in rising to submit a motion to the House for a repeal of the duties affecting the manufacture of leather, expressed his apprehensions lest ho might be considered too obstrusive in thus bringing forward two motions of such importance, in the course of the same week. With respect to the present, it might, perhaps, be said, that his only reason for submitting it to the House, was the particular interest which his own immediate constituents felt in the question; and he confessed, that were it not for that connexion, he would not be the member to appear foremost on the occasion; but he could with sincerity assure the House, that, feeling as he did respecting it, he would most gladly have concurred with any other member in promoting a measure of such vast importance to the general interests of the country. He feared lest many, considering only the common uses to which leather was applied, and its great comparative cheapness, might treat the question with an air of ridicule, or at least of levity; but who could deny the importance attached to the question, on reflecting that it related to one of the staple manufacturers of the country, and the number of persons—not less than 500,000—employed in it? The manufacture of leather was one in which this country particularly excelled; so much so, that at any thing like an equality of price, our manufacturers could never dread competitors in any foreign market; and with respect to the persons employed, the House should consider not merely their numbers but their description, for many who were incapable, from accidents to obtain a livelihood in any other tradecould work in leather manufactories—as a proof of which, he need only refer the House to a well-known fact, of a Mr. Brunei], an ingenious friend of his, having established a manufactory of shoes, in which none were employed but such as had lost a limb in the service of their country. The leather trade, however, was at present in a state of most extreme depression, and in those parts of the country which were principally concerned in it, hundreds of journeymen were thrown on their parishes not having any means of providing a subsistence. If, then, he could prove that the state of distress resulted from the operation of the tax and would terminate with its removal, and also that the present mode of collecting the tax was calculated to increase the grievance manifold, he conceived that he should have made out a case sufficient to induce the House to concur with him in effecting its total repeal—The first point would, he felt, be extremely difficult of proof; for while every trade and every branch of commerce laboured under a general depression, it would be hard to point out the cause of a particular distress. The papers, however, that were laid on the table, would show the progressive increase of the produce of the original tax previous to the increased duty in 1812 in consequence of a progressive increase of home consumption and foreign export, and also point out the continued diminution of the produce since doubling the tax. The amount of the tax in 1802, was 251,3912.; in 1811, it increased to 307,416.; but the falling off in the year 1816, was no less than 30,0002. This falling off arose, not from the decrease of the home consumption, but from a cessation of the army contracts, and a diminution of the foreign exports. The army contracts could not of course, be restored; but essential relief would be afforded by encouraging exportation, It had been represented to him that if the duties were removed, tanned leather would fall 6d. in the pound, which would cause a reduction in the price of shoes for exportation, of one shilling a pair, and he understood from several persons in the trade, that if they could lower their shoes one shilling a pair, they could easily command a sale in the foreign market. All this of course depended on the accuracy of the statements that had been made to him, and he had every reason to believe them perfectly correct. This would compensate for the loss of the army contracts, and relieve the trade from its present depression.—He would next refer to the most important part of the question, which was the mode of collecting the tax. It was a principle of taxation, that those taxes should be preferred, which brought most into the exchequer with the least possible injury to the contributor, while those which sensibly depressed or ruined a trade, should be altogether rejected.—Such he represented to be the effects of the present system, which deprived the leather trade of four times as much as input into the exchequer, caused a waste of time and capital to the tanners and curriers, and, by its injurious operation, prevented the complete tanning of the leather. The mode was this—after it had undergone the process of tanning the excise officer came to collect the duty and imprinted his stamp upon the leather. The tanner was not allowed to curry his own leather, because in the process of currying some of the surface was perhaps to be cut off, and the appearance of the hide so altered, that it would be impossible to distinguish whether it had paid the duty or not. This was the first restriction, and was imposed as early as in the reign of queen Anne, but by means of it much time was lost, and as the process of currying could not be undergone, unless the hide were wet through, this alternate wetting and drying injured the material extremely; besides, as the leather was not wetted in tan-holes, but in plain water much of the vegetable principle must be extracted from it, and the water in which it was soaked was generally as strongly impregnated with it, as that in the original tan-hole. To obviate this injury to the leather a plan had been suggested of stamping the raw hides; but as hides, when taken out of the lime were not capable of retaining the stamp, he did not think such a plan practicable—and that, in short, the present restriction must be continued, or the duty altogether given up. The noble lord then entered into a detailed statement of the quantities of leather that had been stamped since the year 1811 to the present time, and showed that the quantity in the last year was less than that in 1811, by 2,22,000 pounds of leather; and the decrease in the present year would, he thought, be little short of 5,600,000 pounds—making a loss to the revenue of 50,000l. or 60,000l. a year. This country, he observed, was supported altogether by the wealth and prosperity of her manufacturers and it became the government to exercise an enlightned policy towards them. The increase of public wealth should bear some proportion (unfortunately it must necessarily be a small one) to the increase of the public debt; but this could not be expected while one of the staple manufactures was depressed by a severe system of taxation. The leather trade was one very susceptible of improvement from every branch of science, and particularly from chemistry; but it was unhappily a well known fact, that the improvements in that had been less within the last century than those of any other in the country. The House must be well aware, that such a circumstance was not to he attributed to any want of intelligence in those who were engaged in that trade, but was occasioned solely by the severe restrictions that so long oppressed it. These he trusted, the House would enable him to remove, and for that purpose he moved " That leave be given to bring in a bill to repeal the duties on leather.

