The Sun.
London, England, 1839-01-10 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

Nothing can be more amusing than the pertness and in-
solence displayed by the liveried lackies of the Treasury,
when they get upon ground which they think safe_ from
attack, and especially into that stronghold, which may be
termed the master-work of Mr. Rice's thimble-riggery--
the revenue returns. We do not at all wonder at the
vivacity they display at our recent assault on the last pro-
duced of these precious documents, to which the disturb-
ance of a nest of hornets would be a weak comparison, for
they evidently believed themselves on this occasion to be
quite secure, and that no eye could be found sufficiently
penetrating to pierce through the mystifications by which
the public accounts are surrounded. They and their
master, the head conjuror, concluded that they would
be able to go to Parliament with such a financial state-
ment as would encourage their adherents, silence their
opponents, and prepare the way for a smooth and har-
monious Session. Hence a rage and fury on all sides
which is without parallel in controversies of this na-
ture. It may be laid down as a rule applicable to the
production of all accounts, whether public or private, that
the information furnished shall be complete in itself, and
not referable to other matters, to which the parties to
whom the accounts are. submitted cannot have easy access ;
and if the accounts produced are, moreover, defective in
that kind of information, no man can be permitted to turn
round upon his auditors and say—You have overlooked
such or such an item in a former account, when it ought to
have been displayed upon that which was then before them.
Our experience cannot furnish anything more trickey, aed
mean, and base than the conduct of the Treasury in this
and former instances of the kind, which ought to be in
itself a convincing proof that the " master mind" is at
work, and prompting his puppets from behind the
scenes. His approved method, which is common to all
his craft, is to avoid al the reelly strong points of
the argument against him, and to furnish to his myr-
mrlons some isolated fact, known only to himself; are.
picable to those of minor importance ; then, by raising
a great clatter abort it, to confound the understandings of
the public, and lead them away from Me real object of (he
attack. Every one who has read our former article on (he
Revenu e will recollect that we stated, when adverting to
the " Crown lands," that, whether justly set down as in-
come or not, they were a new irgredient in the account,
and ought to be excluded from any comparison with the
state of our resources at a period when they were not in-
troduced. This alone, as far as it went, was enough to
overthrow that part of it ; but in order to divert public
attention, we are told, that under a particular statute,
which is presumed to be as notorious as Mr. Spring Rice's
ledgenlemain, the produce of the sales of " Crown lands"
must be invested ; but the men of business who look over
his account are not bound to see this, or to know anything
more than is set before them ; and if he had used the
term " Crown-land rents," instead of " Cro vn lands,"
there would have been no ambiguity in the matter. But,
whichever mode is adopted, the account is in that respect
fallacious, and breaks away from under him. To meet
the question fairly would not answer his purpose. Our ar-
gument relative to the " Stamps" is grossly perverted,
and that, too, for no possible motive except that of making
a false glare to mislead his dupes ; for, to a certain extent,
we were disposed to give him all the benefit of this branch
of revenue. We are told, as gravely as if the fact were be-
fore at! the world, though only Mr. Rice and his clerks can
know it, that the produce of mercantile stamps is not more
than 500,0001., out of a general income from that source
of 6,700,0001. We never availed ourselves of the stamp
returns, as one of his retainers insinuates we did, to draw
from them conclusions of the ruin of the ari.tocracy and of
commercial distress. We gave up that article of revenue
as ambiguous, and referred to the " Customs" as a mueli
safer guide, if the real prosperity of the mercantile interest
were to be attested. Our assailant knew well enough that
his figures were of no consequence, but his instructions Were
to psrvert and mislead, and he has obeyed them, The
real truth is, we believe, with respect to the " Stamps,"
that, as a source of revenue, it cannot be maintained in its ',re-
sent state, and that it has been swelled out by the gambling
in, and transfer of, railway and other shares in joint-stock
companies, which must seen come to an end ; they must
subside, more or less. into permanent investments, or disap-
pear altogether. We are next told, after consulting the
oracle, that the Corn duties have produced 588,0001. in
1837, and only 183,0001. in 1838, and that, consequently,
all the reasoning upon the comparative state of the " Cus-
toms" fails, or is turned in the other direction. Of this
we do not believe one word, for foreign Corn was not
wanted in the autumn of 1837, while in the fall of list
year it has been unfortunately in notorious and extensive
demand. The rate of duty has been lower, but the quan-
tity required must have made up together a pretty large
sum. But if true, the fact only serves to exhibit Mr.
Spring Rice in trickery of another description, and assures
us ho,v much more disastrous for the commercial state of
the country than he made it out to be was the " disastrous"
annual return of January, 1838. But will he not go a step
further, and present us with a " true account" in all re-
spects of the national income and expenditure, and intelli-
gible moreover to any man acquainted with figures ?
