it constantly happens that serious damage is sustained, and that packages in almost every shipment sent abroad are found on their arrival to be damaged, and are sold as waste, to the great detriment of the consignor. That, owing to this circumstance, it is nearly impossible for the British manufacturer to compete with foreigners in our colonies, who are subject to no such restrictions.

Third. That under the present system the foreign manufacturers have not only a manifest advantage in the markets abroad, but are enabled to undersell the British manufacturer at home in many departments of the trade; that, as one instance of this fact, it is well know that there are annually imported into this country from France large quantities of ornamental paper boxes, which are admitted at the Custom House as manufactured articles at an ad valorem duty of ten per cent. Owing to the Excise duty, the British manufacturer cannot compete with the foreigner in the produce of these articles, or in glazed coloured papers, which are extensively used in the sale of goods as labels or otherwise, and which are actually engraved in France. That upwards of twenty thousand women are employed in the manufacture of the first of these articles alone; whereas it is evident that were the Excise duty removed that amount of employment would be thrown into the hands of the industrious classes at home.

That, besides these reasons already preferred, and which are principally financial, your Petitioners would humbly urge upon this honourable House the consideration of the great injury which is entailed by this tax upon the publication of literary works. The fact has been thoroughly ascertained, and indeed was stated in evidence before a Committee of this honourable House, that upon the average of published books not more than one out of three, and not more than one pamphlet out of twenty, met with a sufficient sale to defray the attendant outlay.

The whole expense, therefore, of an unsuccessful work falls either upon the publisher or the author; for, before the paper can be taken out of the mill, the duty must be necessarily charged upon it, and a tax is thus levied upon an article which, in the majority of cases, is not saleable, in addition to which the author or publisher is charged with the heavy expenses of printing. According to the Excise regulations observed with regard to other taxed commodities, the dealer is permitted to retain his goods in bond without payment of duty until a sale has been affected, a privilege which is denied to the publisher, who must pay the duty upon every printed sheet, although not one copy should be sold.

That your Petitioners are firmly convinced that were the Excise duty upon paper removed altogether, the trade, which now labours under extreme depression, would immediately revive; that from the extension of business which in that event they confidently anticipate they would be able to give employment to a much larger number of the industrious classes; that the public would be supplied at a price considerably below that which is presently charged, and that not only the manufacturers of paper, but every person in the country connected with literature and the ornamental or useful sciences, would derive great and permanent advantages from that repeal.

Finally, your Petitioners do most humbly Paper (for trust that in the consideration of this Petition Repeal of Duty). due weight will be given by this honourable House to the effect of this abolition of duty in promoting the diffusion of knowledge and religion among the humble classes of society, and in contributing so materially to their moral and social comfort.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that this honourable House would take into consideration the propriety, for the causes herein shewn, of abolishing the Excise duty presently imposed upon paper manufactured within this kingdom, and by such ways and means, and under such regulations and restrictions, as to this honourable House shall seem meet.

JOHN LEE, Principal and Professor

of Divinity in the University of
Edinburgh.

JOHN WILSON, Professor of Moral
Philosophy.

ALEX. BLACKWOOD.

App. 30. Mr. Masterman. Sig. 16,192. Soap (for 64. The humble Petition of the Dealers Repeal of Duty). and Consumers of Soap, and others interested in Home and Foreign Trade connected there- Dealers, &e. with,

Sheweth,

That your Petitioners are deeply injured by the high duty upon this necessary and important commodity.

That the consumption of soap is seriously diminished; that the duty falls unequally upon the different qualities of soap, being greater in proportion to the price upon the cheaper and inferior kind used by the poor than upon the better qualities used by the rich.

Your Petitioners are aware of the numerous representations made to your honourable House in favour of a repeal and reduction of duties upon many of the principal articles of commerce; they are aware of the strong case that can be made out in favour of the remission or alteration of various duties with a view to extend and facilitate the general trade of the country; but they believe that no case can be made out which presents such strong claims to your honourable House as that which can be stated in favour of the repeal of the duty upon soap.

Your Petitioners place their claim to relief on the following grounds:

Firstly. The export trade or foreign trade of the country is nearly destroyed.

Secondly. The home trade is very seriously diminished; the price of this important and necessary article is so high as to limit consumption, as your Petitioners will shew; and the various and vexatious though necessary restrictions of the Excise laws prevent improvement in the processes of manufacture, and consequently a reduction in the cost of production; thus less labour and capital are embarked in this trade than it would employ were it freed from the impediments of the Excise laws.

Your Petitioners would state first, with regard to the foreign trade, that this country is alone prevented from enjoying a fair share of the trade of the world by the Excise laws; all the raw materials are abundant and cheap in this country, and are capable of greatly

extended production; tallow and alkali, the produce of our own agriculture and salt mines, would share the benefit of an increase in the soap trade.

