'contended
that the diminution in the uninber:Of hides pur-
chased by tanners was a convincing proof of the
depression of their trade. The Han. Gentleman
had said that it was occasioned by the ce,sation
of war : but that had not been the case in other

wars.

Lord DaaittinasT did not intend to trespass
above a moment on the attention of the House, iti
treading afresh the track so beaten already, by a
recapitubcion of the arguments which had been,
lie hoped, successfully used by the Noble Lord
\vim had originiliv moved the que;vion, and by
other Honourable Members who intended to vote
as he did, for the repeal of the Duties
on Leather. It wiz not his (Lord Deethnrsi's)
inclination to fippoce Minn trifling grounds the
taxation considered necessary
,by his Majesty's
Ministers, but representing, as he did, a great
Commercial city, deeply interested in the present
debate, he could not give a silent vote, without:
stating that the repeal of the Additional Ditties
on Leather was of great import to many highly
respectable persons connected with that trade in
Worcester, who prayed to be relieved from the
burden of it, that they might, at least, upon equal"
terms, meet the foreign merchants in the tnatket,,
•which they were unable to do with the additional
duty in force, as they at present stood. lie should
therefore vote for the repeal of those Bills.
Mr. 11. Davies wished to explain the grounds
on which, having wished for the repeal of the
Leather Tax on the first reading of the Bill, he;
should now give his vote against it. Doting the
access he had consulted some eminent tanners,
. and they did not think that they would derive
touch benefit, any more titan the public, from the
repeal. He had received a letter from one of the
principal tantuls at Bristol, anti_ one who well
knew his own interest, which he would read with
the permission of the House. lie then read a
letter, which stated, that the Tanners of Bristol
had not petitioned against the Tax, and that their
silence had arisen from the conviction, that nei,
timer the manufacturers not the consumers would
derive much benefit- frotn the Repeal. It attria
bitted the defalcation to the change from a state
of
.warfare to one of peace, and Mentioned the
increase which had taken place in the large yards
as sufficient to account for the closing up of
smaller ones. On those groutals; which Struck
him as well-founded, he t Mr. 11. D ) would vote
in favour of the Tax, es it was necessary to sups
port the ;even:me of the country,, and he did not
i
see any other duty which WotilttStipply the place
of the 'present it it were abolished.
A 111ernber, whose name we could 'not learn,
spoke strum; ly against the-Tax.
Lord comrToN contended, that the argument,
used by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Grant), tim.4
no additional tax had been laid on the Leather-
Trade front the reign of Queen Anne to 1812.
%vas most unfortunte for his side of the' ques-
tion, for it proved the view which the ditietent
Chancellors of the Exchequer, who succeoled,
each other during that period, entertained of that
subject. they thought such a tax justifiable,
they certainly would nut have been so long with-
out imposing •it.
Mr. MARRYATT would not alter his vote as an
Hon. Gentleman had announced his intention to
do; for he thought that the teal sentiments of the
tanners were mild) better known by the numer-
ous petitions before the House than by the letter
of any private individual. One.of the injurious con-
. sequences of the tax was its haviug doubled the
exportation of unmanufactured leacher articles.
During the five years before the additional duty,
from 1808 to 1813, the amount of unmanufactur-
ed articles exported appeared to be,- from the re-
turns before mime House, 5,603,395. During the
:five years following time imposition of the tax, or
front 1813 to 1817, it was 10,710.073. The
amount of manufactured articles exported had, on
the contrary, diminished oueAmalf. During the
five ending in, 1813 it had been 2,449,712, and
florin.' those ending in 1817, only 1,14'2,111.
Another proof might be deduced from the lum-
ber of raw-hides purchased in the year before time
duty, and since. In the first case, it was 870,000,
and hi 1817 only 298,000. This showed that, by
the present tax, the manufacture of leather was
thrown into foreign hands.
Mr. BENSON should not have bait for the,
letter which had been read to the House. The
Hon. Member who had communicated it had
said, that his correspondent knew his own inte-
rest well. So did that Hon. Member when 'he
announced his intention of altering his former
vote.—(Order, order !)
Mr. H. DAVIES asked the lion. Member on
what grounds he rresumed to state, that he (Mr.
11. D.) acted front interested Motives in that.
House ?—(Order, order !)
The SPEAKER (as well as could be heard) thought
it his dimly to say, that the observation•of the
lion. Gentleman was not meant to convey any
thing personal.
Mr. BeNsos denied that he had meant any per-
sonal allusion ; but he thought, on'the eve of a
General Election, it might appear like a ma-
noeuvre of the I.lort Gentleman, to change his
vote as he had doni his, opinion.
Mr. LosHIN6YON expressed his opinion, that
there never *di' a complaint made against a Tax
With-less fOundalion. He WAS astonishfd at the
arguments that had been use 4 against it. Had
the Noble Lord or the non. Member read any of
time itatementstliat -had been published ? Lietnust
really-think they had not. If he had perused the
. fr,ateprent 'showing die amount of the cluties, he
ti mad have' found that for five years before the
eouble duty,. the atnomit was only 52,0001. and
fur five years subsequent it was 181,0001. tie

