DUTIES ON GLASS. (Hansard, 23 March 1838)

§ Mr. French

said, when this Bill was introduced, the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that any attempt to get rid of these duties would be absurd. He, on the contrary, believed their doom was sealed, and that if not at present, within a very short period, the right hon. Gentleman must reduce his expenditure, or look out for a substitute for them. As in the reign of William 3d the Treasury was compelled to give up the duties on glass, as being destructive to its manufacture in 1200 this country, so, for the same reason, a similar fate must await the present duties—duties imposed as a war-tax in the reign of George 2nd, and continued with fatal impolicy down to the present day. The attention of the public once drawn to this question, it would never be endured that a necessary of life, of the importance which belongs to glass in a climate like ours, should be considered and taxed as an article of luxury; that a manufacture amounting in annual value to 2,000,000l. sterling, employing upwards of 50,000 workmen, and which would in a short time treble itself if it was allowed fair play, should be hampered by regulations declared by the Commissioners of Excise Inquiry in their 13th report to be harassing, vexatious, and oppressive, and described as a tax upon industry, and a bar to invention and improvement. These Commissioners—gentlemen whose laborious research and sound judgment are universally admitted—have recorded their conviction, that by those duties and regulations, not only is the consumption of glass materially checked, but that the employment of labour and capital is restricted, and the accumulation of national wealth seriously retarded; that under these regulations an illicit trade is carried on to a great extent, which in many instances has driven the fair trader out of the market, and forced him to abandon his business altogether. In the evidence taken before those gentlemen, it was fully established by Mr. Bower and other practical men, that great improvements would probably have taken place in the manufacture of glass, but for the operation of the Excise-laws, which prevent the free progress of invention and improvement, not only as regards the article itself, but in the different arts and sciences to which it is subsidiary: it appeared that under these laws our foreign trade had gradually fallen off, and that if they were continued, our colonial trade must inevitably be taken from us, as it is already materially injured by the importation of German and other continental glass: it appeared by this evidence also, that the manufacture of glass beads and other ornaments, which was at one time extensively carried on in this country had latterly been entirely abandoned. We find the Commissioners stating, after the most searching inquiries, that they "have no hesitation in affirming these duties to be highly prejudicial to our foreign trade"—a conclusion, the correctness of which he (Mr. 1201 French) contended could not be disputed, as by those high duties the manufacture of glass for telescopes had been transferred to foreign countries, and by the laws as they now stood, the fabrication of one valuable description of this article, the stained window glass, for which this country was formerly so celebrated, was actually prohibited. The materials of which glass is made were abundant in this country; skill, capital, and intelligence, had been largely expended in its manufacture, but still it had not prospered, because of the vexatious duties imposed upon it. Other countries may have cheaper labour, whilst this country boasts of far greater skill and enterprise, notwithstanding which our manufacturers were now undersold in our own colonies by other nations. Nay, even into England itself, one description of glass, such as decanters, tumblers, and wineglasses, could be imported from Germany cheaper than they could be manufactured here. By referring to the reports on the separate classes into which this manufacture is divided, the House would find, that half the amount levied as duty on bottle glass was returned as drawback, which fact would alone be sufficient to call for its repeal. Mr. Cookson, of Newcastle, an extensive manufacturer, examined by the Committee, stated, that the materials of which bottle-glass was composed, were various; that manufacturers of crown-glass have a refuse which is too impure for theist to use, but which had been used by bottle manufacturers, and the use of it had improved the colour of the common bottle-glass, inasmuch as it was employed particularly for chemical purposes, and in snaking large vessels for oil of vitriol and carboys, and the finer the material the tougher will be the glass; but this refuse is considered by the Excise an improper thing to be used in common bottle metal; it is consequently prohibited, and must be thrown away, although a highly useful article. The House would scarcely believe that the only ground suggested for this strange prohibition was, that the use of this material would make the goods so fine as to bring them into competition with flint glass. This article called crown cullet, is utterly useless for making crown glass, though a cheaper and better material for its purpose than any now used in the manufacture of bottle-glass. On this subject the Commissioners very justly remark, that "it would be hardly possible to imagine an instance in which the inju- 1202 rious operation of Excise regulations could be placed in a stronger light; we see hundreds of tons of an article which is known to be the cheapest, and at the same time the best which could be used in one of our most extensive and most useful domestic manufactures, lying uselessly at the very doors of our manufacturers, who are prevented from employing it solely by their dread of the construction which might be put on a doubtful clause of an Excise statute." The effect of the augmentation of duty on crown glass was to diminish the consumption on the average of three years from 114, 725cwt. to 95, 451cwt. It might be well to mention, as an instance of the useless and harassing regulations to which the manufacturer of glass was subjected, the manner in which the convenience of the manufacturer was interfered with, without any corresponding advantage to the revenue. There are thirty-two clauses of regulations, penalties, and prohibitions, which are as expensive to the public as they are vexatious to the manufacturer; a costly staff must be kept up for surveys, which are to be taken every four hours; no month ever passed over the head of the manufacturer in which he did not subject himself, in one way or another, to penalties; he was, in fact, at the mercy of the Excise, who could ruin him if they pleased. But, to return to the report on crown glass; the House would there find, that in consequence of the repeated frauds practised within the last few years, the trade had become wholly unproductive to the honest manufacturer. Mr. Cuthbert states in his evidence, that the regulations would occasion very strong grievances if carried into effect, which was not done because it was not practicable. The charge on the exportation of this glass was from 200 to 250 per cent. more than it ought