Sitting of 6 April 1818

THAMES WATERMEN.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, that he had to present several Petitions from a very worthy and meritorious class of the community, whose interests he understood would be most materially affected by the projected bridge over the Thames near Rotherhithe. The petitions were all signed by the same description of persons, the watermen below bridge, who stated in their petitions, that their employment and consequent sole means of living arose from the conveyance of passengers and luggage upon that part of the Thames, situated at and in the neighbourhood of Cuckold's Point Stairs, and that should the bridge contemplated by an act now before the House be erected over that part of the Thames, their plying would be completely rendered useless and unprofitable. They farther represented, that they had acquired the right to ply upon the river by an apprenticeship of several years, and that the greater proportion of their body had, at one period or other, served with credit on board his majesty's vessels of war.
Mr. Wrottesleytook that opportunity of suggesting to the court of aldermen, who had so extensive a jurisdiction in the affairs of the watermen, the urgent necessity there existed for raising the fares of watermen plying on the river. Every article of life had made several progressive advancements in price since the watermen's fares had been last increased, and they could not possibly earn a livelihood if they were to receive no more than their bare fares as established by law. The introduction of a bill to remedy this grievance, would, he thought, be much more becoming on the part of the corporation of the city of London, than giving any encouragement to complaints evidently levelled against the erection of works or public utility.
Mr. Alderman Woodreplied, that although the court of aldermen had it in their power, by act of parliament to apply some relief as to the inadequacy of the present fares, still the court could not prevent, by raising their fares, the ruin which must ensue to the petitioners, should their plying be altogether cut off below bridge, as they apprehended. The petitioners, in fact, bad prayed for an indemnity in the event of the bridge being
1188
allowed to be built, and it would rest with the House to entertain the subject or not.
Ordered to lie on the table.

COTTON FACTORIES BILL.
Petitions against the Cotton Factories bill were presented from Manchester, Blackburn, Rossendale, and Glasgow. Petitions in favour of the bill were also presented from Hebden bridge, Halifax, and Royton.
Mr. Peelsaid, he felt extreme satisfaction at having it in his power to lay before the House the petition he then held in his hand. It referred to the question of excessive labour in cotton factories, to which such frequent allusion had been made, in and out of the House. It was a petition from Manchester; the signatures affixed to it, amounting to 1,731, were of the very first respectability; and from the condition of the subscribing parties, it was impossible they could be stimulated to make this application to parliament through any thing like interested motives. He felt happy in introducing to the attention of the House a document containing that species of evidence, of which it had been asserted upon a former evening that the House was not yet in possession. Herein was contained the evidence of the constant eye-witnesses of the injurious consequences of excessive labour, and long-continued confinement in the cotton factories in that neighbourhood. It had been also a source of objection on a late occasion, that although there had been obtained the opinions of some distinguished physicians corroborating the general opinion, that such excessive application was extremely unfavourable to health, still these were nothing more than the speculative opinions of London practitioners, unacquainted, in point of fact, with the actual situation or condition of this description of mechanics. It had also been said, that the signatures affixed to former petitions had in some instances, been those of persons actuated by discontent, and even a spirit of Luddism. If any thing could remove these objections, he trusted it would be the present petition. It was in the first place signed by 1,731 of the most respectable inhabitants, who most feelingly deplored the distressing situation of those manufacturers, whose labour was not alone protracted so as even to trench on the hours absolutely necessary for repose, but exerted in a temperature of such excessive warmth

1189
that it must be considered highly prejudicial to the constitutions of even the most robust. They in the strongest terms remonstrated, from their knowledge of its prejudicial effects, against the practice of rousing children of extremely tender years from their beds at unseasonable hours, in the most rigorous season, to their unhealthy and unremitting labour. Amongst the signatures to this petition would be found those of the magistrates of the town and neighbourhood, amounting to seven in number;—of the physicians, nine—of the resident surgeons 21—of the clergyman of the district 20, of whom 17 were of the established church. One of the physicians had been 27 years in attendance on the Manchester Infirmary, and three of the surgeons had been 30 years. There was thus the authority of thirty medical men, resident in Manchester, who were of opinion that the hours of labour were excessive, and that the effect of that excess was most injurious to the individuals exposed to it. It was impossible that these gentlemen could be influenced by any motives, except those of humanity. If, indeed, they had any interest, it was in hostility to the bill, which was adverse to the opinions of so large a body of the inhabitants of Manchester. No one could, after this, assert that there was not satisfactory evidence before the House of the excess of labour, and of its injurious consequences.
Mr. Philipsdid not wish to anticipate the discussion on this subject, but he could not help observing that, under the circumstances of the case, the number of signatures to the petition was very small. As to the medical men of Manchester, he knew that great differences of opinion existed among them on this question. He had in his possession certificates from physicians, who formed their judgment on facts, and not on general impressions (as was probably the case with the medical gentlemen whose signatures were attached to the petition), and these certificates perfectly corresponded with what he had felt it his duty to state to the House, namely that in Manchester, the health of those in the factories was better than the health of those who were otherwise employed.
Sir F. Burdettwarmly reprobated the practice of compelling children of a tender age, at all seasons, and in all weathers, to go to labour at four or five o'clock in the morning, and of keeping them employed until nine or ten in the evening.
1190
It gave rise to every description of evil, moral as well as physical; and he trusted that the House would not long delay taking some steps to put an end to so great a grievance. He hoped the hon. baronet, to whom the country was indebted for the bill in progress, would not allow any consideration to induce him to defer for one moment proceeding with it.
Lord Stanley, to show the mode in which statements were prepared, begged to refer to one which was published in the Manchester Exchange Herald of 31st March, and which had been sent to many members of parliament: — that in the Sunday-school Sick Society of Jersey-street, Manchester, out of forty persons relieved, thirty-three worked in factories; thus conveying an impression, that the unhealthiness of this employment, compared with that of others, was as thirty-three to seven, whilst the fact was, that the society consisted of 270 children, of whom 213 were employed in factories, 23 in other occupations, and 34 had not begun to work. The numbers relieved, were of factory children 33 in 213, or one in six 4-tenths; and of those in other occupations seven in twenty-three, or one in three 2-tenths: and as to the time during which those of each class remained chargeable upon the sick fund, it appeared that the factory children averaged at the rate of three and a half days each for the thirteen months to which the statement referred, and those employed in other occupations at the rate of five 3-fourths days each. The 34 children who had not begun to work, did not appear to have received assistance from the society's fund.
Mr. Peelsaid, that if the petition had not been more numerously signed, it was because the parties wished it should only contain the names of individuals who had no personal interest whatever in the question.
Ordered to lie on the table.