WAS cOnviilced that the tax was "prokictive to the
public, and that the trade wg's in a flonrishing state.
It iVai not Fair to say, that if -the tax produced
350,000 E in time of War, it o ight to prodder
700,0001. now ; and his only asronisliment
that in a state of peace it should be so productive
as it is ; the excess within the last or present year
being 3,000,000 lbs. "of leather. To abolish it
would be literally taking 180,0001. front the
pOckets of the public, and putting it into those of
the Tanners. It • would not be attempted to be
said, that if this tax were given up, another must
not he imposed. 'I he revenue frOm thiS sithject
in the present year vas ;;renter than in the last,
and therefore the Noble Lord's purpose was not
answered by his Objections to-the fair. The smith-
ber of master Tanner, it appeared, had been di-
thinished by 21 ; but did this sliew.that the trade.
'*as impoverished ? lie could prove the Contrary
by a statememt from the extensive tannery of
Messrs. Brewitt, which showed that. for the last
10 years it had been gradually increasing, and
had this year increased from 5,9001. duties to
6,7001. The quantity Of leather Manufactured last
Year had greatly exceeded th'at of the year preced-
ing. lithe Hon bent. had any doubt, he Would hite
11(1 difficulty in laying the papers on the table.-4
The lion. Genrleinan here read a statement -of
the prowess of Messrs. Gretein's conceit], from
which it appeared, that in 1809, their dittiesik'ere
only 9731. ; thii't they had largely increased • every
year '; that in 1813 they were 59001. ; in 1816,
59001. ; and. last year, 67601. Another evidence
was the'present price of leather. It had riseu
limn fifteen to twenty per cent. within the year.
'Wasthis a proof of adversity ? The fact waS;
that the tax cattle out of thepockets•of the public
and went into that of the tanners ; for they were
not. called on to pay the ditties till after they had
taken the leather to market and received the value
for it. It shOuld be recollected that for centuries
back, till 1801, this trade had received no addi-
tional burtbeu, wlrile every other trade had. The
drawback that had been granted had given much,
satisfaction to the trade in general, and to all
concerned in the manufacture Of leather, parti-.
cularly ihe shoemakers,, w.ho had this year as-
sured him that their anxious desire was, that
this law should receive no alteration, 'and that,
the pretence-of the tanners was scandalous and

