Star.
London, England, 1820-05-27 00:00:00

as a protecting tfteature, and at inotheitime as a
source of revenue. , He (the Chiniellor of the Ex-
chequer) did not think.this was inconsistent. The coo-
sumption was not ykely to be so diminished as not
to render an efficient revenue ;.whilst it operated as a
protection to the growers of the 'commodity. He
did not know of any principle of political economy
more to be followed in imposing a tax, than to choose
,for that purpose an article which was gradually and
constantly increasing in consumption. In the years
1791, 1792, it would be found that the importation
of wool was 2,800,000 pounds per annum. In 1814
it had incritased to upwards of 10,000,000 pounds:
at the Peace of Paris, it had arrived at the amount
of 18,000,000, and in 1818, to 26,000,000 pounds.
The exportation of British wool, in the years 1791, and
1792, was four millions and a half; and in 1618 and
1819, it was only seven millions. It was allowed;
that the long British wool was peculiar to the soil
and climate of this country, and could not be reared
in any other part of the globe—(Hear, hear).—
A small portion of the fine Spanish wool was worked
up with this; but our own wool being inimitable, as
it were, he could not understand how there could be
any of our losing the foreign markets!
What competition did we fear ? It was far from
him to wish any branch of the British manufactures
to suffer ; but he was told that the interest of the ma-
nufacturer and the. grower were the same. If that
was the case, was at not to he feared, that if the
wool groper were suffered to be ruined by a great
importation, the, manufacturer being so closely al-
lied to him, must suffer also from his misfortune?—
The falling off in the woollen trade was not so great
as might be imagined; for in 1800, the consumption
was 140 millions, and now it was at the rate of 160
millions. From a decline in the trade taking place,
it was immediately attributed to the tax upon it ;
but it was a fact that it had not fallen off more than
other articles. The principal cause of the decline was
the failure of the export to America, the causes of
' which he wculd not then go into. France and the rest
of the. Continent complained as much as we did.—
He contended that this tax had not failed as an article
of revenue, because it was not expected to produce
more than it had. Feeling, as he did, that the repeal
' (1 the tat would oppress the trade still more than it
would by remaining, he felt himself called upon to
move the previous question.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY supported the motion
of his Noble Friend, for a repeal of the tax on foreign
wool. In adopting the same arguments, and taking
the same view of the question as his Noble Friend,
he acted entirely from the dictates of his conscience.
He depicted, in warm colours, the distreised- state
of the labouring classes in his part of the country ;
and declared, that although he had invariably sup-
ported the Government, he would say, that putting
on that tax on a declining trade, in the manner it had
been done, was as cruel a blow as was ever inflicted
on a suffering people. He firmly hoped that the tax
would be repealed. •

Mr. IILAISSON thought, that if we proposed
the monopoly of British Wool, which others were
• unable to compete with, there was no fear of onr
being driven from the foreign markets. He denied
it was entirely a new principle to place -a tax on raw
produce, and in support of his assertion he would
instance the tax placed on Cotton, on Timber, on
Iron, on Oil, all of which were raw materials. The
depression in the Woollen Trade was not confined to
that a!one, nor was. the general depression of Manu-
factures confined to this country alone. • To lay all
the blame on a miserable Tax on Wool, was, he
thought, very far from making out their case.. Upon
the whole he thought the Tax on Foreign Wool was
.the best tax that could be laid on in the present state
of affairs.

Mr. tIifIWEN was in favour of the motion ; a
more impolitic tax, he said, than the one in question,
bad never been imposed on any article. .
.Mr. PHILLIPS rose amid cries of Question, ques-
tion ! and said he should not trespass on the tithe of
the House, had he not been spoken to by many of
those who felt the inconvenience and hardship of this
Tax most; as such be must give the Noble Lord's
motion his support, because he ,was of opinion the
Tax was calculated to prevent exportation, and in his
opinion, by no means adapted to relieve the distresses
of the manufacturing classes.
Mr. J. SMITH said, that, in the present state
of the country, he would be unwilling to vote for
the repeal of any Tax, unless it pressed very heavily
upon the People, and was peculiarly injurious to
their interests. The reason for this unwillingness
was the alarm ke felt from the present financial state,
of the country.. Any measure tending to lessen the
means of supporting its public credit should be
viewed with some degree of alarm—(llear, hear).—
lie did not, however, feel disposed to continue the
Wool Tax, as he considered it liable to great objec-
tions. The cloth manufacture was declining when
Government came forward to propose this duty. It
was a branch of manufacture that required a large
capital, and the consequence of the tax must have
been to lessen that capital, at a time when the mann-
factirres were in want of it. It was probable also that
the great extension of the cotton manufacture was
injurious to that of cloth. It was not correct to say,
that the tax produced £300,000 a year. He hoped
the financial state of the country would be fully con-
sidered, for it was on that depended all those minor
questions. In this point he thought we should have
yielded to the almost unanimous wish of the manu-
facturing interests of the country.
Mr. BARRET opposed the motion. He did not
see how this tar could have raised the price of wool,.
it being in operation only since October last. The
consequence of its being put off as the desire of the
manufacturers was, that they imported more foreign
wool than they could consume for a long time, and
not less than two years produce of the South Down
and Sussex Wools remained now undisposed of.
The House then divided : For the Motion, 128—
Against it, 202—Majority against the Motion, 74.

SUPPLY.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, (the House
in a Committee of Supply), moved a Resolution, for granting to
his Majesty, for the service of the year, the sum of 47,00,000.
The Resolution was agreed to.

MISCSLLA NIES.
Mr. BANKES proposed a vote of .C 10,900 654 Id. for the
management of the British Afilletll/2 for the year I am,
Lord JOCELY N observed that no public Building was better
conducted than the British Museum : be regretted that the Pub-
lic were not admitted so Westminster4bbey and St. Paul's Ca-
thedral upon the principles adopted at the British Museum.
After a few remarks from 'Mr, Beans. Mr. Wit. Same, and