TAX ON LEATHER. (Hansard, 10 March 1830)

The Earl of Rosebery
presented a Petition from the Tanners of Linlithgow, praying for a repeal of the remaining Tax upon Leather. The noble Lord observed, that he entirely concurred in the prayer of the Petition. The remission of the Leather-tax that had already taken place was productive of no benefit to the public, although it took 400,000l. out of the Exchequer. It would be better to reimpose the duty formerly remitted, unless their Lordships were prepared to remit the remainder, and get rid of the penalties and restrictions which caused the previous remission to be of no public benefit.

The Earl of Malmesbury
said, he could not concur in the propriety of reimposing the Leather-tax, though he agreed with the noble Earl in stating, that the public had derived no benefit from its having been taken off. When Mr. Pitt gave up the 3s. duty on hats, he (Lord Malmesbury) went to his hatter and congratulated him upon the reduction, at the same time expressing a hope that the price of the 71 article would be lowered. The answer of the hatter was, that the trade had heard with great satisfaction that the 3s. duty had been taken off,—that it had been in contemplation to raise the price of the article; but that, in consequence of the remission of the duty, the price would remain the same. Not only was the price not lowered, but hats were actually 1s. dearer than when the duty was in existence. It must be admitted, however, that the tax was one easily evaded. This afforded a reason for considering the probable effect of a remission of taxation, before taking off a particular tax: it was also a reason why their Lordships should consider seriously before they imposed a tax. As he had said already, he could not agree with the noble Earl in the policy of reimposing the moiety of the Leathertax which had been remitted, for although the public had not been benefitted by its remission, no doubt if it were reimposed the price of boots and shoes would be raised. When he spoke to his shoe-maker on the subject, the invariable answer was, that the advantage of the remission had accrued to the tanner or currier,—it had slopped in mediâ viâ—the benefit never reached the consumer. He made an exception in favour of the salt-tax, the remission of which had been extremely beneficial to the agricultural population. In that instance the legislature had conferred a real benefit upon the public. But if it imposed the tax upon leather, the people would not only have to pay so much more for their boots and shoes, in proportion to the amount of the tax, they would also have to pay a per centage on account of the reduction of consumption which taxation invariably occasioned.

The Earl of Rosebery
did not recommend the re-imposition of the Leather-tax; on the contrary, he thought it advisable to repeal the remaining duty, which gave rise to restrictions that prevented the public from enjoying the benefit of the repeal that had already taken place. The public had derived no advantage hitherto; all the benefit fell into the hands of a few great capitalists.

§ Earl Stanhope
was well aware, that the public did not receive that relief which might reasonably be expected from a reduction of taxation upon the raw material. The evil arose from our want of those municipal regulations which existed on the Continent, and by which corporations and magistrates 72 were empowered to fix the prices of the necessaries of life. The ancient law of this country gave such a power with respect to two of the prime necessaries of life—bread and beer. The noble Earl opposite smiled at this; but if he looked into the statute passed in the reign of Henry 2nd, he would find the principle recognized. Such regulations were attended with eminent benefit to the continental consumer, whereas here we had all the evils of exclusive corporations and monopolies, and none of the benefits which they might be made to bestow. He quite agreed in the statement that a remission of taxes on the raw material was frequently of no benefit to the consumer: it afforded an undue profit to the capitalist or the retail dealer,—that was all.