to be; duty was charged upon duty, the duty percentage being taken upon the price of the glass, duty included, instead of on the amount, as in fairness it ought to be, of the value after deducting the drawback. The whole quantity exported now did not bear the proportion of a twentieth to that exported to the Baltic twenty years ago. For proof of the little regard paid to the convenience of the manufacturers, he should refer to the evidence of Mr. Chance, who stated, that the notices he was required to give were so numerous, that he was obliged to have them printed by thousands: he was giving notices all day long, but still every now 1203 and then he was summoned before a magistrate for some omission. He was certain that the House would agree with the Commissioners that the expense and inconvenience arising from this course must be heavily felt in the generality of establishments. In the report on plate glass, the House would find, that the duty prevented a successful competition in small plates with foreign countries, and had an effect scarcely less injurious upon the home market, by preventing the use of a superior description of article. It would be found, that the continuance of the duty on flint glass was productive of public injury far beyond what could be compensated by the small amount secured by them to the revenue; that in the cost of collection each flint-glass-house cost the revenue no less than 300l. a-year for officers alone: that the duty was continually evaded, and the market supplied with articles at a price which, if the duty were paid, would be disposing of them at a loss. Articles were in the market at 3s. or 4s. which, if the duty had been paid, could not be sold for less than 6s. Many small orders were refused on account of the expense of the bond (10s. 6d.) The abolition of the duty would lead to a great extension of the trade: many articles would then be made of glass which now are not. The alteration in 1825 almost annihilated the exportation of flint glass. Was this, he would ask, a tax which ought, under all the circumstances, to be maintained? Mr. M'Culloch states in his Commercial Dictionary, that the only difficulty he labours under, is to decide whether the regulations under which the duties are levied, or the duties themselves, are the most oppressive; that the wealth and population of these countries have more than doubled since the year 1790; and that he is convinced that the manufacture of glass, had it been left to itself, would have increased in a still greater ratio; but so far was this manufacture from advancing, that it had positively declined, and was actually less at this moment than it was forty years ago. This extraordinary result was entirely to be ascribed to the exorbitant excess to which the duties had been carried. One third of the amount levied was returned in drawback, and the expense of collection bore no fair proportion to the sum levied. The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, in a statement made by him a few years ago, proved that, for the sake of about 500,000l., the net proceeds of this 1204 tax, nearly a million of mony was levied; and he found by a return recently laid before the House, that out of 966,136l., the grost amount of the duty, 322,789l. was returned in drawback. How, in the face of a statement like that, with the recorded opinion of an influential Member of the Cabinet and the report of the Commissioners of Excise Inquiry so strongly opposed to him, his right hon. Friend could persevere in maintaining this tax, he was utterly unable to imagine. The treatment which Ireland had received in this matter of the glass duties was still more iniquitous. In Ireland, previous to the year 1825, flint glass paid no duty, and bottle glass paid by tale of 2s. 6d. per gross until the year 1828, when Mr. Goulbourn, on pretence of the frauds practised by the English and Scotch manufacturers, under the drawback, thought proper to equalise, as he was pleased to call it, the duties in both countries, the result of which operation was to double the price of glass in Ireland. The process was this: he increased the duty on Irish glass from 1s. 3d. per cwt. to 7s., and decreased the duty on English from 8s. 2d. to 7s. The injustice thus practised towards Irelend was manifest and most striking. Coals were delivered to the bottle manufacturers of Scotland at 7s. 6d. per ton, and to those of Newcastle at 4s. per ton, whilst in Dublin they average from 15s. to 16s., besides the expense of carriage from the vessels. The consequence might be imagined; while England and Scotland have from thirty to forty bottle-houses, the number in Ireland was reduced to three; and although the entire duty collected in Ireland is so trifling, yet it was necessary that five officers of Excise should be in daily attendance at each of the bottle-houses. But he did not complain of the effect on the manufacturer alone; the consumer was taxed at the rate of 200 per cent. higher than he ought to be. An article of indispensable necessity was placed beyond the reach of those whose welfare and comfort it ought to be the study of the Government to consult. The interests of Ireland, and the health of the inhabitants should not be put in competition with a few thousand pounds; and it was clear that pestilence could not be eradicated, nor habits of cleanliness introduced among the people, so long as this tax was continued. At the present price of glass, it was vain to expect its general introduction into the cottages of the lower 1205 orders, and so long as light and ventilation were excluded, periodical fever and unchanged habits of sloth and wretchedness must be looked for as the inevitable consequences. The continuance of this tax would give the last blow to one of the few struggling manufactures of Ireland; the equalisation of the duty had already diminished the quantity manufactured more than one half—from 23,000l., which the duty amounted to in 1829, the year of the equalization, to about 10,000l., its present amount. Could any person, under these circumstances, advocate the continuance of this impost, destructive, as it was proved to be, of our foreign, and injurious to our home trade—unjust in its principle—vexatious in the details of its operation—and pernicious in its effects upon the health of the people? If his right hon. Friend should not consent to the abolition of these duties, he was bound at least to show how they might be accompanied by such a modification of the Excise-laws as would mitigate the evils complained of. Let him remember that the Commissioners of Excise Inquiry, appointed by his own Government, have called for the total abolition of these duties, as the only means by which this branch of our commerce may be restored to its former prosperous condition; they declare that they do not know of any tax which combines a greater variety of objections, or is more utterly opposed to all sound principles of taxation; and they have not hesitated to state as their decided opinion that these duties, whether viewed with regard to their influence on our native manufactures and foreign commerce, or the amount of revenue derived from them, merit, as they receive from the Commissioners, the most unreserved condemnation.