Star.
London, England, 1820-05-04 00:00:00

Nk OOL TAX.

Mr. S. WORTLEY, in presenting a Petition from
the Manufacturers in Worsted, of Nottingham,
against the tax laid on last year upon the importa-,
tion of wor.l, took occasion to observe, that every-
thing which had come to his knowledge since that ,
period, had confirmed his opinion of the imprudence
and impolicy of the duty. It was not now a time to
enter upon the discussion, but when the subject was
brought before the House, as it very soon would
be, he pledged himself to state fully the grounds on
which he thought this opinion might be incontrover-
tibly maintained.—The Petition was laid on the table.
Lord MILTON presented a similar Petition from
Leeds, and contended that the tax was contrary to
every principle of. political economy, and to the
whole commercial system of the country. When it.
was recollected what a source of wealth and power
the woollen manufactures had been, and how much
they had been encouraged, they must see what a se-
rious alteration had been operated by this injudicious
measure. But it was also the cause of great misery
and distress; and if any Gentleman visited the part
of the country whence the Petition came, they would
be convinced that the Act was one of great cruelty.—
It had failed too as a means of Revenue, and he
would state one instance of its injurious effects which
had come within his own knowledge. Within these
few months, a large contract was lost to this coun-
try, he was fully persuaded, in consequence of it.—
The Russian Government had wished to have cloth-
ing for a great part of its army at a stipulated price,
but the house to which they offered the commission
was obliged to decline it. He put it to the Right
lion. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if, while it
produce.J such evils, it had been proved to be, as
expected, a protection to the growers of native wool?
He asserted that it was quite impotent in this point
of vicw, for if they looked at the annual returns made
out for the West Riding of Yorkshire, they would see
that wool was still a mere drug, and that the ma-
nufacture in that district had last year diminished
one sixth. Did not this prove how erroneous their
policy had been, and enforce the prayer of the Peti-
tion which he now presented ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that whenever the subject came to be discussed, he
trusted it would receive all the consideration which
it importance deserved. The Noble Lord was mis-
taken in his inferences respecting the tax as a source
of Revenue, for when it was imposed, from the dis-
tant -period at which it was to operate, and the im-
mense quantity of foreign wool known to be jli the
country, it was distinctly stated, that the returns
under the new duty could not be available for much
till the time at which they had now arrived. With
regard to what the Noble Lord had said about the
loss of an important contract, owing to this tax, his
Lordship seemed to have answered himself, when be
told them that wool was a mere drug in the market.
It wool was so cheap, how came the manufacturers
to be disabled from undertaking the work ?
Lord MILTON replied, they would, but for the
tax, have employed coarse foreign wool, which was
much cheaper.
Mr. WORTLEY made the same remark, and that
they could have done it with profit.
The Petition was laid on the table, and ordered to'
be printed.
Mr. BROUGHAM had a Petition in his hand
from Huntingdon, which he was requested to pre-
sent, and which he would have presented, thinking
it the duty of Members always to do so, if the docu-
ment itself was correct, but on inquiry he found that
the prayer related to a matter cognizable in the
Courts below; and though it was true that Parlia-
ment might interfere in such cases if it thought pro-
per, it was equally clear that good grounds ought to
be laid before it exercised this power. He would not
therefore offer the Petition to the House.