The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, MAY 24, 1860.

THE PJPERMAKERS' CASE AGAIN6T

FOREIGN _PROTECTION.

The following letter has been addressed to the
editor of the Times:—Sir,—this is the title of a
document issued by the Associated Papermakers of
the United Kingdom, and now in the hands of the
members of the House of Commons. It sets forth
is a concise and simple form the peculiar position
in which the trade is placed with reference to its
material, and its relative position as compared with
the paper trade on the continent of Europe, and it
also points to the inevitable consequences that must
ensue should the Legislature adopt the proposal of
the Government to abolish the import duty on
foreign paper, unless accompanied by an equally
free import of foreign rags. lam perfectly aware
of the repugnance which exists in the minds of
many well-meaning people to any proposal which
appears to interfere with the abstract theory of
free trade, and with that feeling I have as strong a
sympathy as most men ; but the true nature and
character of a thing are not to be altered by arbi-
trarily and. unreasoningly applying to it a name
that does not belong to it ; and the complaint which
we make is not that we are about to be subjected
to the operation of free trade, but that we are on
the eve of seeing our trade annihilated in favour of
foreign protection in its most aggravated form, in
order that certain particular interests in this coun-
try may benefit thereby. We are willing at any
moment to adopt the principle and practice of free
trade as we find it in operation in every other
branch of manufacturing industry ; but we are not
willing to see our trade transplanted to foreign
countries 'for' the benefit of foreign papermakers,
who are protected from all competition both as to
the paper they make and the material they con-
sume ; we object, we say, to be thus sacrificed for
the advantage of one special trading interest at home
—namely, the cheap newspapers, who, under the
specious pretext of free trade, are anxious to buy
cheap paper, though they know that its cheapness
is the result of the very worst form of protection
abroad. As Englishmen we claim equal privileges
with the rest of our fellow-countrymen ' • we ask but to
be placed under the same laws, to be subjected to the
same influences, and if under the same circum-
stances we fail in the race of competition we will
abide the consequences ; and we protest against
this attempt to conciliate a small, though powerful
body by the sacrifice of a whole manufacturing
community by a species of legislation that no
Government would dare to apply to any one of the
great trading interests of the country.
When this measure of confiscation was first pro-
posed we were willing to believe that it originated
in ignoranca of the conditions under which the
paper trade is placed, from the peculiarity of the
material on which it is based and the deficient sup-
ply under which we labour as compared with con-
tinental nations ; and we felt sure we had only to
put our case as it really exists before the Govern-
ment to insure an immediate withdrawal of the
measure.
We were justified in this belief by the speech of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the introduc-
tion of his Budget. He then dwelt with evident
satisfaction upon the benefits which his proposal
would confer upon the trade of papermaking ; and
he especially congratulated the House of Commons
upon the prospect of seeing those rural mills revivi-
fied which had in times past furnished employment
to large numbers of people in agricultural districts,
but which had fallen to ruin under the baneful
influence (as the right hon. gentleman said) of the
Excise'duty. We knew that these Arcadian mills
which formed the subject of the Chancellor's lament
had fallen before a power more potent and per-
manent than the Excise laws; but we, nevertheless,
believed that, however erroneous the right hon.
gentleman's conclusions might be, his aim and
purpose were to do good ; and that if it were shown
to him that, instead of good, evil would follow the
adoption of his proposal, he would no longer per
sist in it. In this belief we attempted to lay our
case before the Government ; I say " attempted,"
because, with the exception of the patient and
courteous hearing which Lord Palmerston gave to
us a short time ago, we have had no opportunity of
having our case fairly and deliberately considered
by those members of the Government who arc
directly responsible for the introduction of the
men sure.
Nothing has surprised me more than the want of
consideration which has been shown to us by the
Government in legislating upcn a subject so closely
affecting our interests. So long as we were called
