The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-06 00:00:00

THE PAPER MAKERS' CASE AGAINST
FOREIGN PROTECTION.
The House of Lords having rejected the Bill for repealing
the Excise Duty on Paper, the Government now propose to
admit foreign paper at a customs duty simply equivalent to
the excise duty levied at home.
English paper pays an excise duty of lid. per lb.
Foreign paper now pays an import duty of 21d. per lb.
This ld. per lb. in excess of the English excise duty was
fixed in 1853, after a careful review of the whole case, in
substitution of a much higher duty, and to countervail the
export duties levied over the continent of Europe on rags
oming to this country.
The export of rags from all the continental states is either
absolutely prohibited, as in France and Belgium, or a duty
is levied upon their export, ranging from £6 in Russia to
£l2 10s. in Holland per ton, the average over the whole of
Europe being £9 per ton.
The effect of these export duties is to enable the foreign
manufacturer to purchase his material from 35 to 50 per
cent. lower than the English maker.
The supply of material for making the better class of
paper is constantly deficient in this country, rendering it
necessary to import a large quantity from abroad.
The importation of foreign rags into this country in 1859
was 14,598 tons.
The material of which medium qualities of white paper
are made being 50 percent, of the whole cost, the foreign
maker can produce paper 25 per cent. cheaper than it can
be made in England.
In proof of this advantage possessed by foreign makers,
the Government returns show that large quantities of
foreign paper are now being imported at the duty of 21d.
per lb., or Id. per lb. in excess of the English excise duty.
It is now proposed to admit foreign paper at a duty of
11d. per lb., or simply the equivalent to the excise duty,
without exacting that which is manifestly just to the Eng-
lish paper maker—a free export of foreign rags.
Under these circumstances all fair competition will be
rendered impossible, and the result must inevitably be to
transfer a large proportion of our home manufacture to
foreign countries, as this measure, if carried into effect,
will give the foreign paper maker a clear advantage of one
penny per lb. in the English market more than he now
possesses. •
It is said by those who are favourable to the measure of
the Government that the discrepancy which now exists be-
tween the price of English and foreign material would right
itself in time ; that the effect of an increased importation
of foreign paper would be to depress the price of material at
home and raise it abroad.
To this we reply—First. That the depression at home
cannot take place to the extent which is expected, because
the American supply being equally deficient with our own
. we have now to compete with them in our own market for our
own material ; and they, being protected ageinst all foreign
competition in paper by a 24 per cent. import duty, would
always be able to pay a higher price for rags
than we could if foreign paper were admitted into
this country on the terms proposed. In case of any
fall in the price of rags here, the Americans, who are nowe
purchasers of 20,000 tons of rags per annum from
Continent (paying the export duties), would find this their
cheapest market, and draw their whole supply from hence.
Secondly. That an increased import of foreign paper
Would .not necessarily involve an increased demand upon
the foreign material, as the 34,500 tons of rags which are
now exported by foreign countries to this country and
America could and would be manufactured into paper
abroad and shipped to this country without any additional
drain upon the foreign rag market, or in the slightest
degree affecting the price.
On a liberal calculation, the whole quantity of rags con-
sumed in this country for making white paper does not
exceed 80,000 tons, so that the 34,500 tons of rags, if re-
tained by the foreign manufacturers, would furnish them
with a supply of rags sufficient for nearly half the con-
sumption of white paper in this country, without increas-
ing their own collection of rags or enhancing their price,
It is said that we must seek out some new material, some
foreign fibre, as a substitute for the refuse material we use.
Our answer is that we have no preference for one mate-
rial over another except that which is dictated by our own
interests. We are and always have been willing to use any
material capable of being manufactured into a marketable
article at a cost not exceeding that of paper made from rags.
In proof of this we refer to the fact that upwards of 100
patents have been taken out for discoveries or supposed dis-
coveries in connection with the application of various new
fibres to paper making.