To extend the foreign trade in this article two things are absolutely necessary,―that the whole duty paid by the English maker should be repaid on export, or the foreign maker is assisted in his competition with the English maker in neutral markets to the extent of the duty paid, and not drawn back by the English maker, a practical evil susceptible of remedy only by the total repeal of the duty.

Your Petitioners are of opinion, were the trade extended, it would benefit not alone the manufacturer at home but the consumers and dealers, inasmuch as a free and successful competition in neutral markets leads to improvement and economy, and ultimately to a lessened cost of production, in which all parties share alike.

Your Petitioners, secondly, with regard to the home trade, would also represent that the restrictions of the Excise laws press with great severity upon it; production is checked, and, the price being enhanced, the consumption of soap is diminished amongst the mass of the people to a minimum.

Your Petitioners beg also most respectfully to state that a repeal of this duty would greatly benefit the health and add to the comfort of the labouring population.

In proof of this your Petitioners would refer to one striking fact derived from extensive and accurate inquiries, the consumption of soap per head per annum varies with the means of the consumer. The wealthier classes consume from fifteen to thirty pounds per head per annum; convicts are allowed eleven pounds per head per annum; the allowance in per annum; the allowance in workhouses amounts to about seven pounds per head per annum, whilst and to this fact your Petitioners beg the attention of your honourable House the independent labouring population do not consume, if the Excise returns are correct, so much as two pounds per head per annum, a little more than a fourth of what is found necessary for personal and domestic cleanliness where the minimum quantity is allowed, and where the greatest economy is practised. The difference is the measure of the wants and necessities of the independent labourer, and any reduction in the price of so necessary an article will enable him more nearly to place himself upon a level in this respect with the convict and the pauper.

Your Petitioners would also represent that a repeal of this duty would alone reduce the cost of soap one penny halfpenny per pound; in proof of which they appeal confidently to the reduction of the price of soap in one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three, when the duty was reduced; and they are of opinion that, if the aid of science and machinery combined was freely available, which, for the reasons stated, it is not, that the cost of production would be lessened, and the manufacturer be enabled to supply the consumer with soap at one half the present price, greatly to the benefit of your Petitioners, and to the personal and domestic comfort, and even the moral condition, of the labouring population.

Your Petitioners have observed with great satisfaction the inquiries set on foot by Her Majesty's present and late Government into the state and condition of the great body of the

Repeal of

Duty).

people. In reviewing the many sources of in- Soap (for jury to the health and strength and well-being of the people enumerated in the reports of Commissioners, such as want of necessary drainage, ventilation, &c. of the dwellings of the labourer, and which vary in degree in different localities, we find all agree in describing an absence of that personal and domestic cleanliness necessary to health and comfort as an universal evil.

Your Petitioners, believing that a repeal of the duty on soap would first create a foreign trade of great extent, from the abundance and cheapness in this country of all the raw materials, and that it would also benefit agriculture, that it would extend the home trade, and that it would add to the comforts and health of the labouring population and improve their moral condition, humbly pray your honourable House to repeal the law.

And your Petitioners will ever pray, &c.
THOS. TOOLey.

ROBT. DIXON.
BENJN. LANCASTER.

&c. &c. &c.

That your Petitioners have a large capital embarked in the manufacture of soap, the most economical and productive employment of which is prevented by the rules and regulations required by the Excise laws to raise and secure the duty levied on the article they manufacture.

That these laws beyond the inevitable and injurious operations of taxation and the costs of production on the profits of capital, are peculiarly injurious to your Petitioners, as from the facility with which soap can be manufactured a large proportion of the whole quantity consumed is made illicitly, and competes in the market with that which is duty-paid.

That one-fourth of this duty collected under the expensive and vexatious regulations of the Excise is returned to the consumers and exporters in drawbacks, the abolition of which would remove a fruitful source of fraud and much vexatious interference with the manufacturing industry of the country.

Upon a moderate and carefully-considered estimate of the actual consumption of soap by each individual in Great Britain compared with the quantity of soap charged with duty, your Petitioners are of opinion that not more than five-sixths of the whole quantity of soapmade pays duty; the remainder is sold in the market at low prices against the duty-paid produce of your Petitioners, to their great manifest injury

That your Petitioners, being duly licensed by the Excise and under the constant and vigilant survey of its officers stationed in their premises, are prohibited from the manufacture of perfumed or fancy soap, a branch of the trade offering peculiar facilities for the commission of frauds, whilst perfumers, only occasionally surveyed by the Excise, and paying no duty, and having no officers stationed on their premises, are allowed this privilege.