upon we fulfilled the duty imposed upon us of col-
lecting a large amount of the national revenue, and
when it was determined to dispense with our ser-
vices by abolishing the Excise duty we did not pre-
sume to offer an opinion, we raised no objection,
nor have we in any way offered the slightest ob-
stacle to the free course of legislation on the sub-
ject. Having derived no benefit from the office, we
did not care how soon we were relieved from the
responsibilities.
But if the paper duty had been from the begin-
ning levied for our especial benefit, and we had
been pocketing thh whole revenue derived from it,
we could not have received worse treatment at the
hands of the Government than that which we have
experienced. Every proposal on their part has been
characterised by the most flagrant injustice, and
our representations have been met in a spirit of
utter indifference to our just rights and interests.
Having failed where we ought to have succeeded,
we have appealed to the House of Commons, not
for protection against foreigners—for I believe that
no foreign despot, had he the power, would pro-
pose a measure so glaringly unjust as that with
which we are threatened—but we ask for protec-
tion against our own Government, who, under some
strange infatuation, or in deference to some power
they cannot resist, are seeking to obtain the sanc-
tion of the Legislature to a measure as novel in its
principle as it is unparalleled in the extent of the
injury it is calculated to inflict. It is said that the
cry of danger to English interests has always been
raised whenever it has been proposed to bring them
into open competition with foreigners, and, the re-
sult having proved the groundlessness of such ap-
prehensions, they will in like manner prove equally
so in our case.
The danger of such abstract reasoning based upon
abstract theories, when applied to legislation, was
never more plainly illustrated than in the proposi-
tion of the Government. To have the same results
the conditions must be equal, and if such were the
case we should desire nothing better than to be
subjected to the same influences.
We ask for no favours, no pampering, or protect-
ing ; we ask to be placed in the same circumstances
and subjected to the same rules and regulations
under which the free trade contest is carried on by
all other trades. But are the conditions under
which we are called upon to meet foreign competi-
tion in our own market similar to those of other
trades who boast of their ability to meet the compe-
tition of the world ? There is the whole question ;
now let us make the comparison.
Every other manufacture is based upon a raw
material, the grower or producer of which gets a
profit on its production.
There is thus established a sympathetic action
between the producer and the consumer; demand
under these circumstances will infallibly induce a
supply.
The material of the papermaker is, on the con-
trary, a refuse, the involuntary consequence of other
operations;. it is produced not only without profit,
but at a loss to the producer. Instead of sympathy
between consumer and producer, their interests are
in antagonism, the one being desirous of lessening
the quantity of that which the other requires in
abundance; demand, under such circumstances, is
inoperative to produce a supply.
All other trades have free access to the market of
the world for their raw material.
The papermaker is confined to the refuse arising
in his own country, and for that he is subject to
competition with the Americans, who are protected
by a 24 per cent. import duty against all competi-
tion in paper.
We are debarred access to every European State,
the only available foreign source from which we
could derive a supply, by prohibitory laws forbid-
ding the export of rags, or by heavy export duties
equal to 25 per cent, upon the cost of the manufac-
tured article.
Every other trade meets its foreign competitor
on equal terms as to cost of material.
The material of the English papermaker is 50 per
cent. dearer than that of his foreign rival, who en-
joys an abundance artificially produced, and an
equally artificial cheapness, in which he is protected
from all interference by these prohibitory and re-
strictive laws as to its export.
Such are the relative conditions of the English
paper trade compared with all other branches of
native industry, and compared, also, with the paper
trade abroad; and, under these disadvantages, the
English maker is to be called upon to maintain a
contest for the trade of his own country with his
continental rivals. British skill and industry is a
famous horse, and in every fair field he will hold his
own; but he may be over weighted.
,He cannot run
a successful race, even though his competitor be of
inferior breed, with one leg tied up ; he may as well