RESPECTING THE COPY-RIGHT BILL.
Mr. J. Smithpresented a Petition from Messrs. Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, booksellers and co-partners; setting forth,
"That the Petitioners are publishers of books and purchasers of copy-right, and since the passing of the act of parliament in July 1814, which enjoined the delivery of eleven copies of all books published

1191
after that time to the eleven libraries named therein, the petitioners have delivered to the said eleven libraries, on their demand, in pursuance of the said act, books which have actually cost to the petitioners the sum of 3,000 l., or nearly so, and of part of which books very limited impressions were printed, in some cases only 100, in others only 250, the copy-right whereof was of no advantage to the petitioners; in this statement they do not include books, the publication whereof is managed by other booksellers, and in which they have considerable shares; from the great burthen of the delivery, the petitioners have declined the publication of some expensive works, and especially a work of the Nondescript Plants collected by the celebrated baron Humbolt, during his travels in South America, and which they declined solely from the necessity they should have been under of delivering the said eleven copies without any remuneration; the petitioners feel this delivery to be the greater grievance, because they, like the other publishers of works, have to give many presentation copies to the friends of authors who may have assisted them with the loan of books and use of manuscripts, or by communicating important information or assistance; they are also, by the clause of a previous act made with reference to libels, compelled to deposit one copy with the printer of the work; the delivery of these eleven copies become now a serious object of every publisher's calculation, and will prevent the appearance of many valuable works; when the act that imposed the delivery passed, the petitioners were informed and fully expected that the said libraries would only demand the copies of such works as would be actually useful to them, and that it would not be harshly acted upon; but they have found to their surprise and most serious injury, that all the said libraries, with the exception of two only as to novels and music, have made a sweeping demand of all books published, whether reprints only, or original works, and whether written for children or females, and without any consideration whether the same work was in their library or not; the petitioners particularly instance here the new edition of Dr. Johnson's dictionary, with the additions and improvements of the rev. Henry John Todd, which is published in eleven parts, at the price of eleven gui-
1192
neas; although Mr. Todd, with a feeling which the petitioners could only applaud, presented a copy of the work himself to Sion college library, yet the managers of the said library, after receiving this copy, demanded, and not withstanding the petitioners remonstrances, insisted on having another copy of the said work delivered to them in pursuance of the said act; thus compelling from the petitioners a second copy of the said work, though the full purpose of the said act had been in truth previously fulfilled by the said voluntary gift of its reverend editor; the petitioners, by the permission of the House, state that the present duty on the paper generally used in printing amounts nearly to 25 per cent which the petitioners pay on all the works they publish, and which makes it a great object of our national finances, that the publisher of books should not be by any cause discouraged; but the English universities who print books have not only the superior advantage of a perpetual copy-right, but have also a remission of the said duty on paper for all the books they print; this exemption from duty enables them to undersell all the regular booksellers in the public market in the books they print, which others also have the power to publish; the petitioners have lately, in conjunction with others of the trade, printed an edition of Scapula's Lexicon at a great expense, which had not been printed before in this country for 150 years; they are now informed that one of the English universities is preparing to oppose them by publishing also an edition of the same book, which the said university, by its exemption from the duty on paper, will be enabled to sell much cheaper than the petitioners can afford; eleven copies of the petitioners edition of this book have also been demanded and delivered; the petitioners believe that the continuance of the said delivery unmitigated, will occasion a gradual diminution in the publication of many valuable and important publications, and daily produce a heavy grievance to individual publishers; they therefore most respectfully pray the House to take these facts into consideration, and to relieve the petitioners and publishers in general from the burthen of delivering the said eleven copies without any remuneration, and they humbly submit to the wisdom of the House, that to require the said libraries to pay one-third of the published price of the books they demand

1193
will be a great relief to the petitioners and to literature in general, and will amount to no larger sum than the said libraries may easily raise by a small contribution among their respective members."
The Petition was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed; as was also a petition on the same subject from Messrs. Lackington & Co.