What is the use of such periodical returns, if they are not
in a form perfectly comprehensible, and complete in them-
selees ? Until this is done, he has no right to complain of
the distrust and suspicion to which they give rise on all
sides. The neat juggle of carrying the repayment of " ad-
vances" to an account of income does not seem to have
found even a solitary defender. Yet that constitutes a
round sum of 325,0001. in the annual return! It was far
better policy in the Treasury and its Swiss band to let this
question alone ; but for the public, the more they agitate
it the better. They will be tortured at last into the intro-
duction of something better than these worse than false pe-
riodical accounts. Perhaps the best practical commentary
which can be made en the recent return is the notice which
appears in Tuesday's Gazette, by which we are informed that
there will be no purchases on account of the sinking fund
in this quarter, though a surplus of revenue was shown,
araounting to 1,075,000/. ; and moreover that the actual
expenditure of the United Kingdom of England and Ire-
land " exceeding the actual income thereof for the year
ending the 10th of October, 1838, by the sum of seven hun-
dred and ninety-five thousand eight hundred and thirty-five
pounds, nineteen shillings, and sixpence farthing!" How
exact these Treasury clerks can be when exactness is a
matter of no consequence ! The real cause of the sore-
ness at the rough treatment the revenue tables have met
with is now apparent enough. It might have assisted Mr.
Rice to explain away the effect of the awful announcement
he was about to make, which now he cannot do. Our
wish is, that he may be tempted to break a lance in this
way a little more frequently. We shall know how to deal
with him.—Times.

There is this difference between taxing landholders in
the shape of protecting duties in favour of manufactures,
and taxing the manufacturers in the shape of protecting
duties in favour of agricultural produce—that manufac-
tures create a demand for bulky articles of food for which
there would not otherwise be a market, and add to the va-
lue of the land ; whereas a protecting duty in favour of food
not only burdens manufactures, but offers a bounty to the
manufacturers of other countries, and creates rivals in the
foreign market. It was stated, for instance, on Thursday
week by Mr. Elliot, the Chairman of the meeting at
which Mr. Paulton delivered his first lecture on the Corn-
laws in Sheffield, " that on about six hundred acres of
land, not oriinally worth three-halfpence (the ground on
which that town is built), live about 120,000 human bei:ies,
who not only maintain themselves, but the agricultu-
turists, as Chandos and Co. will find, if they destroy the
trade of England ; for instead of getting 50s. per quarter
for wheat here, as with a free trade they might honestly do,
they will have to sell it at Amsterdam for 285., pay 10s.
expenses, and sack 18s." Of what enormous value is this
town of Sheffield to the landholders in its neighbourhood ?
How grateful ought the landholders of England to be, that
their lot has been cast in a country in which land, which
elsewhere would be of no value, is a source of great rev:-
nu ! The landowner of a country without manufactures
can only export corn, tallow, and hiees, &c. ; and being
vfi hout the means of manuring the land, he cultivates a
portion: till it is exhausted, and then suffers it to remain
waste till it recovers its fertility. Mr. Paulton, who has
delivered. lectures on the Corn-laws in Bolton, Manches-
ter, Birunngham, Leeds, Stockport, Nottingham, &c., with
great success, observed " that the question of the Corn-
laws was not one between Whigs and Tories and Radi-
cals,but one between the aristocracy and the nation—
betweeil 30,000 landowners and 26 millions of men."
It is truly as he stated. And how is it that the landowners
of. England, who are so much better off than the land-
owners of all other countries, who have a constant pro-
tection in the higher price of food in England than in any
other part of the world, while they obtain all the produc-
tions of industry cheaper than they can be purchased
abroad, are suffered to continue in the possession of the tax
they most unquestionably wring from industry under the
Corn-law monopoly ? Flow is it that the people of Eng-
land have patiently submitted to this foul injustice ?
Englishmen boast of their spirit, and yet 30,000 individuali
have been suffered to make prey of twenty-six millions !
When the Corn Bill of 1815 passed the House of
Lords, a spirited protest against it was subscribed
by Lord Grenville and Lord- Grey. "We think,"
said these Noble Lords, " that the expectations of ulti-
mate benefit from this measure are founded on a
delusive theory. We cannot persuade ourselves that
this law will ever contribute to produce plenty,
cheapness, or -steadiness of price. So long as it operates at
all, its effects must be the opposite of these. Monopoly is
the pinta of scarcity, of dearness, and of uncertainty. To
cut off any of the sources of supply can only tend to lessen
its abundance ; to close against ourselves the cheapest
market for any commodity must enhance the price at which