retire from the contest. And to call this free trade,
fair competition, or anything having any pretence
to be called justice or fair play, is but an attempt
to practice on our credulity.
If I have not been dreaming all my life, free
trade is a principle of exchange in harmony with
the laws of God as developed in the laws of nature ;
so that when ♦ar anything can be produced, whether
by the accident of climate, the superiority of the
soil, the greater skill of the people, or from any
other natural cause whatever, in greater abundance
or at less cost than elsewhere, that commodity
should be allowed to flow freely to all parts of the
world; and if from any natural cause paper can be
made elsewhere cheaper than in England, by all
means let us receive it. But is an export duty on
the material of foreign countries a natural cause ?
Is this free trade, or is it not protection ?
That the foreign paper maker has a clear advan-
tage over the English maker in the lower price of
his material, equal to 25 per cent. on the cost of the
paper, is proved by the fact that foreign paper is now
imported into this country, and can successfully
compete with us, although there is a differential
duty in favour of the English maker of ld. per lb. ;
and in corroboration of this statement, I subjoin a
copy of a letter from one of the largest wholesale
stationers in London :

" London, May 1.
" Dear Sir,—ln answer to your inquiry, we are buying
foreign papers which, after paying 21d. per lb. duty, are
brought to this market at a lower price than the English
makes can be purchased at. The foreign makers have ex-
pressed their readiness to increase their power to any ex-
tent required.
" It will be impossible for the English makers to com-
pete with them unless we have free importation of foreign
rags. " Yours truly, ti ."

Such being our position, where are we to look for
the means of meeting this threatened competition ?
To suppose that the profits of the trade will admit
of a reduction in the price of paper of 20 to 25 per
cent. is too absurd to require any notice, further
than this,—that I believe there is no trade in this
country that has made a more meagre return for
the capital and industry employed than the paper
trade.

It is not true, as has been insinuated by some
portion of the press, that we are asking for protec-
tion against the natural advantages possessed by
the foreigner in the lower price of labour and the
lower rents in those countries ; these, though not

inconsiderable, are among those natural causes to
which, on the principle of free trade, we do not
object, and it is neither fair nor honest to ascribe to

us"moiives which we have uniformly and constantly
disclaimed. The whole cost of rent and wages is a

bagatelle compared with the differential value of
material, and it is because this differential cost is
obtained by protective laws, and not by natural
causes, that we object to, and avow our inability to
meet, an open competition with continental makers.
We are told, with an audacious effrontery which
is perfectly wonderful, that the supply of home
material has hitherto kept pace with the demand
for paper ; and this statement is made in the face
of the fact that during the last 16 years our pur-
chases of foreign rags have doubled ; and we are at
this moment buying from continental States which
are to be our future competitors 15,000 tons of rags
at a cost to us of £300,000, and which they can
manufacture into paper at a cost to themselves of
£165,000, the difference being the export duty of
£9 per ton.
Well, then, it is said, though the effect of the free
import of paper may be injurious in the first in-
stance, it will, in common praseology, " right
itself;" the process being that by depression at
home and a rise abroad (as the effect of the English
demand for paper) prices will become equalized.
Theoretically and under the operation of free im-
ports of material, this would be true, but we have
shown in the " case" presented to Parliament that
under the present system of export duties on mate-
rial such a result is impossible.
The first obstacle to this process will be found in
the American demand, which, though it may not
appear large, 2,074 tons of English rags having been
exported last year to that country, is. still quite
sufficient to act upon the market and keep up the
price, where the whole is always a deficient quan-
tity, and with a 24 per cent. tariff against the im-
portation of all foreign paper, the Americans can
well afford to pay a higher price than we can.
We have shown that the continental States ex- '
port 35,000-tonsof rags, 15,000 tons of which come
to this country, and 20,000 are exported to America.
The immediate effect of a free importation of paper
would be at once to paralyse our home trade. The
displacement of English paper would necessarily-
tend to depress the price of material. The Ame-
ricans would then discover that it was to their
advantage to supply themselves from England en-
tirely, where they have free access, rather than go
to the Continent and purchase rags subject to £9
per ton export duty.
The continental makers would thus have placed
at their disposal the whole of the rags that had been
previously exported, amounting to 35,000 tons, or
one-half of the whole quantity required for the manu-
facture of white paper in this country, and hence
they could and would supply one-half of all the white
paper consumed in this country without trenching
upon the supply of material required for their home
trade, and, therefore, without in the least degree
affecting the price of their own market.