in rising to second the motion, disclaimed any desire of repealing all the duties on leather, but merely the present tax as now collected. It would be a serious evil in the present embarrassed state of our finances to take off a tax of 600,000l. a-year, without having a fair chance of reimbursing the treasury to a nearly equal amount; but this, he thought, might be effected by giving an additional stimulus to exportation. The serious grievance which in the present system called for correction was, the mode adopted for collecting the tax. Indeed, generally speaking, the greatest evil in finance was the mode of collecting of the revenues; for among the persons appointed for that purpose there existed an esprit de corps, which induced them, at all events, to raise as much as possible, that they might seem useful to the country and government, no matter how injurious those exactions or their system might be to the real interests of the state. To him the restrictions now affecting the leather trade, appeared extremely injurious, for the expenses of collecting the duties were confessed by the chancellor of the exchequer to be as much as the duties themselves. Those duties might perhaps amount to 600,000l. and he thought that there would be no difficulty of devising some means of collecting that, or nearly that amount, without any vexation or distress to the trade. The mode of stamping hides might be abolished. Every one knew that a hide was not like a silk handkerchief—that it could not be put into a person's pocket—in short, that it was an article very difficult to smuggle. It could not be carried into and out of a tan-yard without being easily detected; and if a duty of three shillings were imposed upon every hide taken out of a tan-yard, it would be little worth a tanner's while to run the risk of even a trifling penalty, much less one of 20l. or 30l. in attempting to smuggle them. He did not consider three shillings a hide too large a duty; but even at two shillings, it would nearly produce the amount of the present tax. The quantity of British hides annually tanned, was about 2,600,000, the foreign 900,000 or a million. These, at two shillings a hide, gave 300,000l. He had been informed, that the quality of the South American hides was such, as would enable them to bear a small import duty, which, at two shillings a hide would produce nearly 200,000l. making altogether 500,000l. And thus, at a small sacrifice, they would be freed from all the present vexatious restrictions, and the tanner might then curry his own hide, if he pleased [a laugh]. This would be a boon that would give an additional spur to their industry: and by the general wealth and comfort it would diffuse, would far more than counterbalance the 200,000l. lost by the exchequer. But he did not suppose that all this would be lost. Besides the board of excise, the chancellor of the exchequer was liable to be imposed upon by other sources of misinformation—he meant the persons who were largely employed in the manufacture. In all taxes of this sort, it became desirable, for the purposes of cheap collection, that the trade should be in few hands; and he understood that the proprietors of the large tan-yards rather preferred the present mode of levying the tax, because it tended to prevent the opening of the trade to other persons. He understood that the whole number of tanners in the kingdom, including those of London, was not more than 1,700. But the mode of levying the tax which he recommended would probably greatly increase that number; so that instead of a few large tanners enjoying a kind of monopoly, and making a great deal of money, their numbers would be doubled, which would be far more conducive both to individual and national prosperity.