LEATHER TAX REPEAL BILL.
After numerous petitions against the Leather Tax had been presented to the House, lord Althorp moved, "That the bill be now read a second time."
Mr. C. Grant,jun. rose, to move an amendment to the noble lord's motion. He hoped he should be understood to be influenced in the remarks which he should feel it his duty to submit to the House on the subject, by no other motive than his conviction of what was required by the general interests of the country. At the same time, with every feeling of respect for those individuals who had petitioned parliament for a repeal of this tax, he must say, that they came forward under very singular circumstances. For what was the peculiar situation in which the leather trade was placed during the last century? Taxation on every other trade had been greatly increased during that period. The wealth and power of the country had greatly increased. Yet since the reign of queen Anne, when the single duty on leather was imposed, no additional duty had been laid on leather until the bill of 1812. All the trades, and all the staple manufacturers of the country, and even many of the necessaries of life had been taxed to a great amount, while this article of feather had enjoyed the sole exemption from contributing to bear the common burthens of the state. And yet, if the House considered the subject, it would be difficult to discover on what possible ground this trade should have been so distinguished. The tax, however, having been doubled in 1812, the petitioners asked the House to place the trade in the situation in which it was a hundred years ago! At the very first view of the subject, the injustice of such a subject, with reference to the other branches of our national industry, was evident. If, indeed, it could be proved that the trade had suffered injury from the tax of 1812—if it could be proved, that the revenue had diminished in consequence of the imposition of that tax—if it could be proved, that the
1194
trade in leather had not the power (as was the case in all other trades) of throwing the burthen of the tax on the consumer— if it could be proved, that any depression which the leather trade had suffered, was not entirely attributable to ether and general causes—then a prima facie case would be made out for considering the expediency of repealing the tax. But if the reverse of all this were true; if it could be proved, that the revenue (to which the advocates for the repeal had themselves appealed as the test of the measure), actually rose when the tax was first imposed, and continued to rise for three years—if it could be proved that the trader in leather had the power (like other traders) of throwing the burthen of the tax on the consumer—if it could be proved that any depression which the trade had suffered, evidently proceeded from general and notorious causes, wholly unconnected with the tax—and if, in addition to all this, it could be proved, that the leather trade was recovering from the effects of that depression so occasioned, it would be fair to presume that the supporters of the bill had no just grounds on which to require its adoption by that House.—He would now beg leave to call the attention of the House to some of the papers, with reference to this subject, which had been laid on their table. By those papers it apdeared that the produce of the tax on leather for the year ending the 5th of July, 1812, was 363,891 l.; the produce for the year ending the 5th of July, 1813 (after the imposition of the additional duty, which it was the object of the bill to repeal), was 654,356 l.; the produce for the year ending the 5th of July, 1814, was 667,211 l.; and the produce for the year ending the 5th of July, 1815, was 677,096 l. So far there was pretty strong evidence that the tax had not injured the revenue, which, on the contrary, had been doubled by its operation. Was it then to be argued, that it was not in the power of the trader in leather to throw the burthen of the tax on the consumer? What was the fact? The price of the article had been raised more than in proportion to the increase of the duty. In 1812 it was nineteen pence a pound; two years afterwards it was twenty-four and twenty-six pence a pound, and this advance of course took place not only in the home consumption but on the exports.—Then came another part of the question. A depression of the I leather trade did certainly take place in

