The Sun.
London, England, 1851-01-01 00:00:00

THE INJURY TO THE CONSUMER.

There are individuals who pay as much as 2,0001. a
year for paper—the tax upon which is 50 per cent., or
5001. a year—and the whole of this paper has been
consumed for wrapping up goods which had to be sold
in competition with similar goods of foreign manufac-
ture, wrapped up in a paper free from any duty what-
ever. The writer of the pamphlet before alluded to far-
ther says:—
" Apart from the heavy duty charged on all papers,
the excise laws affecting the paper manfecture—the
mode of charging the duty, the surveillance of the ex-
cise officers, the delays in sending goods to market—
caused by these rules and regulations, the weighing, la-
belling, numbering, re-weighing, &c., &c., besides heavy
penalties, which may very inadvertently be incurred—.
form altogether a most burdensome and oppressive yoke,
adding very materially to the labour and expense in
carrying on business, and are such as no body of men
honourably engaged in their avocations ought to be sub•
jected to, and which a wise and patriotic Government
ought to be ready to listen to as an important element
in the consideration of the whole question.
"There are many respectable grocers doing a consi-
derable business, whose expenses for packing-papers are
large; indeed, there are many who use papers to such
an extent, that the duty thereon is fully equal to their
shop rents. A grocer in an ordinary business pays 1001.
a year for papers to pack up his sugars, soaps, leis, &c.
On this quantity of paper the duty will be about 401.
Now, the grocer either pays this out of his profits, or he
does not. If he does, this industrious, hard-working
man, is forced to give up a large proportion of his earn-
ings to meet the wants of the country, when he is cancel
on, in every other way, to pay his full share of the ordi-
nary taxation. If he does not, then how is the grocer
reimbursed? Most assuredly by an increased price on
his goods, or by selling an interior article at a higher
price than its real value; and then on whom does this
burden fall? Unquestionably on the working
classes principally, who are the largest consumers
of the goods requiring so much paper for their
packing; for, be it observed, that the man in good
circumAances who orders his fifty pounds of sugar
at once, pays much less for the paper in which it is
wrapped than the poor labourer does who buys his fifty
pounds of sugar at fifty different times. Either way, this
heavy duty is quite indefensible, and ought to be t eally
abolished. I know parties who have been paying these
heavy sums for many years, a-ad who had been doing so
in complete ignorance of the sum which this unjust law
has thus wrested from them, and, when made aware of
the real facts of the case, have expressed their honest
and vehement indignation that such things should be
maintained by the Government of this country. In fact,
I might pile up a vast array of cases illustrative of this
gross injustice, such as those of the manufacturers of
Birmingham, Sheffield, &c., who use such vast quantities
of coarse papers, and especially worthy of notice is the
case of the button makers, who, when using the boards
from which they make their moulds, of necessity produce
a vast quantity of waste, in many instances nearly one.
half, but who, of course, pay duty on the whole, thus
making the duty on what they use equal to 301. Per
ton instead of 151., as the law is said to exact, thus
greatly enhancing the cost of the materials from which
their goods are produced. The same remark applies to
loom-weavers; an illustration of the extreme hardship
of which is found in the ease of Mr. R. Kerr, of Paisley
who, intending to compete in the article of shawl mane.
facture in the Exhibition of 1851, applied to the Lords
of the Treasury for a drawback of the excise duty on
the card boards he would use in the preparation of his
designs; the cost of the boards, duty included (but ea.
elusive of preparation), would be 2701, which duty
amounts to 921. 155., an expense from which his foreign
competitors were entirely exempt; but his application
was declined."
The operation of this duty is also most injurious to
cheap literature, as it is clearly established that it adds
more than the mere amount of duty to almost every
work published. The price is so much beyond what it
ought to be, that sales are curtailed, and the risks to
the publishers increased. It is asserted that—
" Messrs. Chambers, of Edinburgh, about two years
ago, started a periodical which sold to the public at Id.
This was carried on for some time, and at length abate
doned. The Messrs. Chambers last year petitioned
Parliament for the repeal of the paper duty, and ad..
duced as an instance of the oppressive insure of that
duty the fact that the periodical alluded to had reached
the marvellous number of 80,000 weekly, and Was
abandoned because it did not pay; and they stated that
had the duty on paper not existed they would have car-
ried on the work, because the duty on the paper used
would have afforded them a fair profit on the under.
taking. Now, this fact is a very striking one, and is
worthy of consideration-10,000, at Id. weekly, makes
up a sum of upwards of 17,000/. a year—this large sum
was in circulation for some time; and (with the excels_
tion of 1,1001. of it, which was excise duty) was, in point
of fact, neither more nor less than wages of labour—the
materials being in themselves nearly valueless. Now,
before this little work was started, the revenue had no
benefit, neither could have, as the thing did not exist.
After it had ceased to exist the revenue was no worse, it
stood just as before; but, during its existence, a large
amount of labour was called for by it, assuredly one of
the blessings which we are constantly seeking to in_
crease in this densely-populated country,' and when it
ceased to exist (the heavy duty being answerable for
this result), all this labour ceased to be called for, just
one of those evils which we exhaust all our ingenuity to
provide against."
The claim of the public to a repeal of the paper duty
is not now raised for the first time. It has undergone
the ordeal of a careful and searching Parliamentary es_
vestigation. Its policy has been admitted, and it is put
forward at the present time because financial circatn_
stances warrant its remission without the slightest
chance of injuring the national resources. It is now
some years since that a Committee of the House of
Commons, of which Sir Henry Parnell was chairman,
was appointed to take into consideration the various du-
ties upon articles in general consumption, with the view
of fixing upon those, the repeal of which would prove
most advantageous to the public interests. That Com-
mittee, after a minute inquiry, decided upon leather,
glass, and paper. The Legislature abolished the duty
upon the two former articles, and the repeal of the paper
duty was postponed, solely from the demands of the pub_
lie service not then allowing of such a remission. The
claim is therefore sanctioned by the deliberate opinion of
a Committee, whose report in other respects has received
the sanction of Parliament, and upon which, therefore,
no party bias can possibly be supposed to apply.
There is yet another benefit which would arise from
the repeal of the paper duty, not less important in its
bearing and results than any of those which have been
named, and that is the social ane. moral effect of disss.
minating information of a religious arid virtuous ten-
dency amongst the humbler classes. It has been shown
by the most experienced and extensive publishers that
the duty on paper is the sole bar to the issue of publice_
tions of an instructive character at so low a price as to
bring them within the reach of the pillion, and many of
them, after having attained a very extensive circulation,
were compelled to be discontinued, owing solely to the
heavy toms which the paper duty inflicted upon the
proprietors. The want of such works is severely felt in
densely populated districts, where the temptations to
profligacy: immorality, and drunkenness are irresistible
to the uneducateds unless their thoughts are divert( d
from sensual indulgence to the innocent enjoyments
which might be afforded by reading, but tv obtain which
. cheapness is indispensable. It has often been seen that
the infant members of a family, coming from school, have
drawn the atcentical of the 4 Olden tgici OM et the'