Experience, however, has so far proved that, though there
are many fibres capable of being made into paper, there are
none equal to the cotton and linen rags now in use ; but the
test by which every new material must be tried is its cost
in comparison with that which we now use, which is sim-
ply a refuse product ; and as all foreign fibres coining to
this country come charged with the cost of collection, trans-
port, shipping charges, and insurance, independent of the
merchant's profit, these, when coupled with the cost of
chemically reducing the fibres, present in their aggregate
an insuperable obstacle to their introduction.
It is said also that, to maintain the present differential
duty of one penny per lb. upon foreign paper would be an
infraction of the free-trade principle.
To this we reply that to free-trade rightly defined, and
as it is now applied to every other branch of manufacturing
industry, we have not the least objection ; we seek to obtain
only that which they possess—viz., free access to the world's
market for material, and having this, we will, like them,
meet the competition of the world; but to compel the
English papermaker to compete with a foreign manufacture
based upon a material 35 to 50 per cent. cheaper than his
own, from which he is arbitrarily excluded by heavy export
duties, is unjust in principle, and places him in an unfair
position as compared with that of every other trading in-
terest in this country.
And lastly, it is asserted that, by the rejection of the Bill
for the Repeal of the Paper Duty by the House of Lords,
we are brought within the terms of the treaty—although
the article Paper has all along been classed by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer among those, " not under treaty."
We have reason to believe that the treaty was made with-
out any reference to paper, and in entire ignorance of the
export duties on rags; and this supposition is necessary to
save Mr. Cobden from the charge of having planned the
ruin of a whole branch of English industry for the benefit
of foreigners. Therefore the act of the Lords cannot be
pleaded in justification of the proposal of the Government.
If paper was not in the treaty when the trete), was made,
it cannot be in now.
It is quite true that the 7th article stipulates that mer-
chandise is to be admitted from France at duties not ex-
ceeding the excise duties levied in this country ; but the
Bth article proceeds to enumerate the merchandise that is
to be admitted, and paper is not named.
But, supposing we are under the treaty, its provisions
are amply sufficient to enable a Government so disposed to
do justice to this or any other trade.
The 7th article, after the general stipulations as to the
terms upon which French merchandise is to be admitted,
says : At the same time the duty chargeable upon the
importation of such merchandise may be augmented by
such a sum as shall be an equivalent for the expenses which
the system of excise may entail upon the British producer."
And again, the 21st article says :—" The high contract-
lag powers reserve to themselves the right to introduce by
common consent into this treaty any modification which is
not opposed to its spirit and principles, and the utility of
which shall have been shown by experience."
The " spirit and principles" of the treaty are to be found
in the 7th article, where it was evidently the intention
of its framers to place the competitive interests on a footing
of equality, both as to taxation, and also as to the incidental
expenses of that taxation to " the British producer."
Therefore, to carry out the " spirit and principles" of the
treaty, it is not only necessary to take account of the excise
duty and the expenses of the System, but it is equally neces-
sary, and no less just, to reckon the export duties levied
abroad on the raw material of the English papermaker,
as a burden quite as direct, and little, if at all, inferior to
the excise duty, in enhancing the cost of his manufacture.
We may here observe, that we find this question is gene-
rally discussed as if we should be affected by competition
with France alone, whereas, in point of fact, whatever con-
cessions are made to France by the treaty are to be made at
the same time to all the countries of Europe, in the absence
of any special treaties whatever, and notwithstanding the
duties they exact on the export of rags.
The proposal of her Majesty's Government is entirely
novel in its character, and unparalleled in the British legis-
lation, and, so far from its being a measure of free trade, its
direct tendency is to sanction protection in its worst form
abroad, and to establish a prepedent by which foreign Go-
vernments may be induced to levy export duties on their
raw materials, in the expectation that their manufactured
articles
will continue to be admitted into this country free
from duty.
The paper makers therefore ask that, whether the excise
duty be abolished or not, the present differential customs
duty of one penny per lb. may be retained as a bare equi-
valent to the advantages which foreign nations possess by
their protective system, as long as they continue to main-
tain restrictions upon the exportation of their paper making
materials.