It is Very Curious and paradoxical to see that the
course of legislation which is now proposed, and
which it is said will be, if not actually beneficial,
only temporarily injurious, would be precisely the
course which would be adopted if the object were to
exterminate the trade. I suppose this is done upon
the hommopathic principle, that what will kill will
cure.

If the Government desired to uproot the paper
trade, what would they do ? They would first as-
certain its actual condition, and they would find it
a struggling, though thriving trade, making but a
very moderate return for the capital and industry
employed. They would find it peculiarly placed
with regard to material, experiencing a constant
difficulty in procuring a supply. They would then
invite all neighbouring States to come and purchase
from this deficient quantity. In the next place,
they would endeavour to prevent a supply coming
from any other source, by inducing foreign Go-
vernments to prohibit the export of their material ;
and, finally, they would admit all foreign manu-
factured paper free from duty ; this done, I say, if
cause and effect have not deserted each other, the
work of destruction, as far as human power could
effect it, would by these means be accomplished.
We should thus be in a position of a nation having
retired from the business of paper-making, prefer-
ring to obtain our supplies from abroad, and selling
our own production of material to our neighbours.
A more iniquitous course, or one bettor calculated
to effect the object, could not be conceived ; and yet
this is what the Government are prop sing to do
with reference to the paper trade of this country
under the name of free trade.
The question suggested by the foregoing case is
a momentous one, and ought to claim from all
a calm and dispassionate consideration, not only as
a matter of justice to the individual interest, to
whieh a new theory is about to be applied, but as
indicating to foreign States what may fairly be
taken as our national policy, and one upon which
they will not be slow to act.
We are asked by her Majesty's Government to
adopt a course with regard to the paper trade which
implies an entirely new reading of the theory of
free trade, the principle involved being equally ap-
plicable to every manufacturing interest in this
country that is in any degree based upon a raw
material obtained from a foreign source.;
The question is this—Are we, as a manufacturing
and commercial nation, prepared to lay down the
principle that foreign nations may levy export
duties upon their raw materials, or give a bounty
on the export of their manufactured articles, and
calculate upon our admitting them, under any
and all circumstances, to this country duty free ?
According to this doctrine, America may levy an
export duty on her cotton, Germany on her wool,
France upon her leather, Russia upon her flax, and
we are to admit the manufactured cloth of America,
the woollen fabrics of Germany, the gloves and
shoes of France, and the linens of Russia duty free
to this country.
I do not pretend to possess more than the ordi-
nary penetration given to ordinary mortals, and
least of all do I desire to speak in the spirit of pro-
phecy, but it seems to me that no more dangerous
precedent could be conceived or established by the
worst enemy of the industrial arts of this country.
I am, sir, yours, &c.,
THOMAS WRIGLEY.
Cox's Hotel, Jermyn-street, May 20.

Loss OF LIFE AT SEA.--LIVERPOOL, May 21.
a man
The Baltic, hence at
lost New York, on the 27th ult., in lat. 45
N.,
k
e &
50fell , named Henry White, over-
board.oW.,
math° maintopsail yard, and was drowned.
Linehans, seaman, of London, while in the act of
hooking the foreshcet of the E. C. Scranton, from Havre,
—James
o ng long.l
at New York, on the hulasllt fell overboard, and was lost.
—John King, of Port gow, seaman, while engaged
stowing the foresail, fell from the foroyard to the topgallant
forecastle'of the Bushire, from Glasgow, at New York, and
from thence overboard, and was lost. It was blowing
heavily at the time, and the ship being under close-reefed
topsails: 09R1449t Was 444'

ATLANTIC,' TELEGRAPH CABLE.