The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-07 00:00:00

article they manufacture—that is to say the publications

they bring out, the paper being the raw material and the
finished book the manufactured article ? If they buy paper

from abroad they must pay upon it a duty of 235. 4d. per
cwt., hist a competing article printed in Germany, which I
slow hold in my hand, is introduced to drive Messrs. Cassell
out of the market at a duty of 15s. (Hear.) That is the
state of British legislation. By the British law as it stands
you refuse Messrs. Cassell leave to purchase the paper on
which their book is printed at 155., but you allow a German
publisher to print a similar edition of the Bible and send it
here at 15s. in order to drive Messrs. Cassell out of the
market. I call upon the committee to dismiss from their
minds any visionary and unpracticable schemes for regulat-
ing our legislation by the proceedings of other countries,
and to stand fast by the sound principle approved by the
experience of 20 years, of minding our own business, amend-
ing our own laws, and setting an example of equity, fair-
ness, and equality, so far as depends upoi?. ourselves. (Hear.)
There are other cases where the inequality, unless removed,
i s the direct result of our own proceedings. It is only this
year that you have said to the manufacturers of paper
hangings and to the card-board maker that the maker of
french hangings shall come in at 145., and the card-board
resaker at 15s. per cwt. But what are hangings and card-
boaf:l ? They are articles of which paper is the raw mate-
rial. Are you then positively to say to these men, "By
the Britis,h law we will compel you to run in a fair field and
with no favour against the foreign producer ; but with re-
spect to the raw material we will hamper your access to
it by artificial restrictions, and will forbid you to purchase
it unless you pay a tax levied for the benefit of the clients
of the hon, member for Hertfordshire." In my opinion
those who are prepared to adopt that course must have
rained their notions on very different grounds from those
which British justice would mark out. It is precisely the
same in principle as the case of the miller would have
been if we had said, "We will admit foreign flour duty
free, but we will maintain the duty upon corn." (Hear,
hear.) These are really my last words upon the subject,
and I must say that so far as regards the first resolution
which is now before us, I cannot for a moment
doubt the course which the dictates of our own
self-respect and our sense of honour and dignity as a house
' of legislature will lead us to adopt, and the conclusion to-
wards which policy, prudence, and justice must direct us.
It has been said by observers of human nature, that how-
ever insignificant a thing may be, there is always something
touching in doing it a last time. It makes an appeal to the
feelings, however small the thing may be, if we know we
shall never have to do it again. Now, I believe that this
is the last time we shall be called upon to settle the old
question of protection. The most microscopic eye may now
address itself to the British tariff, and will find that it has
attained a normal state, so far as the establishment; of
equality between the domestic and the foreign producer is
concerned. Even into the paper trade itself the principle has
found its way. Certain classes of paper goods are irretriev-
ably exposed to foreign competition. The last stage of this
ong journey, and that too a very short stage, is all that re-
mains to be accomplished, and the question is whether you
will accomplish it now, or will stop short. It has been said
that there is a speciality in the case of the paper makers. I
confess that I know of but one speciality in the case, and
that is the extraordinary advantage which the arguments
in its favour have derived from being supported with the
greatest power,vigour, ingenuity, and assiduity in quarters
of the greatest influence. It has but one speciality, and
that is in connexion with what I may call the royal family
of the daily press. (Laughter.) But that is sot a speciality
of which the House of Commons can take notice, and I
should be much indeed surprised and much disappointed if
there should be doubt and hesitation under the circum-
stances as to the course we are to pursue. The vote of this
committee to-night, I feel satisfied, will once more, and
now once for all, affirm and give its sanction to principles
which for so many years have contributed to develops the
resources and confirm the prosperity of this country, and
which, fertile as they have been in benefits to every class of
the community, have upon the whole done the most for
those for whom it was feared they would do the worst,
namely, the producers themselves of what were once pro-
tected commodities. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. PULLER said he had listened with great interest
to the speech of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, because it had convinced him that his
perseverance with those resolutions was founded upon an
insufficiency of information respecting a great interest
which dreaded extinction. (Cheers from the Opposition.)
All that that interest asked for was the very natural privi-
lege of being afforded an opportunity of substantiating its
case before a select committee of that house, and of dis-
proving the grounds upon which the resolutions of the right
hon. gentleman proceeded. He did not despair before he
sat down of satisfying the Chancellor of the Exchequer that
he had taken a wrong view of the matter. He tried to im-
press upon the house that the hands of the Government
were tied by the treaty, and that they were thereby pre-
cluded from considering the hardships of the paper-makers
of this country. Now, when the treaty was under consiae-
-...ation the noble lord at the head of the Governmegt dis-
tinctly said that the house was not asked to bind itself by
any one resolution, but that it would have the opportunity
of going through the whole provisions point by point. That
was the course pursued by Mr. Pitt, and that was the course
the present Government would pursue. That promise, made
by the noble lord, was repeated three days after by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer himself. The right hon. gentleman
new contended that both he and the house were bound by
the treaty. But if he held the views of the 7th article then,
as he did now, it was his duty to have told the house dis-
tinctly that under that article they were bound to reduce
duties irrespective of any provision that might be made for
the duties remitted. (Hear.) The house had not the whole
facts before them. But, indeed, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer enumerated the articles which were under the
treaty and articles not under the treaty, and pap r was men-
tioned by him as not under the treaty. (Opposition cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER admitted
he had said so. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. PULLER did not wish to do injustice to his right
hon. friend ; as no doubt he had his reasons for the
statement ; but undoubtedly the effect of his whole finan-
cial statement was to keep the whole of the facts before
the house. (Hear.) He included paper with hops and
other articles which were to be dealt with, not under the
treaty—(laughter)--while other articles were. He had
not told the house to what extent he intended they should
be bound. The right hon. gentleman had treated the subject
in a very discursive manner, and in the course of his speech
had founded some of his statements upon a communication
hich hid been received from the French Government within
the last 21 hours. As, however, that communication had
not been laid upon the table, it was elear the house could not