1195
1815. For the year ending the 5th of July 1815, he had already stated that the revenue derived from the duty on leather was 677,096 l.: for the year ending 5th July 1816 it was only 599,958 l.; and for the year ending the 5th of July 1817, it was 595,722 l. But he would put it to any man who recollected the general state of the country at that period, whether, if he had not seen the returns in which this diminution of the revenue appeared, he would not have said á priori that such a diminution must have existed. The general and notorious commercial depression existed at that time and which bent down every trade in the country, of course operated on the leather trade among the rest. Would any man say, that if the duty on leather had not been imposed, that that trade would have flourished alone in the midst of the general suffering? Such an assertion would be preposterous, and untenable. Those persons argued on a totally mistaken principle, who imagined that any diminution of taxation at that period would have relieved the country from any of those circumstances operating injuriously on our general trade, which were so notorious, that it was not necessary for him to repeat them. Why should the depression of the leather trade be ascribed to the tax, when there were other causes of so much more powerful operation to which it might, with so much more justice be attributed—the general cessation of demand, and the particular cessation of demand from government, in consequence of the termination of the war—a most important cause of the effect which had taken place? And besides the causes to which he had adverted, there was another cause for the diminution of the revenue proceeding from the duty on leather, arising out of the provisions of the act of 1812. Prior to that act, tanners were not allowed to perform any operation on hides while they were in progress of tanning. There were superfluous portion of the hides which they were not permitted to remove, and the consequence was, that they were compelled to pay the duties on those superfluous portions. The hardship of this restriction having been represented it was removed by the act of 1812. In consequence, the tanner performed a part of the office of the currier. He removed those superfluous portions of the hides, of course he paid no duty on them, and the natural consequence was, the reduction of the revenue to a certain extent. This
1196
practice had become very general. It It was calculated by some that it diminished the weight of the hides by a half; but if it diminished it by a third, or even by a sixth, it still had a very operative effect on the produce of the duty. Another cause of the depression of the trade was the substitution in many cases of iron for leather. It could in no way be proved that the depression had been occasioned by the tax. He would go farther, and prove that the trade was actually reviving. The augmentation of the revenue, arising from the leather duties for the last quarter was 17,000 l. If the House examined the returns of the revenue from January to January of each year, instead of from July to July, they would find a strong confirmation of what he had asserted. [The hon. gentleman here read the re-returns of each year from January to January, that for the year ending the5th Jan. 1817, was 596,000 l.; that for the year ending the 5th Jan. 1818, was 595,000 l. collected, and 611,000 l. charged, and in process of collection, all of which would certainly be collected.] The House had been told that evidence of the fact, that the leather trade was not flourishing, was to be found in the increase of the bankruptcies and the diminution of the licences. With respect to the first of those alleged proofs, he put it to the House whether it was not notorious that the general trade of the country, at the close of the war, was not speculative rather than solid? What was there in the tanning trade that was to exempt it from the general malady of the time—the love of over-trading? It was notorious that the tanners, like other traders, did enlarge their speculations, that like other traders they proceeded too rashly—and was it surprising that like other traders they should suffer in consequence. As to the reduction in the number of licences, that reduction had commenced when the trade was very flourishing, and the revenue derived from it at its height; and it arose from the circumstance of larger capitals being employed by some of the traders, by which the smaller capitalists were overwhelmed. One strong proof that the trade was not in the distressed state which had been represented, was to be found in the fact, that during the last ten years, the total amount of the failures in paying the duties levied upon it, did not exceed 2,000 l. He repeated, that the diminution of licences had arisen from circumstances wholly uncon.

1197
nected with the tax. A similar diminution, and proceeding from similar causes, had taken place in the licences for carrying on the malt trade.—But it had been said, that the tax pressed heavily on agriculture and the necessaries of life. He, for one, was always solicitous to lean as lightly on agriculture as possible. But it was well known, that since the imposition of the lax on leather, agriculture had been relieved from several very great burthens. As to the necessaries of life, he knew that it was popular to inveigh against any measure by which they were immediately affected but the arguments used in support of this declamation, were generally more specious than solid. They were something like those which went to throw the whole weight of taxation on the rich, as if the poor would not be as much affected by such a proceeding as if they originally participated in the burthen, He was not prepared to contend that it was wholly immaterial whence the resources of the state were derived; but if it was found inevitable to lay taxes on all the other necessaries of life, he felt justified in requiring to know on what ground exemption was claimed for this? It was a question that ought to be determined on general and national, and not on particular and local considerations. It was a question peculiarly interesting as connected with that of our finances. On all hands it was allowed, that it was the duty of parliament to maintain public credit by supporting the revenue, and yet here was a proposition for reducing the revenue, by those who had so recently maintained that the revenue was inadequate to the demands upon it. The welfare of the country depended on the maintenance of the public faith. If, one by one, the securities of the public creditor were to be withdrawn, there would soon be an end put in peace to that high character which England had supported during all the dangers and difficulties of the most arduous war. On all these grounds he would move as an amendment, "That the bill be read a second time on this day six months."
Lord Althorpperfectly agreed with the hon. gentleman, that the prosperity of the country depended on supporting the revenue; but he thought it a very material duty for that House to support the manufactures from which that revenue was derived. He had not heard any thing to convince him of the policy of continuing this tax; but, on the other hand, he was
1198
fully persuaded that it was very injurious to the manufacturers, and to the consumers. The noble lord then went briefly through some of the arguments which he had urged on introducing the subject to the House, and contended that the diminution in the number of hides purchased by tanners, was a convincing proof of the depression of their trade. The hon. gentleman had said that it was occasioned by the cessation of war; but that had not been the case in other wars. A review of all the details manifestly showed, that a repeal of the additional duty was indispensably necessary.
Lord Deerhurstdid not intend to trespass above a moment on the attention of the House, in treading afresh the track so beaten already, by a recapitulation of the arguments which had been, he hoped, successfully used by the noble lord who had originally moved the question, and by other honourable members who intended to vote as he did, for the repeal of the additional duties on leather. It was not his 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 present debate, he could not give a silent vote without stating, that the repeal of the additional duties on leather 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 foreign manufacturer in the market, which they were unable to do with the additional duties in force, as they at present stood. He should therefore vote for the repeal of the bill.
Mr. Hart Davis,amidst loud calls of question! said, he merely rose to explain the vote he should give that evening against the repeal, having formerly voted for the repeal of the tax [Hear, hear!]. During the holidays he had taken great pains to inquire into the state of the leather trade, and the result of his inquiries among the most intelligent men was, that the repeal called for was unnecessary. He held in his hand a letter from a very eminent tanner in Bristol, who had as thorough knowledge of his own interest as any other man in the trade.—Here the hon. gentleman read an extract from the letter, which set forth, that the town and neighbourhood of Bristol had not peti-

