Star.
London, England, 1818-04-07 00:00:00

LEATHER TAX.

Lord ALTIIORM moved, that the Bill for Re-
pealing the Adjitional Duty on Leather be now read
a second time.
Mr. C. GRANT was ready, as well as the rest of
the House, to give every possible relief to the coun-
try and to pay due respect to the request of the people.
But he could not refrain from thinking, that in the
p..esent case, the petitioners had come before the
douse under rather extraordinary circumstances. For
a whole century, during which every other trade has
been subjected to increased taxation, the Leather
Trade had remained free from any additional burden.
This had continued from the time of Queen Anne tol
ltil`2. But on what ground should it have been any
longer exempted from contributing its due share to
the service of the State? It had increased in pros-
perity 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 thts be just towards the
other trades ? It had not been proved that the Tax
iniposed in 181'2 had been attended with injurious
effects. If the revenue had decreased and the trade
too, if the trader had not the power of throwing the
tax on the consumer, and if there was no prospect of
Lie trade reviving with others, then a strong prima

Facie case might be Made out ; but the contrary seas
the fact, and this was proved by the papers laid be-
fore the House. The tax had been imposed in the
month of July,
.1112. The produce of the original
duty; up to the sth of July, 1812, had been 363,890/.
and that of the next year, with the additional duty,
654,0001. or nearly double that of the former, al-
though immediately after the imposition of e new
tax a diminution might have been expected. The in-
crease had continued for two years longer, for in
1814, the produce had been 667,000/. and in 1315,
677,000/. It was therefore evident that the duty had
not injured the trade, since both had doubled toge-
ther. 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 18,12 it
was Is. 7d. per pound, and in 1814, from 2s. to
2s. 2d. Not only the domestic; but the foreign con-
sumers had paid off the tax, for the exports had tre-
bled 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 599,000/. and in
181.7 to 595,0301. but this was from causes m hich
were notorious to all when the period was considered,
and which had beaten down every other branch of
trade. The almost total cessation of demand had
occasioned that fall, and no diminution of taxes'
could create a demand which had no existence of its
own. There was another cause also for the decrease
which had taken place in the revenue. Pre\ inns to
the Act of 1812, the Tanners were not allowed to
perform any operation on the hides while they were
undergoing the tanning process. All the superfluous
parts not being shaved off, increased their weight
when they went to pay duty, and consequently the
duty itself. By the Act of 1812 this restric:ioa was
removed, and the weight of hides being reiuced had
occasioned a proportionate diminution in the produce
of the duty, which by some • was estimated at half
the amount of the depression. Supposing that it was
one-third, still it would account for a very consider-
able 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, the produce of the tax, as charged, was
611,000/. and as collected 599,000/. There had also
been an increase of 17,000/. during the last quarter.
If the accounts were made up from January to Ja-
nuary, instead of from July to July, the facts which
he had stated would be confirmed. The produce
had been