said, that the question had been taken up by the noble lord and the hon. gentleman opposite, on the principle of local interests; but they had argued it fairly, and with some view to the general good. He, however, would have preferred a motion for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the state of the laws affecting the manufacture of and duties upon leather, and such a motion he would himself propose; for when persons felt themselves oppressed, and claimed the interference of the House, it was right that the facts should be inquired into, and the grievances remedied. The hon. member had spoken of the great importance to this country of preserving so large a revenue, after the immense sacrifice that had been already made, and at the same time seemed prepared with a plan for removing the restrictions and reimbursing the treasury.—He would not then inquire whether the plan was practicable or not; but such a one had been formerly proposed in a committee on the leather duties, and the difficulties then complained of were deemed insuperable. The noble lord had represented the leather trade as particularly depressed; but there was no other branch of the manufactures of the country more liable to suffer from the revulsion of prices occasioned by the return of peace. The encouragement it received during the war from the government contracts was very great;and it might be remembered that when, in 1812, the increased duty was proposed, the chief objection was, that the government would have to pay one-third of it. The best estimate, however, that he could collect, of the amount paid annually by government for leather contracts, was about 30,0001.; which, when distributed throughout the trade, must infuse great life and activity. When the, noble lord attributed to the increased duty the distresses of the trade, he seemed to have forgotten, that, with the increase of duty, no new restrictions were imposed, but that they had all existed ever since the time of queen Anne. The right hon. gentleman then entered into a detailed statement of the produce of the tax, since that period to the present, to prove that no reduction had taken place to the amount stated by lord Althorp. In the eight years ending in 1754, the average amount of the tax at 1½d. a pound, was 168,2001. It had risen to double that in the year 1812; and the tax being then doubled, its produce in every year since was, on an average, double its former amount, although the imports from the river De la Plata of hides, which formerly averaged 2,600,000 annually, had, since the commencement of the civil war in South America, fallen to 950,000. The noble lord had in his statement omitted a most important part of his duty. He had said not a word on the effect of the duties on the consumer in general. It would be, however, some satisfaction to the House to learn, that the prices of leather were lower than before the imposition of the double duty in 1812. The price of strong leather, in 1811, was 19½d.. a pound, it is now 16½d. being a depression of 3d. in the pound. He was aware of the objection that might here be made to this statement, namely, that this great depression of prices was a ruinous loss to the tanner. But let the House consider that the depression was caused by an equal one in bark and in the raw material. Bark was, in 1811, 331. a load: in 1813 it was 361.: while, in 1816, it was from 201. to 241. The raw hides were, in 1811,4½d. per pound, and now were only 2d. or 3d. He thought, however, that parliament ought to examine into the distresses of the leather traders, and hear their allegations. It was his object to effect as great a diminution of their burthens as was consistent with the interests of the country. If, however, to avoid or remove an inconvenience, they were to repeal half their taxes, it would disturb the general system of finance, destroy the revenue of the country, and subject public affairs to a total derangement. He should therefore oppose the motion of the noble lord, and move, as an amendment, " That a select committee be appointed to consider of the State of the laws relating to the manufacture of and duties upon leather; and that they do report the same, with their observations thereupon, to the House."

