Star.
London, England, 1813-05-19 00:00:00

1

upon agriculture ; and for these reasons he should
support the motion.
Sir C. MORGAN was convinced the tax was -in-
jurious to the Leather Trade, without being produc-
tive to the Public ; and therefore he should support
the motion.
Sir T. FOLEY could not agree to this tax. It was
a tax .upon necessaries, and one which pressed most
heavily on the poor. He did not wish now, when
energy was so necessary on the part of Government,
to cramp its hands by diminishing its means : let the
Hon. Gentleman propose any tax upon luxuries—on
saddle-horses, game-keepers, and dogs—,.and it should
have his warmest support.—(Hear, bear.)—He had
heard that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not
favourable to this tax, and he wished to make some
concession ; but. was prevented by the Secretary to
the Treasury, who had the credit of being the father
of this mischievous child ; he wished, however, the
Right Hon. Gentleman would assume courage enough
to incur the anger of his friend, and receive gratitude
of the House as his consolation under his misfortune,
(Loud cheering.) -
• Sir C. MONCK also supported the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of
.the EXCHEQUER
said, he was willing to admit that this was not a tax
of his proposing, but one which had been brought
forward by his predecessor. He was now, however,
convinced that it could not be repealed without great
disadvantage to the public ; and he did not think the
repeal would be attended with any of those advan-
tages which Gentlemen seemed to think would result
from that measure. He was persuaded that the pub.
lic would not obtain the articles at all cheaper than
they now did ; and that only the persons engaged in
the trade would derive any advantage from the sacri-
fice made by the public. With respect to the pro-
ductiveness of the tax, it had fully equalled his expec-
tations. The additional duty on glass had, like that
on Leather, been estimated at :€200,0130.-He had
heard no of jection whatever made to that tax, and he
had no doubt it would ultimately amount to the sum
at which it had been estimated. Yet the produce for
the last three quarters had been only £2019, whilst
that ‘‘n Leather, for the same period was £llB,OOO, not.
withstanding the dissatisfaction which existed amongst
the 'Fanners, their having reduced their trade as much
as possible, with a hope of gettieg a repeal of the tax.
—The evidence he was ready to acknowledge was
highly respectable. From that it appeared, that the
additional duty. would amount to about Is. 3d. on a
saddle and bridle, 3s. on a set of harness, lid. a pair
on gentlemen's bobts, and Vid. on a pair of shoes,
and this advance was all that the additional duty
would cause. The Right Hon. Gentleman proceeded
at some length to reply to the arguments of the seve.
ral speakers who had preceded him, and concluded
by giving his decided negitive to the motion.
Mr. W. SMITH supported the motion, becaue he
considered the Leather Tax as oppressive to the peo-
ple of the country.
Mr. BENSON shortly replied, and observed, that
lie shautd have answered at length the Hon. Secre-
tary (Mr. Wharton) had that Gentleman remained
in his place. He should confine himself to the re-
mark, as to w!lat the Hon. Gentleman had said
against the evidence of the Leather Trade. The
persons froM whom he (Mr. Benson) had got his in-
formation, ally,' they were neither philosophers nor
statesmen, nor had published quarto poems to astonish
i2nd amuse the. world, they were men of common
sense, and as much honour, probably, as the Hon.
Secretary himself.
Alter some further conversation, the House d:vidcd
the tn-tion 104 —Against it 101.7
The SPEAKER then cave his castillg vnte in fa-
vour of the motion ; in consequence of which leave
was given to bring in the Bill.
Mr. BENSON afterwards brought up the Bill for
the repeal of the Le4ther Tax ; which was read a
first, and ordered to be read a second time on Thurs-
day next.