The Sun.
London, England, 1851-12-20 00:00:00

an advantage from which other men are restricted
unless they pay ; and usurped by the Government
from the rest of the community and sold to the ma-
nufacturer. It is a pecuniary mulct for him on other
men, it is a restriction or an impediment; and com-
bined with the numerous other restrictions imposed
by the law, prevents many men from joining paper-
making with some other occupation, or carrying it on
io a small way, and thus extending competition to the
advantage of the public. The licence and the regu-
lation create a limited monopoly, and—derived from
the age of the Tudors and the Stuarts—is a con-
tinuation of abuses which in their time provoked
the memorable resistance of our ancestors. Having
created a sinister interest for the manufacturers,
many of them are loath to resign it. The abolition
of the duties would let in competition, and deprive
the present paper manufacturers of a privilege which
they have paid for. Many of them, therefore, under
the influence of this sinister interest, work with the
Government and keep alive the monopoly. This is
found to be the case in all trades subject to the Ex-
cise laws, such as brewers, maltsters, distillers, and
soap boilers, all of which are confined to compara-
tively few hands. The division and the union
of employments in the manner most beneficial to the
people are alike impeded by such regulations. Num-
berless persons are prevented from finding suitable
occupations—competition is checked, and the consumer
is injured. In 1801—the date of the earliest returns
to be relied on—the quantity of paper subjected to
duty was 31,699,5371b5. ; in 1849, the latest com-
plete returns in our possession, it was 132,132,6571b5.,
or between these two periods it had increased four-
fold. Between the same periods the population was
more than doubled, but the number of licensed paper-
makers decreased. In England and Scotland, for
which alone the returns are complete, they were, in
1801, 446, and in 1849, only 381. In this last
year, the number in the whole empire was only 419,
or 27 less than in England and Scotland alone in
1801. Thus, with a fourfold increased production
of paper, an almost insatiable demand for it, and
a wonderful increase of population, the number of
paper-makers fell off between 1801 and 1849,14 8-10
per cent. In othei manufactures, of which the pro-
duction is in demand, and which have been much
improved—such as cotton-spinning—a continually
increasing number of masters and of men find em-
ployment, but in the manufacture of paper the reverse
is the case. Happily for the community only a few
of our arts and trades have been Iseized on by our
Government and subjected to excise restriction; or
employment must diminish population decrease, and
England, instead of being prosperous and tranquil,
would be shattered and convulsed like France and
Austria. The mind may be helped to form a just
view of the consequences of the system by
supposing it extended to all trades—every occu-
pation and employment being subjected to excise
licenses, restrictions, andi regulations ; and then it is
plain, from the example of the paper duties, that the
advantages of society would be confined to a few, the
condition of the bulk would be deteriorated, and the
number, strength, and riches of the whole be enor-
mously diminished. From the decrease in the num-
ber of paper-makers, the increased consumption of
paper is plainly not due to them. It arises of course
from the demands of those engaged in unlicensed oc-
cupations, who have increased in wealth and numbers.
The extension of the paper manufacture, therefore,
and even its continued existence, is due to the pros-
perous unlicensed trades of the community. Greatly
as the consumption of paper has increased, it would
have increased much more rapidly, giving employ-
ment to a much greater number of hands, and distri-
buting it, and distributing wealth more equally
through society, had the manufacture not been sub-
jected to excise duties. What it might become under
perfect freedom, we may hereafter find an opportunity
of discussing. One thing we may meanwhile hope
—it is, that Sir Charles Wood, if called upon to pre-
pare another Budget, will not forget how the tax on
paper limits the increase of that knowledge he spoke
in favour of at Halifax on Thursday.