conceived, that the revenue would not be a loser, by giving up the tax upon leather, and commented on the remarks made by the chancellor of the exchequer on the decreased price of that article. The decrease of price could be occasioned only by an increase of supply, or a diminution of demand. Now, it was well known that there was no increase of supply, consequently whatever fall had taken place in price, must be attributed, not to a fall in the price of the materials, but to a diminution of demand and consumption. A deputation from the trade had some time since waited on the chancellor of the exchequer, to obtain the removal of the restrictions, and stated to him, that they suffered to the amount of four times the sum that found its way to the treasury. The right hon. gentleman acknowledged, that it might be ten times the sum, so that the tax would be then collected at the rate of 1,000l. per cent.; but even allowing it to be only four times it was a system that should be amended. It might be said by some gentlemen, that the trade did not thereby suffer a pecuniary injury, but what other injury could they suffer? Were not a waste of time, S a waste of materials, and the deterioration of their leather, pecuniary injuries? The noble lord then showed by a reference to the amount of the property tax, that the inhabitants of this country paid to government, directly or indirectly, one-fourth of their income, and thence concluded, that if the leather trade sustained an unnecessary loss of two millions, by the mode of collecting the duties, the government must thereby lose 500,000l. His objections to the tax were these: it was most expensive in its mode of collection; it fell on the poor; it pressed on the agricultural interests, a circumstance at all times to be lamented, but particularly at the present period; and it operated partially and locally. To inquire into these, the chancellor of the exchequer had proposed a committee. Such a proposition seemed somewhat unaccountable from him who had two nights ago objected to a committee, in consequence of the lateness of the session. The right hon. gentleman observed, that other trades, as well as this, were oppressed at present. The question then was, whether the taking off the restrictions complained of, would not relieve it, by increasing the consumption of the article manufactured. With respect to the accounts which the right hon. gentleman had produced, and from which it would appear that the leather trade had not decreased, he certainly conceived that they were inaccurate. When gentlemen considered the numerous petitions, complaining of the distressed state of the trade. which were lying on their table; when they were told that large bodies of workmen were thrown out of employment, and obliged to apply to the work-house for relief—they could not suppose that the trade was in a flourishing state. He was most anxious to support the finances of the country; and he was convinced, that the chancellor of the exchequer would enrich the revenue, instead of impoverishing it, by abolishing the restrictions which formed so odious a part of the machinery of the tax. In addition to the other objections which he had stated against a committee, he must observe, considering the great importance of the trade, that whatever was done should be done immediately. Now, if the subject were considered in a committee, it would take up a great deal of time, and probably the question would not be decided in the course of the present session.

said, he never had stated, either in that House or elsewhere, what the pecuniary effects of the collection of the tax were. Some gentlemen, however, having told him, that they were informed by others, that the expense of collection was four times the amount of the tax, he had observed," You might as well say ten times." He did not state this as an opinion. The observation was only made to meet their vague mode of argument.

having presented a petition against the leather tax from a considerable body of his constituents, took that opportunity of stating his sentiments to the House. The petitioners did not object so much to the tax itself, as to the manner in which it was collected. If it could be collected in any way consistent with the interest of their trade, they would not oppose it. He agreed with the right hon. gentleman that a subject of this nature, which was connected with a great source of revenue, ought to be maturely considered; particularly when; with every attention to economy, it would be found extremely difficult to make the receipt and expenditure of the country meet. But, on the other hand, when so great a trade was in a state of decay, when a large number of persons were thrown out of employment, it was absolutely necessary that some step should be taken to remedy the evil. If the noble lord pressed his motion, he would certainly vote for it; but, at the same time, he conceived that something might be done, by appointing a committee, as suggested by the chancellor of the exchequer. They had already done something to relieve the lower order of farmers, he trusted they would now do something advantageous for the lower orders of the people in general. The best boon would be that which was now proposed. If they went into a committee, means might be devised to get rid of the restrictions, and not only to preserve the present revenue, but to insure a greater than the tax now produced.

