A HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE 



goat's 4$. per dozen, sheep from 2s. 7,d. to 

 I J. bd. The collection of such a tax must have 

 been tiresome and in many cases quite unre- 

 munerative, the excise officers having to visit 

 every yard and factory, stamping the finished 

 goods and collecting the custom dues. The 

 glovers and parchment makers also came within 

 the scope of the Act, which provided for a 

 drawback or repayment of the whole of the duty 

 in case of the goods being sold for export. This 

 drawback was much objected to by boot manu- 

 facturers, who complained that English leather 

 could be bought more cheaply abroad than in the 

 country of its production, and that as a conse- 

 quence their tradesufFered from unfair competition. 



Northampton seems to have been at once 

 affected. On 2 December, i8i2, 'The Tan- 

 ners, Curriers, and Shoe Manufacturers are 

 requested to meet at the Black Boy Inn to 

 procure a repeal of the additional tax on leather 

 laid in the last session of Parliament.' ' Six 

 months later a further meeting was held with 

 the same object in view, and to thank 'the Right 

 Honourable Lord Viscount Althorpe and Wm. 

 Ralph Cartwright, Esq., the members in Parlia- 

 ment for this county, and the Right Honourable 

 Earl Compton and William Hanbury, Esq., the 

 Members for the Town, for their great attention 

 and support to a Bill to repeal the additional Tax 

 on Leather, the General Impolicy of which, as 

 well as its injurious effects upon the Leather 

 Trade were incontrovertibly proved before a 

 Committee of the House of Commons.'^ No 

 relief having been effected, the agitation re- 

 commenced in i8i6, and on 30 March a 

 meeting of tanners, curriers, and shoe manufac- 

 turers, was again held in Northampton with a 

 view to petitioning Parliament, and in April it 

 was decided that a committee be appointed from 

 the county to present such a petition. In May 

 the mayor of the borough (Wm. Brown, Esq.), 

 presided at a town's meeting, and the former 

 resolution was affirmed. In May, i8i6. Lord 

 Althorpe, in the House of Commons, moved for 

 leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the tax. The 

 Chancellor of the Exchequer moved an amend- 

 ment to the effect that a committee be appointed 

 to consider whether the tax might not be 

 rendered productive without the restrictions com- 

 plained of. The amendment was carried by 121 

 to 86. The trade, however, had to wait a further 

 fourteen years before the obnoxious tax was 

 repealed. 



From the Poll Book of 1820 we learn that 

 there were five tanneries in Northampton owned 

 and situated as follows : 



Geo. Blackabee, South Quarter. 

 Wm. Britten, Bridge Street. 

 John Chambers, Gregory Street. 

 James Nichols, Bridge Street. 

 Wm. Pettit, Cotton End. 



' Northampton Mercury. 



- Ibid. 7 June, 1S13. 



The first-named may have been Judkins' old 

 yard at the back of St. Peter's Church ; it has 

 continued to be used for the purpose of leather 

 manufacture and fellmongering to the present 

 time and is now occupied by Mr. James Wisdom, 

 fellmonger. Brittons' yard was probably situated 

 in Angel Lane and occupied the site of the 

 present electric-light works. Old disused pits 

 are remembered there by many of the older 

 inhabitants of the town. Of the last three there 

 is now no trace. 



It has already been stated that early enact- 

 ments of the Legislature (which were incorporated 

 and reinforced in the 2nd James I) prohibited 

 the use of horse hides in making boots and shoes. 

 Although they had practically become inoperative, 

 it was not until the beginning of the nineteenth 

 century that the laws were repealed. It may 

 seem strange that the very Act which recognized 

 the futility of applying bygone standards to its 

 own d.iy, appealed to a quite mediaeval method 

 of attempting to ensure carefulness on the part 

 of the butchers or others engaged in the flaying 

 of animals. The carelessness or want of skill of 

 the operator in this process appears always to 

 ha\e been a vexation to the tanner or leather 

 dresser in England ; and never more so than 

 to-day. Unfortunately the skin of the animal 

 (unless it be of the fur-bearing kind) seems to be 

 regarded as a by-product, and often its value as 

 the raw material of the leather manufacturer 

 is much reduced by the rough-and-ready methods 

 employed by the flayer. That a badly flayed 

 skin commands less price than a well flayed one 

 is self-evident, and were it not that it is regarded 

 as a by-product, this must have had its effect in 

 the exercise of greater care on the part of the 

 butcher. To fine a person for depreciating the 

 value of his own goods seems strange to the 

 modern mind. 



The following notice however appears in the 

 Mercury of 29 March, 1823 : 



' In pursuance of an Act passed in the 39 and 

 40 Geo. Ill, entitled an Act to repeal so much of an 

 Act passed in the 2nd James I as prohibits the use of 

 horse hides in making boots and shoes ; and for 

 better preventing the damaging of raw hides and skins 

 in the flaying thereof, I, George Osborne, junr., 

 Mayor, appoint a certain piece of ground on the 

 Wood Hill for the examination and inspection of raw 

 hides and skins within the town of Northampton and 

 three miles round. 



Penalties for gashing and flawing or damaging : 



Hides, not to exceed . 10/- nor less than 1/- 



Calf Skins, not to exceed . 5/- „ „ „ 6d. 

 Horse, Mare, or Gelding, 



not to exceed . . 5/- „ „ „ l/- 

 Hog, Pig, Sheep, or Lamb, 



not to e.xceed . . 6d. „ „ „ ^d. 



28th March, 1823.' 



There do not appear to have been many con- 

 victions locally, and it was probably found that 

 the law was unworkable. 



314 