1199
tioned for any repeal, from a conviction that neither the manufacturer nor the consumer required it, and also because there was at present a visible alteration and improvement in their business: it farther stated, that the reduced amount of the duty paid by tanners for the last year or two, was not occasioned by a falling-off in the trade, but to the large manufactured stock on hands, from the extensive purchases made from South America after 1812, and which being laid in largely under favourable circumstances, answered for the years during which the reduction alluded to had occurred. At present, though the number of tanners had decreased, the trade was in an improving state. The decrease in the number of tanners was to be accounted for from the trade getting into the hands of greater capitalists. In consequence of the opening of new roads, the communication from the places where bark was obtained and the great towns, was greatly facilitated, and the trade had in consequence been getting more and more into great towns, and into the hands of great capitalists.—From having received better information, he did not think that the state of the finances of this country, at the present time, would allow the repeal of this tax; nor did he think, if it were repealed, that ministers could do without some other tax to an equal amount in place of it.
Mr. Methuensaid, he never knew so strong a feeling in the country against any tax, as there was against that which it was now proposed to repeal. He believed, that were they to search all England over, they would not be able to find one tanner in favour of the tax, except the tanner who had corresponded with the hon. gentleman who spoke last.
Lord Comptoncontended, that the argument used by an hon. gentleman, that no additional tax had been laid on the leather trade from the reign of queen Anne to the year 1812, was most unfortunate for his side of the question; for it proved the view which the different chancellors of the exchequer, who had 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. Marryatbegged to explain his vote, which, instead of being opposed to that he had formerly given, like that of the hon. member for Bristol, would be in perfect consistency with his former opi-
1200
nion. Respectable as might be the opinion of the hon. member, and of the tanner whom he had consulted, he could not help thinking that the House had a far better criterion to go by on a subject of this kind, and that was, the opinions of the tanners throughout the country, who, in hundreds of petitions, had laid their grievances before the House. It would have been as well, in viewing the subject, if the hon. gentleman near him (Mr. Grant), instead of dealing in general principles, had confined himself to particular facts. He would have then found, that the export of the unmanufactured article had doubled since the additional duty, while that of the manufactured had decreased to less than one-half what it had previously been. For the five years prior to 1812, the amount of unmanufactured export was 5,603,395 lbs. weight; for the five years since it was double; namely, 10,710,0731bs. During the same periods, the export of the manufactured article was, before 1812, 2,449,720lbs.; since, it was less than one-half that amount; namely, l,142,111 lbs. so that the operation of the act was to double the export of the raw material, and to reduce, in the proportion of one-half, that of the manufactured article. The foreign manufacturer was, therefore, thrown into other countries. Of course, a great home consumption must necessarily continue. But how was it carried on? Was it not obvious that the sum thus raised was drawn from one pocket into another? The poor, therefore, paid their part of it; and the rich were obliged, in the shape of poor-rates, to supply the means thus withdrawn from the lower classes, by an impolitic tax of tin's kind. The wealth of the manufacturer was the great source of the revenue, and by his industry and activity taxation was largely supplied for the interests of the state. This tax vitally affected the reproductive power of the manufacturing interest, and it only wanted three or four such injudicious imposts to cut up by the roots the resources of the state. He should, therefore, vote for the repeal.
Mr. Bensonsaid, that the hon. member for Bristol had urged as a reason for the new view which he took of the present question, a letter which he had received from a person extensively engaged in the tanning trade. The hon. gentleman had said, that the writer of that letter had a perfect knowledge of his own interest; and he thought he might say, that the