That the privilege which has recently been granted to large consumers to make their soap without paying duty and free from the trammels of the Excise is unjust to your Petitioners,

turers.

and calculated to encourage frauds on the

revenue.

That the Excise duty on soap thus not only injured your Petitioners in the home market, but materially restricts the foreign trade, inasmuch as they have to compete with the manufacturers in foreign countries not subject to Excise laws and regulations.

Your Petitioners are allowed by law, on exportation only the amount of the legal duty paid, whereas the rules and regulations of the Excise, absolutely necessary to prevent fraud and secure the revenue, prescribing as they do the form and size of the utensils, and the time and manner of conducting the processes, occasion an extra cost to your Petitioners of from eight to ten per cent., which remains a charge upon soap exported, over and above the duty; this extra charge, the necessary consequence of the law, is a further tax on the English manufacturer, and operates as a protection in favour of his foreign rivals, who are subject in no instance to a similar tax, and who are allowed to import soap into our colonies at an ad valorem of seven and a half per cent.

That the result of these restrictions has been to limit to an insignificant quantity the export soap trade of the country, whilst from the abundance and cheapness of the raw materials it might be almost indefinitely extended, to the great benefit of the producers of them, both being abundantly supplied from the soil of this country, the alkali made from salt the produce of our mines, and tallow produced largely by our farmers and graziers.

That the abundance and cheapness of the raw materials, were the trade unrestricted by the Excise, would soon enable your Petitioners to compete with any foreign rival, whereas English alkali is now exported duty free to America and the Continent, to be there manufactured into soap for the use of our own colonies.

That your Petitioners believe no such case of almost total exclusion from foreign markets, or of advantages given to foreign markets to supply our colonies by the operation of our own laws, can be made out by any other branch seeking relief from taxation.

That, beyond the peculiar injury sustained by your Petitioners by the legal regulation of their trade, which paralyses the skill of the manufacturer, prevents his resorting to the most simple and economical processes, excludes him from a foreign trade by the advantage foreign makers enjoy in being free from the shackles of an Excise, they suffer the further detriment of a limitation of the home demand, in consequence of the high price of soap caused not only by the amount of the duty, and the interest, and charges thereon, but by the superadded cost of legal regulations; and as the duty is the same on the lowest quality as on the best the tax falls with unjust and unequal pressure on the poor.

Your Petitioners beg further to state that the duty on the ordinary qualities of soap is about one hundred per cent. on the cost of the raw materials, and the charge incident to Excise regulations is full ten per cent. more, making a total charge of one hundred and ten per cent. on the soap used by the mass of the people, whilst the duty on the soap used by the rich amounts to only fifty or sixty per

cent.: a repeal of the duty would therefore Soap (for reduce the cost per pound of soap to the peal of Duty). labouring classes more than one-half its present price.

And your Petitioners believe were free scope given to the employment of skill and capital, to the introduction of new processes, to the use of new materials, to the introduction of new apparatus and machinery, the price of soap to the consumer would be reduced much beyond the actual duty and the charges incidental thereto. On the other hand, your Petitioners can safely assert that the present laws discourage the introduction of improvements, the duty being always charged on attempted improvements, whether successful or not; that the necessary survey of the officers of Excise, their access to and knowledge of all processes, deprives the manufacturer of security against the promulgation of his individual improvements to his rivals in trade; and that this trade is therefore stationary amidst the progress of science and art in all other trades, old processes are continued, and old apparatus is retained, to the prejudice not only of your Petitioners, but of our home and foreign trade, and of the public generally.

That your Petitioners are further aggrieved by the exemption of one part of the United Kingdom from the operation of this tax and all its prejudicial consequences. The duty on soap does not extend to Ireland. The Irish manufacturer has thereby a premium upon the export of soap to England, where he pays the net duty per pound, having escaped the extra cost of legal regulations and waste incidental to the manufacture, and being free to apply his skill to the best of his knowledge.

Moreover, from the constant intercourse with Ireland smuggling is inevitable and easy, and is practised your Petitioners can confidently state to a considerable extent, which is as injurious to the revenue as it is injurious and unjust towards your Petitioners.

Your Petitioners seek only fair and free competition, whether with all parts of the United Kingdom or with foreign countries, as far as our own Legislature can secure it; but they confidently appeal to the justice of your honourable House to place at least all Her Majesty's subjects as far as practicable, and before large vested interests arise in Ireland, on an equal footing. A repeal of the duty would do this, repress a fruitful and increasing source of fraud, and would put an end to the allowances of drawback on soap exported to Ireland, and of the countervailing duties on the import of soap to Great Britain from Ireland.