Mr. MARRYATT, in explanation, observed, that
he had tiortaid a wOrdatiout the drawback. His
argument was, that a lax which would drive the
manufactured article out of the country must be
disadvantageous.
Mr. BROUGHAM was unwilling to detain the
House even for a few minutes ; but lie could not
suffer one or two Observations which had fallen
horn tile Hon. Gentleman to be passed over. He
assumed,- that if this tax were abolished another
must be imposed. This he denied. He must
remind him, that about two years ago, it had
pleased his colleagues, or rather the House had
compelled them, to repeal a tax ; and on that oc•
casion all the estimates were given in for the ser-
ViCe.Of the' year. They were, however, taken
'back, revis'ed-, and reduced, so that' no substitute
was necessary. He wished them now to-take this
as a precedent. But what was the present tax.?
Only 180;0001. They should therefore go back to
somenf their items-of this year, and bring them
down so 'as to Meet this deduction. It was now
the duty of the House to See •not only that not
,180,9001., but not even a single pound should•
be raised more than was necessary. They should
recollect that not one of those Estimates were'
yet absolutely voted'; they bad only come to a
resolution that such and such • establishments
should be kept up ; and an Hon. Friend of his
had- proposed a measure for 'reducing 5000 or
6000 men from the army. The trade of. Messrs.
Brewin was only a solitary authority ; but surely
the whole body of tanners who had conic forward
ought to be listened' to, 'when they say that their
trade will -be 'ruined by the continuance of this
tax: An. Hon. Gentleman had given a letter
from the tanners of Bristol, as a reason for
changing his 'opinion. If this was not the rea-
son, he had certainly given none at all. But
were the other branches of the trade not to be
:attended tothe shoemakers for example ?

There *as certainly 'a most marvellous contradic-
tion in the Opinions of the Gentlemen oppo-
site. The. Tax does fall on the consumer, and-
therefore it was that he opposed it. • 'file •lion..
Gentleman had Said that the- tanners had no right
to complain, as the Tax than now falls on the
consumer must fall on the tanner. But the in-
jury ri'as done 'immediately to the maker of this
arliele, by the diminutibn of the consumption,
,which fell on both, each in his own department.
lint now it was said, that this was a tax on the
necessaries of life. His objection- was that it fell
Most unequally, like all others of that description,
on those who could not afford to pay it, more than
on those who could afford to pay it, and more. Was
lost by it indirectly than was gained directly.
Every tax no the -necessaries- of life had •a ten-
den.cy to increase-the-price of labour in every de-
rartment consequently while they were raising
the paltry rsp,om. they -were obliged to pay
twice as touch in other channels. It had all the
objections that could be urged against a poll-tax ;
for every person paid as Muchi-be his means what
"they might. The peasantry of the country, who
Wore the heasiesf shoes, paid as much, -and even
adore, !flan those Gentlenieir who now heard him;
for their Shoes being heavier, and tire tax going by
it fell 'hi the most 'borthensoine manlier
on those who COMA leasi' afford to -pay it. On
the whole, he' Ilati heard notl.ing either from the
Letter of. the 'limners or Ole- lion. Gentlemen
oppiisite to alter his opinion that this tax ought
to be
_repealed. •

Mr. licisfussoN wished to explain an error into
which he was staprized the lion. Gentleman had
.He bad sajd, that if this tax we►e taken
off, the House n►igbt-.proceed as they loot done
before, without substituting any oilier. If he al-
luded to the property-tax he was totally nth-
taken. There-was an obvious distinction bet wren
a tni only for the duration of the war, and this
tax, which 'formed part of the Ways and Means,
-and was carried to the Consolidated Fund for the
payment of the.interest of the debt. This tax,
he must inform the lion. Gentleman, formed no
part of the supply of the year,, and whether they
were to abate 500 Q or 10,000 men, there would

