A TAX ON PAPER.

[To Tile EDITOR OF TUB "SrEcrATorl.1

Sin,-With reference to the letter in the Spectator of August 15th in which your correspondent " Leonis " pro- tests against the possible introduction of an import-duty on foreign paper, may I, as a member of the paper trade and one to whom such a measure is of the greatest interest, venture to plead in favour of such a blessing ?

As " Leonia " is pleased to be somewhat flippant, and quite fails to go to the root of the matter to start with, and, so far as I can gauge the value of his observations, does not raise one single point having any real bearing upon the question at issue, I need not deal with the subject in a controversial manner, but will confine myself to a concise statement of facts and figures which unmistakably point to the necessity for revision of our present fiscal policy so far as this trade is concerned.

up to the time of the early "eighties," a few years subsequent

to the discovery of wood-pulp as a material for paper-making, British mills were on a very equal footing with their foreign competitors, the market for esparto-pulp favouring neither one nor the other; but since then the conditions governing the supply of raw material necessary to a great number of British manufacturers have become very one-sided and unfair, owing to the increasing use of wood-pulp, to our non-possession of indigenous supplies of the requisite kinds of timber, and to the correspondingly dominating position of foreign manu- facturers in wood-pulp-producing countries, principally Norway, Sweden, Germany, and America. British manufacturers are consequently at a growing disadvantage, being obliged to obtain material in larger quantities every year from foreign competitors, who all the time are "dumping" on our home market their "surplus products" of every conceivable kind of paper at much lower prices than those obtained in the country of origin, or at which British mills can work profitably. The point of view which I have endeavoured to make clear in the foregoing remarks will be better appreciated after a careful examination of the subjoined figures representing the "Imports of Esparto and Wood-Pulp during the Fifteen Years from 1888 to 1900," compiled from the Board of Trade Blue-book of Statistical Abstracts :-

Year. Esparto. Tons. Wood-pulp. Tone. Increase.

,..---------„, Decrease.

,.-.--,• Esparto. Wood. Pull). Tons. Tons. W ood.

Esparto. .nuip. Tons. 1:0118.

1886 195,151 Not d ist in guished -

1867 200,116 ••• 79,533 ..... 4,965

7---

1889 248,836 ••• 110,369 48,720 ... 30,838

1999 217,256 ••• 122,179 - ... 11,810 31,580 - 1890 217,028 ••• 137,837 - ... 15,658 ... 228 - 1891 212,666 ..... ••• 156,609 - ... ' 18,772 - 4,362 - 1892 212,967 ••• 190,946 301

... - - 1893 185,450 • • • 215,920 - ... 24,974 ... 27,517 1894 184,960 ••• 279,765 •••

(B,845

1895 186,408 ••• 297,095 ••• 1,449 ... 17,330 - 1896 157,278 ••• 327,080 ••• 870

- 1897 204,579 ••• 388,304 ••• 17,301 61,224

1898 197,341 ••• 404,842 •••

16,588 7,238 1899 207,604 ••• 415,113 ••• 10,263 ... 10,271

1900 200,299 • .• 487,742

72,629

7,324

From the above figures it would seem beyond doubt that an import-duty on wood-pulp as a raw material or otherwise would only make the position of many British paper-makers worse than it is at the present time, and it is therefore comforting to note the assurance to the contrary recently given in the House of Commons by Mr. Chamberlain in answer to a question by Sir John Leng.

Now turn to the question of our exports and imports of paper. With very small exception, the bulk of the papers imported here from Europe and America are made from wood-pulp, so that the significance of the following figures, obtained from the same source and covering the same period as the former statistics, becomes even greater when considered as showing the one-sided state of affairs due to its use, coupled with the free admission of

Year.

1886 1837 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892

ass 1894

1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900

foreign imports of paper. :-

British Exports.

Cwts.

738,249 765,920 1,015,385 928,837 904,997 936,477 1373,663 852,301 844,074 842,526

987,878 927,8%

863,584 844,018

999,457 Foreign Imports.

Cwts.

1,517,276 1,691,870

1,933,910 2,117,955 2,273,793 2.599,978 2,894,406 2,922,882 3,381,732 3,690,592 4,040,892 4,845,021 5,011,244 5,305,399 6,332,432

•• • •• • •• • ••• • -• • • • ••• ••• ••• • • • ••• ••• ••• •••

Increase.

Imports. Cuts.