1201
hon, gentleman, in voting for the repeal of the tax, and then so suddenly voting against it, had also a perfect knowledge of his own interest [Cry of Order!]. From the inquiries which he had made into this business during the recess, his former opinion was confirmed. Had he had any doubt respecting it, from the evidence of the gentlemen brought forward by government in favour of the tax, he should have drawn the conclusion, that its repeal was essential to the interests of the country.
Mr. Hart Daviswished to ask the hon. gentleman, upon what grounds he had presumed to impute to him, the being actuated by improper motives in any vote which he should now give, or which he had ever given in that House.
The Speakerobserved, that the language of the hon. gentleman fairly bore the interpretation which had been put upon it. It was a language which, by the rules of the House, the hon. gentleman was not warranted in holding. The words made use of by the hon. gentleman certainly conveyed a personal reflexion against the hon. member for Bristol; and he should be wanting in his duty if he did not now declare his opinion on the subject.
Mr. Bensonsaid, that if by the language he had used, he had given any offence, it was very much regretted by him. Nothing could be farther from his intention than to convey any personal reflection against the hon. gentleman. All that he had meant to say, with respect to the conduct pursued by the hon. gentleman, was, that as when he gave his former vote, it was supposed we were on the eve of an election, this circumstance had had its influence. He did not mean any thing personal to the hon. gentleman; but that, with the view of standing well in the opinion of his constituents, he had made use of a little manoeuvre which all of them understood very well.
Mr. Lushingtonsaid, that the result of the inquiries he had made were very different from that expressed by some hon. gentlemen opposite. The sense of all the tanners whom he had consulted upon the subject was in favour of the tax. On an average of five years before the imposition of the tax, the drawback on the exportation of leather amounted to 52,000 l.; but if the consumption of leather since that period was less, and the exportation something more, was it fair to say that the tax was the cause of it? The con-
1202
sumption of leather, like that of every other article, had decreased from what it was in time of war; the diminution in the consumption of that article, ought not, therefore, to be charged as a consequence of the tax. It was generally known, that the leather tax was in a flourishing state at present. The tax was a productive one, and therefore ought not to be repealed upon unsupported statements. He was aware that it was the interest of the leather manufacturers to have the tax repealed, and he was not surprised that they should so earnestly persevere in petitioning for that purpose, as it would in fact be taking 160,000 l. from the public and putting it into their own pockets. But could that be advanced as a parliamentary reason for the measure? If the tax was repealed, some other tax must be laid upon the public to replace it, and which would perhaps be more severely felt than the present. The noble lord who introduced the question had used many observations in support of it, but none of them seemed to answer his purpose; at length he said, that the number of persons employed in the leather trade had considerably decreased since the imposition of the leather lax, which, according to the noble lord's statement, was a strong argument in favour of its being repealed. But allowing the number of manufacturers to have decreased, it was by no means calculated to support the proposed measure, if he could show to the House, that though the manufacturing of leather was placed in the hands of a fewer number of capitalists, yet the whole amount of the manufactured article had increased, and was still increasing. If this was found to be the case, it would turn out that the public, instead of being injured, would be benefited by the alteration; as the business, being carried on upon a large scale and by persons of large capital, leather would be sold at a price which smaller manufacturers could not afford to do. To prove that the whole amount of the manufactured article had increased, he would instance the case of Messrs. Brewil and Co. whose business had increased five or six fold within the last few years. If the noble lord on the other side of the House doubted that statement, he would read over the account. Here the hon. member read the account, which stated, that in 1809 the taxes paid by Messrs. Brewil and Co. amounted to 1,973 l., in 1817 they amounted to 5,937 l and in 1818,6,716 l. Thus, though there

1203
was a decrease in the number of manufacturers, the business of the smaller number was equal if not greater than the whole was when there were more persons carrying on the leather trade. The noble lord was also aware that leather had lately risen from 15 to 20 per cent, which showed that the trade was increasing. Besides, the tax did not fall on the tanner, but on the public. An excise officer marked the quantity of the manufactured article, after which the manufacturer was not called on for the tax until the leather was disposed of, so that in fact, it was no real inconvenience to the manufacturer. His hon. friend who had opened the debate, had entered so completely into the subject, that he did not think himself justified in going into it much farther. For a century back the leather trade had had no additional burthens, when almost all other trades had been loaded with them; and the trade was now in a very prosperous condition. The drawbacks that had been granted had given so much satisfaction, especially to curriers and shoemakers, that they had declared it to be their desire that the leather laws should undergo no alteration, and that the pretences under which a repeal of the additional duty was sought to be obtained were scandalously false.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that there were one or two things which had fallen from the hon. secretary to the treasury, which he could not suffer to pass unnoticed. He had argued, that if this tax was repealed, another to an equal amount must be imposed. This he denied. It was proper to repeal this tax, but it was not necessary to impose another instead of it. How had they proceeded on an occasion precisely similar? The House had been pleased two years ago to repeal a much larger though not a more oppressive tax. Till this tax was repealed, ministers found it impossible to reduce any of their estimates, but immediately after the repeal, they took back all the estimates, and made considerable reductions in many of them. Why might they not now imitate their former conduct? Why might they not now take a leaf out of their own book? Instead of taking an additional tax, let them go to the establishments, and take them down 180,000 l. He observed from the countenance of the hon. gentleman at the head of the woods and forests (Mr. Huskisson), that
1204
he thought this a very absurd proposal It was true the estimates were given in, but not one estimate had been absolutely voted. If the establishments were to be kept up at their present pitch, it might be necessary to substitute some other tax to the present; but there was a motion of a noble friend of his, which, if carried would have the effect of producing a much greater reduction of expense than 180,000 l. namely, a motion for a reduction of 5000 men from our military establishment. He was astonished that the hon. secretary to the treasury should cite the trade of Messrs. Brewil to prove the innoxious nature of the tax, when the tanners of the country, one and all, with the exception of the correspondent of the member for Bristol, said, if the tax was not repealed, their trade would be ruined. He was not a little astonished that this letter should have been given by the hon. gentleman as a reason for his change of opinion. He did not wish to impute any improper motives to the hon. gentleman—to impute such motives to any hon. member was certainly unparliamentary. But he confessed, at the same time, that it did surprise him that this letter should be given as a reason for a change of opinion [No, no! from Mr. Hart Davis]. What! did not the hon. gentleman give the letter of the tanner of Bristol as a reason for his change of opinion [No, no! from Mr. Hart Davis]?—Then, if he did not give that letter as a reason, he had given no reason at all for his change of opinion since his vote of the former night. He had used no argument—except the tanner's letter. But besides the tanners, was there not another class interested, namely, the consumers? "Don't listen to the tanners," said the secretary to the Treasury, "the tax does not fall on the trade, but on the consumer—the tanner has no occasion to complain; he can shift the tax from his shoulders to those of the consumer." But, might it not happen that both consumers and tanners had ground to complain? The consumers might complain, that their ability to consume was diminished—because, by diminishing their ability to consume, the tax abridged their comforts. From the consumers being less able to buy from the tanners, the tanners might also have reason to complain—the consumers were suffering from the diminution of their consumption, and the tanners from the diminution of their manu-