London, July, 1860.
W. Joynson and Son, St. Mary Cray, Kent.
John Dickinson and Co., Nash Mills, Herts.
James Wrigley and Son, Bury, Lancashire.
sHaunalld,
eHrgo,rptohno3liniiirbAyiilKl
eDnta.rtford.
Venables, Tyler, and Co.,uWrkeeirinmq Mills, Surrey.
Thomas Hollingworth,
Busbridge and ge, East lair ills, Maidstone.
Towgood Brothers, Sf. Ne mg Mills, Kent,
Midhurst.
Pewtress and Co., 'Spring
C. Potter and Co., Darwen, Blackburn.
G. W. Hayes and Co., Two Waters Mill, Herts.
C. Venables, jun., Taplow Mills, Bucks,
H. V. Bayley and Co., Newark Mills, Surrey.
T. Trotter and Son, Chirnside Bridge Mills.
Grosvenor, Chater, and Co., Glory Mill, Bucks.
George Polard, Foots Cray Mill, rent.
Tanner Brothers, Cheddar Mills, Somerset.
W. and R. Dewdney, Stoke Canon, Exeter.
John Elliot, Bois Mill, Chesham
Bois, Bucks.
Mill, H. Allnutt, jun., Chilworth Surrey.
Charles Harris and Son, Countess Weir Mills, Exeter.
Delano, Magnay, and Co., Taverham Mills, Norwich.
Spicer Brothers, Alton Mills, Hants.
W. M'Murray, Royal Mills, Wandsworth.
Thomas Sweetapple, Catteshall, Godalining.
George Wilmot, Shoreham Mills, Sevenoaks.
Frederick Fellows, Eynsford Mill, Kent.
Thomas G. Scott, Sunnydale, Yorkshire.
Evans, Adlard, and Co., Postlip
Cheltenham.
J. A. Cockburn, Allen "Wood Mill, Carlisle
Thomas Fordyce, Warden, Hexham.
Thomas B. Parke, IVithnell Fold, Chorley.
J. R. Jones, Afonwen Mill, Holy well, Flint.
Henry Wheeler, Wycomb Marsh Mills.
Henry Charles Burt, Witchampton Mill, Dorset.
Thomas Weedon and Sons, Temple Mills, Maidenhead.
John and Thomas B. Crompton, Farnworth Mills.
W. Tremlett and Co., Head Weir Mills,edeEs.xeter.
Hastings and Mellor, Bradley Mills,
W. A. West, Quenington Mills, Swindon.
W. S. Hodgkinson, Wookey Hole Mills, Wells.
Matthews and Maryn, Bridge Mills, Collumpton,
W. T. Bainbridge and Co., Tees Mill, yam.
Charles R. Collins, Hele Works, Collurepton.
Richard R. Ibotson, Wraysbury Mills, Staines.
John Allen, Ivybridge Mill, Devon.
Thos. H. Busbridge, Basted Mills, Kent.
Benjamin Brown' Roughway Mills, Tonbridge,
Richard Turner, Chafford Mills, Tonbridge Wells.
Thomas Combe, Wolvercote Mills, Oxford.
Richard Turner, jun., Tuckenhay Mill, Totness,
John Smith, Langley Mills, Durham.
Percy Ibotson, Poyle Mills, Slough.
William Shepherd, Booth Wood Mills, Halifax.
Alfred Curtis, Sarratt Mills, Herts.
Tempest Hervey and Co., Brook Mill, Derby.
Blackwell and Co., Ford Mill, Sunderland,
Fletcher, Falconer, and Co., Scotswood Mill, Newcastle.
Tempest and Son, Little Eaton, Derby.
Blackbird and Co., Monkton Mill, Gateshead.
Christopher Phipps, River Mills, Dover.
J. and J. G. Smith, Hamper Mills, Watford.
Hadwen and Long, Ulverstone Mill, Lancaster.
Charles Briggs, Alders Mill, Tamworth.
William Perron, Widdeulaam Mills, Wilts,