The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-21 00:00:00

THE PAPER ?WADI?.

-/-1)e 100,000 tons waiting to beerigaiiictieArlah
----,) is now reduced to 10,000 tonsf, .-.
_ 7- ' ' -''.
I The expense of chemicalizAiir‘ii'
) : and bleaching ii
them is ab4tig***tiepalaiiti
bleaching rags. ) ...,:rV'Ateel74"',-_-0.--/
ii‘4l?
-,,,-*-ce-,- ' --,,,v'; ‘,, •-,-'7
Then look at the expens likttagrty
_ bulk, for so small a result, ffoiiile- I-1 - of
the earth. t
But let me ask those who are relying upon these
foreign fibres as a means of supplying our deficiency
of material, how it is that the Spaniards continue
to use the old effete material, rags, to the neglect of
_ the genuine, sound, and strong grass, growing upon
1 their shores ? How is it that the Americans, who
are in a far greater strait for material than we are,
I and who arc roaming over the whole world in search
of rags—why do they not call in upon their near
neighbours, the West Indies, and apply the plain-
fain and the banana trces to their own use, they
being, it is said, full of fibre, and applicable to paper
making ?
No one gill charge our cousins across the Atlantic
with v.-ant of energy, or want of skill, in converting
to their own use whatever is a v7ilable. Ask Jonathan
the questicn, and he will reply, " I guess it won't
pay."

It seems to be thought that the repeal of the
paper duty and the abolution of the ld. import duty
stand in the relation of cause and effect; why
cannot understand.
When the duty was reduced from 3d. to Ixd. the
penny was retained avowedly as a compensation
for the artificial cheapness of material on the Con-
tinent, caused by their prohibitory tax upon ex-
ports. If it were necessary then, it is equally Ise-
cessary now, unless it be the deliberate intention of
the Legislature to destroy us as a trade.
I believe that the majority of those who are giving
their support to the Minister, in his proposal to
abolish the id. import duty, are doing so under the
belief that the relief from the paper ditty will tend
to some economy in manufacture. This is a great
mistake. The duty did not in any degree interfere
with the economy of manufacture, nor is thore one
word of truth in the statement that it prca-ented
experiments, or the use of any material whatever.
It is simply a nuisance, but by its repeal, I shall
not be benefited in actual cost £5O per ye ar, and I
know of no means that will be available to reduce
the cost of manufacture, when the duty is. repealed,
that are not now completely within my f;r asp.
Others there are who talk about new materials
as though the repeal of the duty would b ave some
magical influence in bringing them in.-; but the
great bulk of those who are supporting e Govern-
ment in their present intention of abolishing the
import duty are following what they con ceive to be
the unalterable laws of free trade, and though they
admit that our case seems a hard one, to be called
ox to compete with a foreign manufacture the
material of which is 50 per cent. cheaptir than our
own, and at the same time to suffer from the com-
petition of the American in our own market for our
own material, he being protected again st all com-
petition by a 30 per cent. import duty, yet, say
they, "Something will turn up ; you will get on
somehow." It is with the view of pleating the facts
of the case, and the inevitable tendencies of the
proposed remission before these gentlemen, that I
have troubled you at this length. I desire that
they should know the truth, that they should be
fully aware of the consequences of their own acts.
It may be that some hardened stoic, some philo-
sophic Liberal, Ns:11 say—Perish the paper trade
rather than maintain that which has the appear-
ance of protection, no matter what may be the pecu-
liar or exceptional nature of the case.