On January 5, 1812 - £349,000
On Jatrlary 5, 1813 - 674,0(0
On January 5, 1814 656,000
On January 5, 1815 674,000
On January 5, 1816 596,000
On January 5, 1817 - 595,000
but charged 611,0001. which were in progress of co
lection. It was stated that a proof of the depression
of this particular trade might be found in the in-
creased number of bankruptcies, and the diminution
of licences. 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 more than
others? They had 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 had been issued against Tanners, did not ex-
ceed 2,0001. which sheaved that their distresses could
not be very considerable. With respect to the dimi-
nution in the licences, it was remarkable that the li-
censes in the Malt Trade had also decreased since the
repeal of the War Malt Duty. In 1815, before that
repeal, they amounted to 20,548, and in 1817, since
it had taken place, to only 80,272. He then conten-
ded that the question was not to be decided on par-
tial and local, but on general grounds. The duty of
the House was to support the revenue, which required
its protection. If the securities which the public cre-
ditor held were thus reduced one by one, the foun-
dations of public credit would be shaken. The
House must come to the discussion with a view to
the country, to the revenue, and above all, to the
public faith. He concluded by moving, that the
Bill be read this day six months.
Lord ALTHORPE cordially agreed that it be-
came the House to support the revenue of the coun-
try, but he trusted that they would feel it to be their
duty to support the manufactures of the country—
(hear, hear.) It was said, that it was but natural to
expect that the trade should have declined at the ces•
sation of the late war. But he could not find that
the trade had declined at the conclusion of any for-
mer war, so thatif this cause had any real operation,
it was discovered now for the first time. Looking to
the decreased number of licenses, and the multiplied
number of bankruptcies, lie thought the trade alto-
gether declining.
Lord DEEItHURST did not intend to trespass
above a moment on the attention of the House, in
treading afresh the track so beaten already, by a re-
capitulation of the arguments which had been, he
hoped, successfully used by the Noble Lord who had
originally moved the question, and by other honour-
able Members who intended to vote as he did, for
the repeal of the additional duties on leather. It was
not his (Lord Deerhurst's) inclination to oppose upon
trifling grounds the taxation considered necessary by
his Majesty's Ministers ; but representing as he did a
great commercial city, deeply interested in the pre-
sent debate, he could not give a silent vote, without
stating that the repeal of the additional duties on lea-
ther 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 fo-
reign merchants in the market, which they were un-
p,ble to do with the additional duty in force, as they
at present stood. He should therefore vote for the
repeal of those bills.
Lord COMPTON contended that the argument
used by the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. C. Grant)
that no additional tax had been laid on the Leather
Trade from the reign of Queen Anne to 1812, was
most unfortunate for his side of the question, for it
proved the view which the different Chancellors of
the Exchequer who succeeded each other during that
period entertained of that subject. Had they thought
such a tax justifiable, they certainly would not have
been so long without imposing it.
Mr. H. DAVIS said, that he had consulted with
some of the most intelligent tanners, all of whom
agreed in thinking that no good was to be expected
from the repeal of the tax. He read part of a letter
from a respectable tanner, who, the Hon. Member
said, he was conscious, had a perfect knowledge of

his own interests—(hear, hear! and laughter.) Th 2
Object of the letter was to shew that other eauses ha i
operated to the depression of the trade than the doa-
ble tax. In consequence of this letter, he should vote
in favour of the tax.
Mr. BURItELL said, that he was sure the gene-
ral feeling of the country was against the tax, and
•that, beside elc correspondent of Ore lion. Gentleman
who had just sat down, there could suit be found ano-
ther tanner in the country favourable to the tax—
(hear, hear.)
Mr. M AIIItYATT, relying more upon the nume-
rous Petitions which were presented to the House,
than upon the letter of a single individual, should
vote for the second reading of the Bill. He referred
to several papers to shew, that since the double tax
was imposed, the export of the raw material was
doubled, while the manufacture was diminished to
less than half—(hcar, hear, hear!) Thus the foreign
manufacturers thtained a great advantage over the
manufacturers of this country. The tax, in fact,
though pressing upon the poor, was repaid to them
again by the rich, in the shape of poor rates. The
wealth of the country was its manufactures ; and if
was the duty, as well as the interest of the House to
support them.
Mr. BENSON (amid cries of Question), said it was
not his intention to trespass long on the House. He
would not have risen but for the letter which was
read by an Honourable Member opposite. That
Member said, that his correspondent had a perfect
knowledge of his own interest. He (Mr. Benson)
was sure that the llonourable Member had a gnoJ
knowledge of his own interests when he voted for the
tax—(Order, order.)
Mr. H. DAVIS—" I rise to ask the lion. Mem-
ber, upon what grounds he presumes to say, that I
have been actuated by interested motives in voting
against this Bill ?"
The SPEAKER—" I interrupted the Hon. Mem-
ber when I heard him use personal expressions. It
would have been an abandonment of my duty, if I
had not prevented him from proceeding. lam sure,
however, that the Hon. Member did not mean to
convey in those expressions a personal otience."—
(hear, hear.)
Mr. BENSON—" No man would be more un-
willing than I am to give offence to any Honourable
Member. I used the term in a Parliamentary sense,
for I considerod that we were now at the eve of a ge-
neral election, and the word interest I applied to that
concern, not intending it by any means in a per-
sonal way."—(Hear, hear, hear.) The Honourable
Member concluded with expressing his intention to
vote for the Bill. _ _

