Vendors and dealers in silver wares of more than 30 oz. in weight.—A plate licence of £5 15s. annually.
Bullion dealers, refiners, and assayers.—A plate licence of £5 15s. annually.
Manufacturers of plate.—A duty of 1s. 6d. per ounce.
Hall-marked goods.—A duty of 1s. 6d. per ounce.
Manufactured plate includes silver wares, such as spoons, forks, snuff-boxes, tea-sets, &c., and other articles used by the rich, and upon which the duty is compulsory; the duty on hall-marked goods, refers to all articles—with the exception of watch-cases, which are free—marked at the request of intended purchasers, which then pay duty on the manufacture of them. It will be observed from these remarks, that the silver trade generally is not at all affected by the duty tax; the wares manufactured by the trade at large not coming directly under the compulsory provisions of the law bearing upon this subject. It has been said that the silver trade ministers to luxury, and no doubt that portion of it which manufactures costly articles of plate for the wealthy does so; but we fail to see exactly, that the same remark applies to that vast and increasing commercial industry which has sprung up of late years, and which bids fair to become one of the staple trades of the country. The duty-bearing articles are generally purchased by the classes of society who can well afford to pay the little extra which the duty imposes, and as the tax affects only that section of the silver trade which manufactures the article of luxury, it is not at all likely that the general trade would be increased by its entire removal. The duty, no doubt to most persons, may seem excessive, when calculated upon the percentage system; such for instance, as a tax of 20 per cent. upon spoons and forks; or one of 15 per cent. upon chains; or of 12½ per cent. upon tea-sets, &c.; this appears unjustly oppressive, and undoubtedly affects the silver-plate manufacturer more vitally than any one else.
To the ordinary silversmith this question of duty is not likely to be of much importance; the agitation therefore commenced against it, may be expected to confine itself to those persons more directly affected, and whose interests would be advanced by its abolition.
The question of licences is one of far greater importance to the trade generally than that of duties, every manufacturer and dealer being compelled to procure a licence before he can carry on his business. If more direct action were taken in regard to this particular question, we believe that the whole trade would enter into it; for it resolves itself into this:—Why should the silversmith or goldsmith pay for a licence for the purpose of manufacturing and dealing, any more than the coppersmith, or the manufacturer of electro-plate, both of whom escape scot-free? We believe this to be an unjust tax, and that it ought not to be levied upon one particular trade any more than another. We have also distinctions made in the general class of silversmiths: we have those who may trade without any licence at all; those who may trade with a 46s. licence; and those who may trade with 115s. licence, that is, those who work or sell under 5 dwts., those who work or sell under 30 oz., and those who work or sell at any weight. Now this way of arranging the matter is very unsatisfactory to the trade generally; and any one of the first two traders to whom we have referred, is liable at any moment to be summoned before a criminal court for an infringement of the law, if he should happen to sell an article slightly over the weight for which he is duly licensed. At the present time a raid is being made upon the goldsmiths with reference to this particular question, and a number have already been summoned for infringing their licences in this manner. However, there appears to be some doubt with respect to the Act of Parliament bearing upon the subject, as in most of the cases the defendants have gained a verdict, the line of defence on their behalf being, that the clause of the act which bore upon the cases referred to, meant the weight in fine metal, i.e. “pure gold,” of which the article was composed, and not that of the gross weight of the article sold. It was urged by those engaged in the various cases on the side of the defendants, that, for a 46s. licence, the vendor could sell an article in which the gold did not exceed two ounces, without any regard to the quality and weight made by alloy, and on this plea the magistrates granted them a verdict. In the higher courts we believe such verdicts would be reversed, for we firmly believe that the framers of the act meant no such thing, however defective may have been the legality of the points raised. The clause of the act to which we have alluded is No. 5, and runs as follows:—"All articles sold, or offered for sale, or taken in pawn, or delivered out of pawn, and alleged to be composed wholly, or in part, of gold or silver, are for the purposes of the above act to be deemed to be composed of gold or silver respectively; and if upon the hearing of any information for any offence against this act, any question shall arise touching the quantity of gold or silver contained in any article, the proof of such quantity shall be upon the defendant." The Excise authorities argue that this clause means that the absolute or gross weight of an article sold as gold must not exceed two ounces, and one sold as silver must not exceed thirty ounces, gross weight. If this view of the meaning of the act be eventually taken, and we believe it will, it will certainly operate to a greater extent against makers and vendors of gold articles than it will against silversmiths.
That part of the clause referring to the quantity of gold or silver contained in a given article, we believe has reference to articles containing jewels, &c., in their construction, which renders it exceedingly difficult to get at their exact weight, when the work is finally completed with these jewels properly affixed upon it, and not to the amount of fine material any article may contain by assay. The last part of the clause we have marked in italics, “proof of such quantity shall be upon the defendant,” fully bears out these observations, because he is supposed to know the gross weight of any special article before the addition to it of any jewels.
We have been led to make these few remarks, in order to point out the gross anomalies which exist in the trade with respect to these licences, and to show the necessity of a reform taking place in a trade singled out from all the others, and made to pay a tax for the privilege of being allowed to make, or sell, articles in which gold or silver forms a component part. Therefore, if any action is to be taken in the matter, it must not be confined (if it is to be successful) to one particular branch of this important trade, but all must unite, and every influence should be brought to bear upon it in as forcible a manner as possible. The electro-plate manufacturer, and the dealer in his wares, ought in all common fairness to the trade, to be put upon the same footing as the silversmith, if this licence is to be still continued. In electro-plating establishments, thousands of ounces of silver are being annually used on the surface of such wares as are manufactured there; and if such decisions as those lately given at the Thames and other police courts, with reference to the Act of Parliament on the subject of gold and silver wares are upheld, we fail to see how the manufacturers of silver-plated articles, who are continually making and selling them, containing as they do, more silver than the general public would suppose, are to escape much longer these new interpretations of the Act of Parliament, and avoid being called upon to take out a licence in the same manner as the silversmiths. This is a tax in which the holder gets no direct return, and is levied in an unfair manner by the establishment of various grades of silversmiths, so that it gives a just cause for grievance. If the tax is to be upheld at all, why not make it equal by the establishment of one uniform rate for all trades alike?