be bound by it. With respect to the papermakers, the right
• hon. gentleman had disposed of them very summarily as a
body who were.actuated by causeless panic, and who did not
know their own business half so well as he did. (Laughter.)
Before the right hon. gentleman proceeded to deal in this
summary way with a body of men whose capital was counted
by millions sterling, and whose workmen were numbered
by thousands, they had a right, at all events, to a commit-
tee of inquiry previous to their coming to a decision. The
right hon. gentleman had endeavoured to show that the
price of rags in France was not and would not be much
lower in France than in this country. But the fact was,
that while the rag market of France was closed ours was
open, and the Americans were great competitors with our
own makers. He read a letter from Mr. Cowan, of the emi-
nent firm of Cowan and Sons, of Edinburgh, in which it was
stated that the price of fine French rags was 103. per cwt.
less than the same rags in this country, and common or in-
ferior rags between 6s. and 7s. a cwt. The effect of that on
the home manufacturer must be obvious. The hon. member
fur Birmingham had presented a petition from Messrs. Pet•
ter and Galpin, wbo stated that, on the faith of a resolution
of that house, and while the measure had not received the
sanction of the Legislature, they had entered into contracts
for the purchase of foreign paper and the erection of premises,
which had cost them some thousands, and they prayed for
compensation. But if compensation were granted to persons
who, on thefaith of a mere r-solution, had expended money,
what would compensate the paper manufacturers, who, under
the guarantee of an act f Parliament, had invested their
large capital in a great and staple manufacture. There could
be but one effect of such a change, and that was, to shut up
the English paper mills. The profit on the manufacture of
paper, as he was informed, was not more than one farthing
a pound, while the reduction in the duty on foreign paper
was rather more than seven-eighths of a penny. The effect
of this change must be to encourage the importation of
large quantities of foreign paper produced from cheaper
materials than were available to the English manufacturer,
and this also under circumstances which would give the
foreign maker an adxantage of 7s. 3d. a cwt. over the Eng-
lish producer. Those of them who were lucky enough to
escape bankruptcy would, under the new arrangements, go
abroad, and carry with them the capital, skill, and energy
which were denied fair play here. The paper-makers were,
despite the sarcasms of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
free traders ; but they asked that they should be allowed to
compote under fair and equal—not unfair and unequal con-
ditions. It was because the case of the paper-makers was
en exceptionable one that he would call on the committee to
reject the resolutions of his right hon. friend the Chancel •
for
of the Exchequer. He admitted the general principle
that We abnald buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest
market; but there was at the same time a wise and judicious
doctrine that
,liclidea that
ta,,,Ou.ght also to be followed, which was recom-
in this form—" We should bear
one another',, burdens,"
Ts," and which was also inferred in the
homely maxisn,
and let live." (Hear, hear.) Ere
asked, was there any Live
countries in reforence'ataotutirlal superior advantage in foreign
contrary, his right hon.friendrnanuracture of paper ? On the
the Chancellor of the Excise.•
quer admitted that night that naturally we had ^ n ad vanta,,,
in rgarid,,,teoitl:ermanufactureover of‘p ape7;',
and that thy only advantage
various monopolies which they enjoyed
inares
eesteto frohm the
material front which pm Per was manufactured.pwell,twaesrhawis
right hon. friend so faint-hearted a free-trader as to give
way to this opposition of a foreign monopoly to the preju-
dice of the paper manufacturers of this country ? lle con-
fessed that he was surprised to hear his right hon, friend
make a proposal that would perpetuate this monopoly
which the foreigner now enjoyed in this matter. Sup-
pose our manufacturers had to pay an import 'duty
upon rags, would his right hon. friend then say that the