was of opinion, that no course was so proper as that of submitting the subject to the consideration of a committee, since the objections were raised rather against the restrictions than against the tax itself. The noble lord near him had said, he was aware of the financial difficulties which the country laboured under, and stated that if this tax, which produced 600,000l. per annum, were given up, it would be the means of benefiting the revenue. Now really this point alone deserved the serious consideration of a committee. Out of doors opinions varied very much on this question. One person, a very clever man, though in an humble rank of life, had written to him " that, comparing the exigencies of the state and the necessity of raising a large revenue, with the inconvenience felt from the restrictions, he thought they should be continued;" while another person had addressed him, begging, by all means, that he would vote for a repeal of the tax. The noble lord required the House to refuse the committee, because it would produce a delay that must prove ruinous to the trade. Now the tax had been four years in existence, and, he contended, that no ill effects had resulted from it. His wish was, that a committee should meet.

supported the proposition for a committee. He was not aware, if the original motion was agreed to, and the tax taken off altogether, that the public would be enabled to walk in cheaper boots or shoes. This was a point, which should, he conceived, be inquired into, before the tax was repealed.

differed from the opinion of the hon. baronet. He had no doubt that by repealing the tax the price of leather would be much less. He should be satisfied with the appointment of a committee, but if the noble lord pressed his motion to a division, he should certainly vote for it.

said, that, in levying duties, as little obstruction as possible should be given to manufactures and commerce. But the act by which the leather tax was imposed proceeded on a different principle. It seemed as if the means of obstruction were sedulously sought out by those who framed it. There were distinctions in the law which he did not understand. Three-pence per pound was the duty paid on the generality of hides; but there were other sorts of leather which the manufacturer could not tan without paying 1s. per pound. Our fishermen in the Greenland Seas caught great numbers of sea-horses: they brought home their oil and hides: the hides were very thick and rough, like the bark of an oak-tree, and the tanner was very glad to put them in his pits, but he was obliged to pay a duty of 1s. per pound for them. If this species of hide could be tanned at the ordinary duty of 3d. per pound, it would be very much sought after. Again the tanner was not admitted to tan the skin of an ass, nor the skin of a bear, of which so many could be furnished from the North Seas, without paying this increased duty of 1s. per pound. He should like, therefore, to go into a committee, where the whole of this system could be properly explained. He was sure the tanner would be very glad to pay his duty before he placed the hides in his pit. By this means he would escape the dangerous and unpleasant visit of the exciseman, and would be saved the expense of paying for the refuse leather; for that part of the hide which, when it was dressed, was utterly useless. He did not wish that the whole tax should be taken off, nor did the tanners themselves demand it. Many intelligent men amongst them requested that the restrictions should be examined, and that their case should undergo investigation. They represented it to the board of excise, but had received no answer. Those gentlemen were not very quick in answering complaints. Their answer generally came in the shape of an exciseman, who, perhaps, caught hold of their hides. He hoped the committee would be appointed, and that a bill, founded on their report, would be brought in during the present session.

conceived, that, by removing the restrictions and giving an increased spur to trade, much good would be effected, both to the individuals immediately interested, and to the country in general. With respect to the proposition for a committee, he should merely observe, that a similar course was adopted in 1813, and the evidence was against the continuance of those restrictions. He therefore thought, that by referring to the report drawn up on that occasion, they would derive all the information which could be hoped for from the formation of a new committee. He was perhaps a little influenced in what he said by the instructions of his constituents; and though no friend to the doctrine of instructions, yet where local interests were concerned, he thought they ought to be attended to. His object in supporting the property tax had been, that other taxes might be repealed, and he should now support the present motion.

said, he should support the amendment, because he thought that in a committee the question would be much narrowed. He hoped every assistance would be given to the leather manufacturers, consistently with the safety of the revenue.

