The Express.
London, England, 1849-12-04 00:00:00

to conviction, we should bays little fear that the
reason and merits of this case would weigh with the
CHANCELLOR Or THE EXCHEQUER. The amount
which the revenue receives from the duty upon soap
is really comparatively trifling. It averages in the
gross say 1,000,0001. a year ; but from this onefuterge,
or 250,0001, is to be deducted as drawback repaid
directly to exporters and consumers. Suppose we
take the net revenue at an average of
750,0004 there is still to be deducted the
poste of collection, which are an enormous
per centage upon this receipt. We suppose that
twelve per cent., or nearly 100,0001. a year, may
be
sent upon revenue officers and prosecutions in this
single branch of excise revenues. The real income,
therefore, which the Exchequer would have to
abandon by abolishing the excise upon soap would be
little more than half a million.
A good government, locking at the restrictions
upon trade which this duty presents, would certainly
endeavour to provide this amount of revenue from
some other source, even if it were utterly impossible
to save it from the national expenditure. But there
is a special reason besides the removal of restrictions
upon trade which should weigh witb the government
in this matter of soap. The 'Excise, in receiving the
revenue, engage themsel tea to perform a certain duty
towards those who pay it. It is not much they
engage to do for any one : but in the cue of
the soap basks, they do pledge and promise them-
selves that they will protect the honest dealer spainat
the competition of the fraudulent. This is their part
of the compa.it. Toe honest dealer pays his duty
under the excise engagement that he shall be pro-
tected. Does the excise protect him?
In 1841, when the Excise Law was consolidated
and improved, an admission was made by the Excise
that they had b:en utterly unable to check those
frauds in the soap trade, to which the high rate of
duty held out so potent a temptation. Did the new
bill either remove the temptation or diminish the
facilities for fraud? On the contrary, it perpetuated
the high rate of duty, and by legalising certain im-
provement' in the manufacture, et increased the diffi-
culty of detecting the smuggler.
Formerly the process of manufacturing soap was of
two or three weeks duration, and refuse or waste was
produced equal to about ten hundred weight for every
ton of soap made. It was comparatively easy, there-
fore, for the Excise to ascertain the quantity of soap
manufactured; and an additional difficulty presented
itself to fraud in the difficulty experienced in disposing
of the refuse or residuum. But what is the case
now ? By the use of iron, instead of wooden frames,
soap can be made, according to the temperature of the
weather, in three or four days, instead of u many
weeks. Toe substitution of soluble alkalis for kelp
and built', in manufacturing the lees, has also
brought down the quantity of refuse to almost nothing
—so that there is no means of judging by the resi-
duum what quantity of soap has been manufac-
tured in a copper. The difficulty of the Excise
in detecting fraud is, therefore, greatly enhanced,
whilst the temptation to the fraudulent remains the
same as it ever was.
The Excise in 1841 etgsged with the soap trade
to use increased vigilance for the purpose of detecting
fraud. And this no doubt they have done. But the
Excise cannot alter human nature. They cannot
prevent secret complicity with the dishonest on the
part of their ill-paid and over-worked officials. These
excisemen probably get from 801. to 1201. a year for a
, labour which engages their whole time in the boiling
house of a soap-factory. Why that officer must be
something more than ordinarily honest who will not
oetwionally count eleven instead of a dozen frames of
soap where it is worth the owner's while to pay him
ten or twenty, or even fifty guineas for so slight an
error or ant of inattention. And a frame of soap, it
will be recollected, may hold from 10 to 14 tons, pay-
ing a duty ad nearly 151. per ton, or from 1501. to
• 2001. a frame.

It is a very little while ago that the daily papers
contained an account of the seizare of an extensive
soapery by the Excise, of which they previously
had had no legal cognisance. It appeared by
the books of that concern, that its owner or
owners had been carrying on for several
years a considerable export trade in soap. Upon
every ton of soap which they exported they, of coarse,
had received the drawback : thus taking from the
Exchequer 141. 14s. a ton for soap which had never
paid a farthing dn'y. This was the perfection of in-
genious smuggling, and shows the incapacity of the
Excise to collect the revenue it professes to obtain.