• ,
Le no diffrrenre rtsspectlng it, as it was 'pledged
for the payment of the interest of the loans
granted .oa the liith of Parliament. The whole
amount of the Permanent Taxis carried ft) the
.Consolidated Fund were not equal to its objects ;
'and therefore every body liniSt see that the tax
could not Ii repealed without, the substitution of
another. H there were an excess of Supply,
Ministers might then consider the remission
of taxes ; but they were bound by every tie
to the. public, if they abolished this tax, to find
some -other. But the Ilon. Gentleman seemed
10 think that all taxes on the necessaties of lite
should he done away. with, Suppose, then, that.
the Excise duties. on malt,- im beer, and similar,
article's, were to be abolished, on what.ground
would the public •faith be placed ? Ile Owned lie
had listene.l to all the arguments in favour of the
repeal of thiS tax, and had read all .the numerous
statements of Gentlemen on the subject ; but his
[ conviction W 43-, that it Government were in a
situation that could enable them to enter into the
consideration of a hat taxes they could remit, the
tax on leather was not the first that should claim
their attchtkm, as there were many that fell Much
• more 1)414 upon the consamer. lie would agree
that this rkx fell upon the public, who were the
coosamers; but he must reinind the lion Geo-
ileanao, .wllO, he tbOught, could not have read-
the different statements and petitions, that all
those staleintnts proceeded tin this ground—not
that the tax was an injury to the Consumr; but
their regret that it could not be transferred flour
them to the cOnStner. But this tax was laid on
in time of war, anti at a moment of the greatest
difficulty. If a similar reason had been urged for
a reduction of any other tax under the Excise;
and the Ilan. Gentleman had rested his case on
the diminution of the soother of persons concetn—
ed in any particular trade, he might, for instance,
have taken that of the maltsters, then he
have found, that the double tax on malt, that flail
existed for fileen
,or sixteen years,.had produced
a serious (limit-m(4in of that trade, which had suf-
fered a great number of bankruptcies sail extents
of the crown. But he would even furnish the
Noble Lord and the Hon. Cientlerwin with a much
better argument : they would have found a far
greater diminution of the trailers taken the war
..duty on malt was taken off, than in those of lea-.
ther, which continues. The old malt dirty only.
produced on the average 3,000,0001. and now it
was dindniShed to 1,900,0001.. So the Noble
Lord might as well say, Here is the conse-
qnence of your taking off the duty; you ought to
lay it on again." lie felt that the arguments
apinst the Leather Tax were, so contradictory,
and bore on so many views that were unfair, that
it was impossible to countenance them., The
Hon Gentleman then went over. the various
.meats that had been urged by the Gentlemen op-
posite, and argued that on alt the grounds it
was the interest of the tanner alone that was
studied. Bat this was a trade that had suffered
in cormiton with all others, in consequence of the
return of peace, and, like all others, it was gra-
dually reviving. But it was rather at the interest
of the public that, the -loose ought to look, than
at ••that of individuals; and for the interest of the
former lie would say, do not consent to repeal
• -this tax, as they will not have the benefit of
Ile •trould maintain, that a greater injury could
• not be done to the public- titan by experiments of
commuting' taxes on aititles of consumption, as
they would not diminish. the price to the, con-
,sumer.• There was no tax, in fact, that could In.
repealed with gull benefit- to the public, except
i direct' taxes, anti if any reduction could possibly
he-made, these should be the -first that ought to
meet consideration. •

Lord CompTON said a few words in explana-
tion. He preferred direct taxes to such as bore
indirectly on the public at large. Ile had not
said that he should vote for the repeal of the salt
duty; but -he should give his opinion on this sub-
ject at the proper time.
The House then divided on Lord Althorpe's
motion for the second reading of the Bill—

Ayes I'3o
Noes 136
Majority agtiinst the Bill .... —G '
On return to the Gallery, the Houk were disposing of the
other Orders of the Day.
A conversation took place between Sir J. Newport, 'Mr. B.
Bathurst, and Mr. Lushington, respecting the delay in the
return of the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into'
the Fees of Cottrts of Justice in England; when the last-
mentioned Gentleman intimated thAt he had a Preliminary
Report from them, stating, among other facts, the imprac-
ticability of completing their labours in less than two months
to come.—This was subsequently bromght up, and ordered to
lie on the table and to be printed.