The Boot and Shoe Trades in London and Paris in the Long Eighteenth Century

Immediately after the reduction of the duty in 1842 my employer went to Paris,
and bought over 20 gross of French silk and satin goods. He showed a sample
of these to the workmen employed upon similar kind of work, and produced the
invoice to prove how cheap he could purchase such an article upon the
Continent. He did not state that he purposed making a reduction of the wages,
but strongly insinuated as much; and from that time to the present he has
steadily lowered our wages at every slack season of the year. 52
6.5.3 The underestimated role of raw materials
The difference in the cost of production was also due to a difference in the
cost of raw materials. As already observed, the cost of leather was particularly
high in Britain compared to continental Europe. Since October 1812 the excise
tax on leather had been increased to nearly twice its value. 53 During the
following year the consumption of leather (of which about 60-70 per cent was
for the production of boots and shoes) had decreased more than 20 per cent.
Bills from all counties - especially from Northamptonshire and Staffordshire -
petitioned Parliament in favour of suspending the tax. 54 The Parliament decided
against the petitions by shoemakers, tanners and curriers (see chapter 1). The
difficult situation continued throughout the Napoleonic Wars and the new
commercial relationship between England and Bourbon France. In 1816
shoemakers petitioned again the Parliament and the Chancellor of the
Exchequer was forced to appoint a conmiittee for the consideration of the
leather tax.55 The problem that shoemakers had to face was a new competition
from abroad and, in particular, from France. The general complaint was that the
four years of heavy taxation on leather had forced shoemakers to buy inferior
leather, producing very low quality shoes:
In E.P. Thompson and E.Yeo, The unknown Mayhew, cit., p. 239.
52 Ibid., pp. 251-2.
The Times, 27 February 1813, p. 4, col. c.
s Ibid., 20th February 1813, p. 3, col. b; 19th May 1813, p. 3, col. a; 2V t May 1813, p. 3, col.
a. For the case of Staffordshire the Parliament rejected every reason associated with the tax,
showing how the crisis in the production of boots and shoes was due to internal economic
problems of the county, rather than as a result of increased cost of leather.
272