Into certain manufactures—those, more especially
of cotton, linen, flax, and wool, the use of
soap enters very largely. A drawback is allowed by
government upon all soap used in these various ma-
nufacture,. Now it is very remarkable that whilst
the consumption of them, manufactures hu more than
doubled itself in the last ten year., the qusntity of
soap used in these trades hai increased only at the
rats of about 43 per cent. The cause of this, to a
very considerable extent is the use of substitutes.l
Cocoa nut oil is cheap, English alkalies are admirabll
pure. Toe two combine with perfect facility, and if 1
they are inferior in any respects to well-made
soap, the untaxed subs'itnte has at least the ad-
ventage of economy and convenience.
We cannot better show the injurious operation
of the soap tax than by referricg to the in-
direct effect it has upon these manufactures.
Take the cue of the calico printer. There are houses
in the calico prEting trade that receive from the
Exchequer from 5001. to nearly 1,0001, a year, in the
shape of drawback on the soap which they consume.
This drawback, however, is payable annually only,
whilst the purchase of maple probably made monthly,
or even with greater frequency. Wily, of course, the loss
of the interest upon this money must be charged to the
consumer. So that even in purchasing our calicoes
we are paying a duty upon soap.
But, it may be said, the cotton-printer, if he pleases,
may manufacture his own soap. Very true—he
may: and many of the larger calico printers could
save 20 per cent. by taking that course. But
calico printers know better than to put themselves
under the Excise. Twenty years have not elapsed
since their own trade was emancipated from its
shackles, and they have no desire to have another
visit from the supervisor and inspector. Besides,
the Excise stipulate. that if a calico printer,
or other manufacturer, sets up soup-making for
himself, he must himself consume all the soap he
makes. And they go further than this. They lay it
down not only that he shall make no more than he
wants, but that he shall make no less! For, say
they, if you should happen from accident or
other cause to have less of your home made
soap than you require, then if you send
out and buy a few tons to supply your deficiencies,
remember, we shall allow you no drawback what-
ever upon that !
There is &mother anomaly in this trade. Under the
plea of securing the revenue, the licensed soap-1
maker is excluded from the preparation of
perfumed soaps. This branch of the trade, which
is particularly open to fraud, is permitted to be car-
ried on solely by perfumers, who melt and remanufac-
tare the soap, adding thereto such essential oils as
may be required previous to their moulding it into
the forms in which it is sold. The per-
timrs, who thus become in reality soap-makers,
ens *sly occasionally inspected by the Excise.
Doe anybody suppose that the perfumer does not
Oplidosally melt a little grease of is urn in his per-
nning-pan, just to give his soap a little consistency?
If such be not the case, all that can be said is, that it
is difficult to account for the change which takes place
la certain descriptions of perfumed soaps between the
pedal of their leaving the soapboiler and being ex-
posed by the perfumer for sale in his shop window.
Unfortunately there are—there can be—no etatis-
ities of fraud by illicit manufacture. This, however,
we do know : that instead of increasing with the opa-
-1
kw and the comforts of the people, the consumption
of map, as shown by the excise, has diminished
daring the last twenty years in proportion to
the population. Is further proof required that this is
in consequence of the extension of illicit trading, and
of the inability of the Excite to protect the honest
dealer? For our own parts we think it clear that,
despite of all their " pains and penalties," the Excise
duty on soap is a premium and an encouragement to
the fraudulent, whilst to the honest and industrious it
is a snare, a trap, and too frequently a legalised mode
of robbery.
than a I

The Times, in a leading article this morning, an-
nounces that the Neptune ts to be sent with the con-
victs from the Caps to Van Diemen's Land. On their
arrival there the convicts are to receive conditional
pardons, with the exception of Mr. Mitchel.