said, he had perused the report of the former committee, with great attention, and it appeared to him that it clearly proved the impropriety of the restrictions. He could not therefore conceive, what new light could be thrown on this exhausted subject by the appointment of another committee. If the chancellor of the exchequer could not state distinctly to them, that, in the committee, he intended to advance certain reasons which induced him to give up those restrictions which he had supported in 1813, it was quite useless to move for it. It had been said, that since the additional tax the trade had increased. This he denied. On an average of three years preceding the imposition of the tax, the trade appeared to be constantly increasing. On an average of three years, since the tax, it appeared to be regularly decreasing. Particular circumstances might account for the decrease, in one year: but the tax alone could be supposed to effect a regular decrease for three years. The restrictions operated to destroy the trade—they operated to prevent the tanner from currying the leather—they operated to deteriorate the quality of the manufacture. If they had the effect of raising the price, as was the fact in a much greater proportion than the tax itself would do, and if they also impaired the manufacture, was it at all possible that the trade could flourish? It might have increased immediately after the passing of the act; but what would have been its prosperity, if those restrictions had never been proposed? This measure had an operation on other branches of industry. If, in consequence of those restrictions, individuals were prevented from importing hides from Buenos Ayres, would not a considerable branch of the commerce of this country be injured? It was a tax also that weighed heavily on the agriculturalist. Under all these circumstances, he thought the House should accede to the motion of the noble lord, unless the chancellor of the exchequer would state, that, in the committee he meant to abandon the restrictions. He should also like to hear the right hon. gentleman's opinion of the plan touched upon by the hon. member for Norwich.

said, it would be his object, in the committee to procure all the information that could be obtained, on the practicability of raising a revenue on hides, without those restrictions. He could not give any opinion on the plan of the hon. member for Norwich, as he had not had time to consider his suggestion.

said, that he and his noble friend who made the present motion were members of the committee which sat for a whole month in the year 1813. The result of their inquiry was, that no mode could be adopted for the collection of this tax, without the restrictions. The chancellor of the exchequer, however, advised them to go into another committee. Now what had they to inquire into? Surely not into the ruinous state of the trade, for that was perfectly notorious. The inquiry then must be, " Can the revenue be collected without those vexatious restrictions?" Who were they to examine on that point? The board of excise and the officers under them—persons with whom the right hon. gentleman was in a state of constant communication. From the very nature of the connection between the right hon. gentleman and those individuals, no doubt could be entertained, that, if they were acquainted with any means of collecting this branch of the revenue without the restrictions they would have acquainted him with it. If the right hon. gentleman knew of any such plan, he supposed, that he would at once state it to the House, instead of moving for a committee. He therefore believed, that, in proposing a committee, his real object was, not the consideration of the subject, but for the purpose of lulling the petitioners into security, that he might take advantage, in that House, of their relaxed exertions. He conceived that they ought to proceed on the report of the former committee, which was then before them. It was not drawn up hastily, for it comprised 150 folio pages on this important question. All the information that could be desired was contained in it, and feeling that nothing new could be developed before another committee, he trusted the House would agree to the motion of his noble friend.

said, that the former committee had not been called upon to give any opinion, but merely to report the evidence to the House. From the returns which had been laid before parliament, it was quite clear that, since the duty had been doubled, the revenue had increased in equal proportion. He considered, therefore, that as a matter of finance, this tax, which produced no less than 650,000l. a year, deserved the most serious consideration of the House. It was a tax that had existed for a great number of years, and was most impartially distributed over the whole community. He thought that the statement which the noble lord had made, with respect to the difficulties under which the manufacturer laboured, had been a little exaggerated. From his own inquiries on the subject (and he had taken some pains to arrive at the truth) he did not believe that the distress was so great. Since the tax was increased, the price of hides had fallen at least 25 per cent., and he was not aware that the public in general had any real ground for complaint. He should, therefore, support the amendment of his right hon. friend.

said, he should vote for the original motion.

was not surprised at the depressed state of the tanning trade in England, when he found that the export of tanned leather from Great Britain to Ireland, in the year 1813, amounted to 216,000l. official value, while, in the last year, it was only 66,0001., being only onethird of what it was three years ago. The House was already in possession of all the information that could be given on the subject; and, for this reason, he felt himself bound to vote for the original question.