1205
facture. But his great objection against the tax was that it fell unequally—that it pressed most severely on those who were least able to bear it. Every tax on the necessaries of life had a direct tendency to increase the price of labour; and the effect of any tax like this, on a necessary of life, was immediately felt in the increased price of labour of all those who used it. While they were raising, therefore, this paltry sum of 180,000 l. with one hand, they were obliged to put their other hand in their pocket to pay it. But besides, all the objections applied to it which applied to a poll tax—a poll tax, indeed, it was, except that it was laid on the feet instead of the head [laugh]. Every person paid so much, let his occupation be what it might. The peasants, who wore the heaviest shoes, were the highest taxed by it. As the tax was laid on by weight, they paid twice as much as those who now heard him, who wore lighter shoes; coarse leather paying as much as fine. All the objections against a poll tax, therefore, applied to it. It was a poll tax of the worst kind, falling most burthen some on those who were least able to bear it. These were the grounds on which he had been an humble opponent of the measure in 1812, and these were the reasons on which he should support the present bill.
Mr. Huskissonwished to explain an error into which he was surprised the hon. and learned gentleman had fallen. He had said, that if this tax were taken off, the House might proceed as they had done before, without substituting any other. If the hon. and learned gentleman alluded to the property tax he was totally mistaken. There was an obvious distinction between a tax only for the duration of the war, and this tax which formed part of the Ways and Means, and was carried to the consolidated fund for the payment of the interest of the debt. This tax, he must inform the hon. and learned gentleman, formed no part of the supply of the year, and whether they were to abate 5,000 or 10,000 men, there would be no difference respecting it, as it was pledged for the payment of the interest of the loans granted on the faith of parliament. The whole amount of the permanent taxes carried to the consolidated fund were not equal to the charge on it; and therefore every body must see that the tax could not be repealed without the substitute of another. If there had been an excess of
1206
the consolidated fund above the charge, it might have been another matter; but there being no such excess they were bound in justice to the public creditor, to see that if they repealed this tax, they carried to the consolidated fund an equal amount of revenue. The hon. and learned gentleman was for having all taxes on necessaries of life done away with. The taxes on beer and malt were on necessaries for life—the whole of a large revenue of twenty millions a year, might be said, therefore to be raised on the necessaries of life. Was the hon. and learned gentleman, in pursuance of his fanciful theory, anxious that the whole of this large revenue should be done away? It had been said, that if the excise regulations, by which the trade was impeded, were repealed, the process of manufacturing might be improved, as it formerly was in France. But this argument did not apply; for it was not proposed to repeal all the tax on leather, but the additional tax only. The repeal of the additional tax would cause the same regulations to be continued, with less advantage to the public. He had read all the statements and listened to all the arguments which had been used against this tax, and he confessed that if the House had been in a condition to perform the agreeable duty of repealing taxes, the leather tax was not that of which he should be the first to recommend the repeal. It was obvious, and it had been argued by the hon. and learned gentleman, that the burthen of the tax did not fall on the tanners, but, as in the case of all consumable commodities, on the public, who were the consumers. Yet, if the hon. and learned gentleman read any of the statements which had been put forward on this subject, he would see that those who were most active in demanding this repeal, grounded their enmity to the tax upon this, that the tax could not be thrown from the manufacturers upon the consumers. The only circumstance which gave a show of an argument in favour of this bill, was, that the tax had been laid on almost immediately preceding a time of great pressure. But a much stronger statement might be made out in favour of the repeal of any other part of the excise duties. In the malt trade, for instance, since the additional duty had been repealed, there had been a diminution of the number of licences, an increase of the number of bankruptcies in the trade, and a diminution of the produce of the old duty, from

1207
three millions to less than 1,900,000 l. The noble member for Northampton had said, that he should vote for the repeal of this tax, as well as the salt tax, in order to compel the ministers to resort to the property tax, or some other direct tax. But he hoped the noble lord, before he consented to repeal this tax, would be confident that his new associates would consent to the imposition of some tax in place of it. In this case, as in the case of all commutations, the consumers would not be beneficed to the whole extent of the tax remitted. In consequence of the additional tax, there was an. additional quantity of capital employed in the leather trade, and till that capital was shifted to some other employments, the dealers would charge their customers with the interest of it. The right hon. gentleman then went over the various arguments that had been urged by the gentlemen opposite, and insisted, that on all the grounds, it was the interest of the tanner alone that was consulted. This was a trade that had suffered in common with all others in consequence of the return of peace, and, like all others, it was gradually reviving. But it was rather at the interest of the public that the House ought to look, than at that of individuals; and for the interest of the former he would say, do not consent to repeal this tax, as they will not have the benefit of it. He would maintain, that a greater injury could not be done to the public than by experiments of commuting taxes on articles of consumption, as they would not diminish the price to the consumer. There was no tax, in fact, that could be repealed with full benefit to the public, except direct taxes, and if any reduction could possibly be made, these should be the first that ought to meet consideration.
Lord Cowptonsaid, he had not pledged himself to support the repeal of the salt tax; but in general he preferred direct to indirect taxation.
The question being put, "That the bill be now read a second time," the House divided: Ayes, 130. Noes, 136. The second reading of the bill was consequently put off for six months.