Mr. LUSHINGTON was convinced that there
never was a complaint made against a tax, with less •
justice than that made against the tax now in ques-
tion. He disputed the accuracy of the information
which stated that the exportation of the raw material
was doubled in the five years subsequent to the dou-
ble tax. The tax upon leather was productive to the
country (hear, hear !) and he was astonished to find it
so much ei iminated. It might, indeed, have been to
the i. serest of the tanners that this tax should he
given up, because it would take 160,0001. out of the
pockets of the public, and put it into the pockets of
the tanners—(hear, hear.) The question should be
treated upon large principles. The number of tan-
ners, it was true, was reduced ; hut that did not prove
the declension of the trade. A few of the small tan-
ners were thrown out of the business; but the fact
was, the trade of the principal tanners was increased.
This was evident from the state of the trade of Messrs.
Bruen. The injuries sufrered by the small tanners
arose not from the tax, but from the superior means
of manufacturing leather which the principal tanners
possessed. It should be also remembered, that the
tanners themselves received the duty from the public
before they paid it to the Crown, so that they had no
real reason to complain. The tanners with whom he
had communicated were averse to any change in the
law ; and he had no hesitation in saying, that if this
tax were repealed, another one should be substituted
for it. He had heard it repeated by several respect-
able tanners, that the pretences upon which it W 6
sought to repeal the tax were scandalously false.
Mr. BROUGHAM denied the necessity of impo-
sing a new tax in case this tax was repealed. When
a larger, though not a more impolitic tax, was re-
pealed, about two years ago, the Ministers imposed
no new tax--(hear, hear). No. They took back their
estimates, and reduced them to the level of the ex-
penditure—(hear, hear). The estimates were still
open, because they pledged the House only not to
exceed a certain amount, and he, therefore, wished
that the Ministers would still be obliged to reduce
their estimates. He was surprised to hear the Ho-
nourable Gentleman give, as his reason for voting
for the tax, a letter from a particular tanner—(No,
no,from Mr. H. Davis). He understood him to give
that letter for his reason, but, if he did not,•he cer-
tainly gave no reason at all—(hear, hear). Beside,
the tanners, there was another class who suffered
largely by the tax, namely, the consumers—the pub-'
lic at large. This tax had all the inconvenience of
the Pell lax, and it was oppressive, because it fell
chiefly upon the poor—(hear, hear).
Mr. HUSKISSON begged the indulgence of the
House for a few moments. He stated. that the Lea.
titer Tax was pledged to the public creditor, so that
,if it was repealed, another tax should be necessarily
substituted. He had considered the subject deci.ly,
and he was convinced, that if the country could bear
a diminution in the revennc, the Leather Tax was
not that which it would be most advisable to repeal
—(heai., hear). The real state of the case was, that
the tax was imposed in a period of distress, and then,
as it was not as productive as was expected, the No-
ble Lord thought it should be done away. The
Noble Lord might have found a stronger argurneet
for the repeal of the old Malt Tax, in its gee it dimi-
nution. It was diminished to less thus one half, and
here, therefore, was a strong argument, in the view
of the Noble Lord, for its repeal—(hear, hear). The
leather trade was certainly depressed, but it was nosy
reviving like other trades. A greater injury could
not be done to the public, than would be caused by
the commutation of taxes. The public had all the
expenses of this new tax, while it &lived no benefit
front the repeal of one tax, and the substitution of
another.

The question was loudly called for, and t 17,2 House
divided. Foram Amendment, 34i—Against it, ISO—
against Lord Althorpc's Bill, 6.
A coLversation took place lictwt.t.ii Sir J.