said, that nothing could be more ruinous than the existing taxes on leather. The necessity of giving relief was clearly admitted by the chancellor of the exchequer, by the amendment which he had proposed; the only difference of opinion was as to the best mode that ought to be adopted. He thought that they could not altogether abandon so large a portion of the revenue, but they should take off some of the restrictions, which were more burthensome to the manufacturer than the tax itself. In that part of the country which he represented, several large premises had been deserted, and the master manufacturers found their capitals wasting away. Upon the whole, he rather inclined to the motion of the noble lord, and should, therefore, sit down with giving it his support.

rose amidst general cries of question. As soon as order was restored, he begged to explain the reasons which had induced him to change his opinion, and to vote for the amendment. He certainly gave credit to the right hon. gentleman, that he proposed a committee with the view of seeing whether he could not afford some relief to the manufacturer; and he thought the committee would not have occasion to sit long. He should, therefore, give his support to the measure which the right hon. gentleman recommended to the House.

was sure that his hon. friend who had just spoken was not influenced by the slightest partiality toward one side or the other; and as he reposed the utmost confidence in his judgment on this question, he should certainly vote for the amendment.

begged to offer a few words. He was quite sure it had been proved to the satisfaction of the former committee, that the trade was in a most ruinous state, and, from all that he had heard on the subject, he "was afraid that its distresses had been considerably increased. It was not the repeal of the duties alone that would afford relief to the manufacturer; the restrictions prevented him from making a good article. In time of peace government should give every support to trade; and with respect to the particular branch which was then before the House, he thought that no real good could be effected, unless they adopted the motion of the noble lord.

said, he would support the noble lord's motion; and if that were lost, he would support the motion of the chancellor of the exchequer.

said, that if the property tax had been continued, it would have enabled the chancellor of the exchequer to repeal the tax on leather; but, under the present circumstances of the country, he did not think that government ought to abandon so large a portion of our income.

rose to reply. He said, he felt it incumbent on him to state the reasons which would induce him to persist in his motion. It appeared to him, that the arguments which the hon. member for Norwich had advanced in support of the amendment were founded in mistake. He had stated, that if gentlemen on that side of the House insisted on a division, they would probably lose both the bill and the committee: but this was quite impossible. If leave were given to bring in a bill, a committee might still be appointed. In the last committee, they had examined whether the tax could be collected in any other way, and the surveyor of excise was of opinion that it could not be taken on the raw hides. If the committee was appointed, and proceeded in the manner it did formerly, the whole discussion would be repeated. The persons concerned in the leather trade would only be satisfied by a repeal of the taxes affecting them. He would certainly take the sense of the House upon his motion.

put the two cases, of proceeding by a committee of inquiry, or of immediately agreeing to the introduction of a bill for a repeal of the leather taxes; and stated the advantages of the latter course without renouncing the former. There never was a subject more deserving of inquiry by a committee, the labours of which he was sure would result in discovering and recommending a substitute for yielding the half million raised in one of the most impolitic and objectionable ways that ever a finance minister re- sorted to. The appointment of a committee, however, did not preclude the bringing in of the bill, nor could the progress of its labours in the least impede the discussions that a bill would lead to. He called upon the gentlemen who agreed to the committee, to observe consistency, and to allow the same course to be pursued that was suggested in the case of the insolvent debtors' bill. It was at first proposed to bring in a bill for repealing the insolvent debtors' act; a committee of inquiry was, upon that occasion, proposed, and the discussion terminated with granting leave to bring in the bill, and appointing a committee, which should make its inquiries in the mean time. He claimed consistency from those who recommended such a mode of proceeding. The urgency of the measure was as great, and no objections existed in the one case that did not exist in the other. The leather tax was so objectionable, both from the restrictions which were necessary for levying it, and from the inequality which attended its distribution, that no other way of collecting the same extent of revenue could be devised which would not be an improvement.

The question was then loudly called for, and the House divided, when there appeared—

A committee was accordingly appointed, in pursuance of the suggestion of the chancellor of the exchequer.

The marquis of Tavistock, Mr. Lambton, Mr.Atherley, and lord Rancliffe paired off in favour of lord Althorp's motion. Sir Francis Burdett, Mr. J. Wharton, and Mr. R. G. Long, were shut out upon the division.