174,594 242,010 184,045 155.838 326,185 294,41.11 28,476 458,850 308,830 350,330 804,129 166,?23 294,155 1,027,033 Decrease.

Export.s. Cwte, 27,671 249,465 31,480 145,352 ...

155,439 ...

Exports. Imports.

Cwts. Cwts.

-

- - - ... 62,814 ... 20,862... ... 8,727,,.

1.543 - ... 64,324 ... 19,546 ... - What else does this tremendous increase of imports mean but a corresponding and unavoidable surrender of business by our own paper-makers, the shutting down of some and very serious em- barrassment of other hitherto flourishing mills ? There can be no reasonable objection to imports at fair prices under equal con- ditions all round, but where is the sense in allowing vast supplies of paper to be sent into the country free of duty to the detriment of our home manufacturers, and to help the foreign " dumper " to go on collaring our trade ? When it is borne in mind that a good proportion of the exports included in the above figures are foreign- made papers re-3xported, the position of British makers is even worse than would appear at first glance.

This brings us to the next point,-viz., British-made papers for our Colonies. With the possible exception of Canada, which, being a wood-pulp-producing country, was bound to become almost entirely a self-contained market, it is not speaking very wide of the mark to say that since the introduction of wood- pulp our Colonies have largely ceased to import British-made papers. Take Australia and New Zealand as an instance, and their requirements in the way of "news" (for newspapers) as a case in point. During the fifteen years represented by the two tables of statistics already given, the Americans in particular have almost completely knocked us out with their "over- production" prices.

Your correspondent "Leonia" surely errs from the path of veracity when he describes himself as "a man of sense," and pro- ceeds to plead "that the faithful Telegraph [presumably the Daily Telegraph] has done nothing to deserve taxation" on its supplies of paper. One cannot help smiling at the ignorance displayed, but it will not do to be too exacting, however, for, as "a humble

journalist," "Leonia" cannot be expected to know much, at any rate, not to the extent of being aware that the proprietors of the Daily Telegraph make all the paper they require for the production of their enterprising journal at their own paper-mill at Dartford Creek, and, furthermore, that more than one other of the best London dailies are patriotic enough to draw the whole or major portion of their supplies from mills in this country, but in many cases at such prices as may succeed in ' keeping the foreign "damper "- at bay, but scarcely suffice to enable the British paper-maker to pay twenty shillings in the pound and also reap a reasonable profit from his undertaking. Li this connection, Sir, it is gratifying to note that as the Spectator itself is printed on a British-made esparto paper, there need be no fear that your respected journal would be "seriously injured in pocket" in the event of there being an import-duty on foreign paper. None the less, one is bound to admire the spirit displayed in your being "prepared to stand the expense" in order to "exhibit the folly of Protection."

It is not Protection in the sense of coddling one trade at the expense of another which is advocated, but revision of our fiscal system on 'a fair and sound basis, which will place the British manufacturer on an equal footing with his foreign competitors. By all means have Free-trade so long RS it is as free to one as to the other, but the order of the day now seems to be "free imports" of foreign goods to the exclusion of "home products" !

[In endorsing " Leonia's " plea that if the Fair-trade newspapers were so anxious for Protection they should try it first on their own raw material—i.e., paper—we said nothing about paper-makers. They would naturally like such a tax. We say now, however, in all seriousness, as we have said before, that if Protection is tried, it seems to

us that a tax on imported paper is a much more tolerable proposal than one on food, and we should be prepared to face

the inconvenience, and even loss, which such an impost might cause to ourselves, if it were agreed to treat it as an experi- mentum crucis, by the working of which the merits of Protec- tion should be judged. At the same time, "Fair Competi-

tion's" lengthy letter sets forth such a remarkably poor case for a Paper-tax that we cannot think that its advocates will make

much way with the public. What it amounts to is that no foreign manufacturing industry is to be considered as "com- peting fairly" with those of this country if it flourishes in a

country where its raw material, not produced here, is obtain- able. However great the demand here may be for the manu- factured article—and our correspondent's figures as to the imports of paper into England show how vast and growing the demand for paper is—those who use the article are to be obliged to buy it only at such a price as will be convenient to the British manufacturer. That clearly is the temper with which Parliament would have to deal in one industry after another if Protection once got a foothold, and we do not think that our correspondent's letter will tempt public opinion to make a beginning in that direction. It need

hardly be pointed out that "Fain Competition's" figures entirely fail to demonstrate the ruin of the paper industry here.—En. Spectator.]