PARDONS UNDER THE GREAT SEAL.
Mr. F. Douglassaid, that as he understood no opposition would be made to his motion for leave to bring in a bill to diminish the fees on Pardons under the Great Seal, he should make only a few observa-
1208
tions. The amount of the fees to be paid on all such pardons was much greater than those who had not taken the trouble to inquire into the subject could probably imagine. They amounted to 110 l. on each pardon. It was obvious, that the great majority of those who received pardons, could not pay this expense, and the House might be curious to know how the difficulty had been got over. In fact, very few of those to whom mercy was extended, obtained this complete pardon, which alone could make them competent witnesses in a court of justice. There had been only twelve pardons during the last seven years; and he was convinced, that in consequence, great impediments had been thrown in the way of public justice. He could not better illustrate this than by stating the circumstance which first called his attention to the subject. In the district of Oxfordshire with which he was connected, some of the worst sort of crimes had been committed for some time with impunity, and there was at last a prospect of bringing the perpetrators to punishment by means of the evidence of a man who had formerly been convited of a felony. The act of the 31st of the king, which made persons who had been convicted of larcenies competent witnesses did not apply to felonies, and it was necessary to sue out the pardon under the great seal. The parties who conducted the prosecution were, however, astonished, when they found that the expense of this pardon would be 110 l. in addition to the other heavy expenses which they were obliged to incur, and they were almost deterred from pursuing their object finally, they did proceed, and were thus subjected to a considerable burthen. The hon. member observed, that if there were any thing in the case or character of a person convicted which rendered it proper to extend to him the mercy of the Crown by the grant of a pardon, it was too much to say that such person should be compelled to pay the expense which at present attached to such a grant. To remove this evil was the object of the bill which he meant to bring forward. He did not think it proper to extend the provisions of the act of the 31 st of the king to felons, and therefore he felt the necessity of another course of proceeding, in order to guard against the mischief, on the one hand, of allowing the officers of the Crown to derive pecuniary benefit from the extension of the royal mercy; and on the

1209
other, to provide that persons should not be exempted from that mercy, merely because they had no pecuniary means. The hon. member concluded with moving, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for diminishing the Expense of Pardons under the Great Seal."
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that he did not mean to oppose the motion; but from what the hon. member had stated, he felt it necessary to submit a few observations. The patents for pardon, the object of which was to restore convicts to their civil rights, were patents under the great seal, which were, in fact, subject to no more expense than was incurred for all other patents under the same seal, and that expense was necessary for purposes easily to be explained. One part of this expense was required to reward the clerks in office, for their trouble in doing the business connected with those patents; another to pay the stamp duties imposed by the legislature. Those duties on each patent amounted in one office to 6l., and in another to 30 l. The portion of the sum received for the warrant of pardon in the secretary of state's office was invested in what was called the Fee Fund, out of which the clerks engaged in this branch of the business of that office, and the law officers of the Crown, were rewarded for their trouble. There was also a part of the expense incurred for a patent paid into the privy seal office. But it should be understood, that the greater part, if not the whole of the expense stated by the hon. member independently of the stamp duties, was paid for duty actually done in the several offices to which he had alluded. The propriety of providing a remuneration for such trouble, or performance of duty, was, indeed, felt by the Crown itself; for whenever it was found absolutely necessary to pardon convicts, with a view to render them competent witnesses for promoting the ends of justice, the expense of such pardons was paid by the Crown itself. But where a pardon was granted from favour—he did not mean from improper favour, but through peculiar circumstances connected with the case or character of the individuals—it was proper, he submitted that the expense incurred by such pardon should be defrayed by that person, and that the clerks in the several offices should not be called upon to do business for nothing. For although those clerks might, in such cases, be said to have little
1210
else to transact than mere matters of form, requiring no talent, still their time was employed, and for such employment they were, in justice entitled to remuneration. It was known that some clerks in the secretary of state's office, as well as the clerk in the attorney-general's office, reckoned upon the fees resulting from patents as a part of their salaries for labour actually performed. Whatever might be done upon this subject, he thought that a distinction ought to be made with respect to pardons granted on patents obtained through special grace or favour. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded with observing, that the hon. mover had not been able to make out any case in which pardons were ever made a matter of traffic, or that a pardon was ever granted from any consideration of official emolument.
Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

LIBEL LAW.
Lord Erskinesaid, he had last session moved for returns of the names of persons arrested and held to bail for libel, before trial; some of those returns had been made, but the whole had not yet been presented. It was his intention to follow up these returns by a motion or bill, if no proposition on the subject should be brought forward by a noble earl (Grey) who had already called the attention of their lordships to the subject. With regard to the object for which the returns were moved, he believed that it was now to be understood that arrest before trial for libel was the practice of some inferior magistrates. The law, however, ought not to be allowed to remain in a state of uncertainty on this point. It was not his wish to encourage any licentiousness of the press, but it appeared to him necessary to remove all doubt on this question. He should not, however, trouble their lordships with any proposition on the subject, until the noble earl to whom be had alluded came to town.