Your Petitioners, upon the consideration of all the circumstances stated, trust that your honourable House will acknowledge the justice of their claim to a relief from this tax, which would benefit greatly the existing trade of the country, open a new channel of industry abroad, abolish the establishment required to collect a duty, and to return one-fourth of it in drawbacks, free them from a legal regulation of their trade, oppressive and mischievous however carefully applied, and from restrictions which increase the cost and check the consumption of an article like soap, and thereby promote the health and welfare of the people.

Your Petitioners therefore pray for such relief as shall meet the justice of their case,

F

That your Petitioners justly complain of the abolition of the imprisonment for debts under twenty pounds, whereby they have sustained great loss; that if the principle of imprisonment for debt is bad the same should be abolished altogether and not in part.

That your Petitioners contract debts to a large amount, for which they are subject to imprisonment, and they ought, in justice, to have the same remedy against their own customers, without reference to the amount of debt.

That the moral effect of the liability to imprisonment was of great benefit to your Petitioners, and induced the great majority of their debtors to discharge their just debts without the actual enforcement of imprisonment, whereas they now absolutely refuse to pay the same, and your Petitioners have no satisfactory or effectual means of compelling payment thereof.

That the sudden and unexpected change in the law has absolutely confiscated the bookdebts of your Petitioners under twenty pounds, and which were allowed by your Petitioners to be contracted on the faith of having a remedy against the persons of their debtors as well as their goods, and which debts are now wholly lost to your Petitioners.

That among the trading classes credit is essential to success in business and to the well-being of the mercantile community, and to the artificers is frequently essential to their very existence, especially in times of sickness and want of employment; but unless a proper and effectual remedy be afforded to your Petitioners for enforcing their legal rights they must altogether cease to give credit. That your Petitioners require a cheap, easy, and speedy mode of recovering their just debts, which the present law does not afford them, the same being tedious, most expensive, ineffectual, and worthless.

That your Petitioners think the establishment of local courts with jurisdiction to decide all claims and demands under twenty pounds at a reasonable cost would be of great advantage to your Petitioners.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray your honourable House that the 57th section of the 7 and 8th Victoria, cap. 96, may be forthwith repealed, and imprisonment for debt under twenty pounds again resorted to, or that the same may be altogether abolished, without reference to the amount of the debt; and, further, that your honourable House will be pleased, without delay, to pass a law to establish county courts with jurisdiction to hear and determine all claims and demands under twenty pounds, and which would afford your Petitioners a speedy, summary, and effectual remedy for the evils of which they so justly complain, and enable your Petitioners to enforce their legal rights and recover their just debts at a trifling and reasonable cost.

That your Petitioners are legally qualified practitioners of medicine and surgery resident in Colchester and its neighbourhood.

That your Petitioners consider the great difference existing among the numerous irresponsible medical corporations demands legislative interference in order to control them, and render medical education uniform.

That your Petitioners believe that the "Bill for the better Regulation of Medical Practice throughout the United Kingdom," introduced into Parliament by Sir James Graham, is inadequate to such an end, and view it with dissatisfaction and disappointment, because, while professing to protect the public health and the medical profession, they believe its tendency to be grievously destructive of both, since it offers direct encouragement to empiricism with its enormous and incalculable evils, and tends to degrade the educated and legalized practitioner, and to retard and discourage medical science.

That your Petitioners view with satisfaction the benefit which the public and the profession have derived from the great improvement which has taken place in the qualifications of the general practitioners under the Apothecaries Act, and consider it unjust that by its repeal they should be subjected to the open and unrestricted competition of the uneducated, after having submitted to the expensive and prolonged course of study required under that law.

That your Petitioners deem the Council of Health, as proposed by the Bill, exceedingly defective and objectionable, because of the predominance it gives to the Minister of the Crown in the appointing its members, because of the great proportion of non-professionals in its constitution, and because the largest body of the medical profession, the general practitioners, are not represented in it; and that they consider the proposed system of registration unjust, since it offers no equivalent commensurate with the protective clause of the Apothecaries Act, and compels those who are injured by its operation to maintain the expense of an obnoxious enactment.

Your Petitioners therefore respectfully and earnestly pray your honourable House that the above-mentioned Bill may not pass into a law, and that your honourable House will withhold its sanction from any other Bill introduced with a like intention which does not provide for uniformity in medical education, with protection to the profession and the public, by extinguishing empiricism and affording an easy and summary mode for punishing unqualified practitioners.

your

And Petitioners will ever pray.
EDWARD WILLIAMS, M.D.
RICHARD CHAMBERS, M.D.
T. E. DANIELL, Surgeon.
&c.

&c. &c.

F 2

Colchester.