The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, JULY 4, '1853

was dealing, should pay the same amount of duty
as the nobleman that offered an estate worth a
million sterling for sale, and had several columns
of a. leading journal occupied with a glowing
description of its numerous advantages.
These arguments are so palpably ridiculous
as scarcely to require a single word of refutation.
We may, however, remind the Right Hon.
Gentleman that, under the postage system, a
great benefit, worth far more than the charge, is
conferred upon the person who pays the penny, in
the transmission, safe keeping, and delivery of the
letter, although the distance be only ten miles, or
even a single mile. That he could not have the
same service performed on his account, with equal
security and dispatch, for far more than the Go-
vernment charge ; and therefore there can be no
complaint on their part if they receive ample value
for their money. Nor is the inequality so striking
as he would induce the public to suppose, inas-
much as the greater portion of the cost is required
for the maintenance of the establishments in the
towns where the letters are dispatched from and
arrive at, and in the labour of sorting and de-
livering the different communications. And these
important items are the same, whether the towns
be ten miles or one hundred miles apart. But
where is the value given by the Government to a
servant advertising for a place, or a sempstress
for employment, in return for the ls. 6d. (the
D unjustlyoes
it extracted
render
frompric e ofth
e three
wretched day's
the publication of their advertisements in any de-
gree r so
more valuable by attracting additional atten-
tion, or does it render the chances of the want
being supplied more numerous ? If not, there is
no analogy between the cases; and the sharp, clever
Mr. GLADSTONE, has put forward a puerile argu-
ment, for which a schoolboy would merit castiga-
tion. If it were worth anything, it would go to
this extent, that the Times should charge the same
for the insertion of a notice that " a good plain
cook, with four years' character, wanted a place
in a gentleman's or tradesman's family," as that
"an estate, offering every possible inducement
to the capitalist," was about to be submitted for
public competition, with a graphic description of
its various beauties and capabilities—although
the former may occupy only two lines, while the
latter might fill two columns. Besides, as Mr.
COBDEN pointed out, " there was not the alleged
inequality in the postage system, after all, inas-
much, as if the letter weighed more than half an
ounce, it required a twopenny stamp, and so in
proportion to its weight." Really, Mr. GLAD-
STONE must bring forward something more plau-
sible if he hope to maintain his character for
smartness and efficiency. Even Sir CHARLES
WOOD himself could not hhve adduced a more
unfortunate illustration.

What, again, we ask, had the injustice and in-
expediency of other imposts to do with the pro-
priety of maintaining a duty on Advertisements ?
What bearing had it on the question under
discussion ? Granted that " the paper duty
is an impolitic tax altogether"—that it im-
poses on the trade of the country a burden
totally disproportioned to the amount of revenue
received ; " that " it interfered with employment
throughout the country in a most inconvenient
form, because the paper trade, if free, would not
be confined to the great centres of population, but
would find its way to other localities throughout
the country, and diffuse employment among a dif-
ferent class of the population." We fully and
cordially concur in every one of these assertions,
• and in the conclusion, that " the paper duty is a
tax essentially bad in itself, which ought to be
repealed so soon as the state of the Treasury
would allow it." Nay, more, we are so strongly
impressed with its impolicy, that we think it ought
to be unconditionally abolished, and a substitute
sought elsewhere. We also agree that the tax on
insurances is " a tax on trade, a duty on pru-
dence," and therefore one that most unquestion-
ably ought to be relinquished. But, surely, if
these obnoxious imposts were a thousand fold
more objectionable, they do not afford the most
trifling argument for the maintenance of what he
himself described as " tax on trade and labour,
principally on trade, and partly on labour ;" and,
which the Ministerial Leader in the House of
Commons acknowledged to be " a very heavy duty,
an impediment to trade, and an obstruction
to the supply of those wants, and that in-
formation which the people would desire to have."
It might as well be said, that there should be no
attempt to check pocket-picking on Ludgate-hill,
because they could not altogether suppress smash-
ing in Whitechapel ; that they should not inter-
fere with drunken riots in St. Giles's, because they
could not prevent agrarian outrages in Ireland.
Nor does it at all diminish the gross disrespect,
the contemptuous disregard, of the votes of the
14th of April, that five or six motion; for the re-
peal of the duties on attorneys' certificates, had
been carried by different majorities, and that these
expressions of opinion had been treated with in-
sulting indifference. It would be scarcely consi-
dered a good defence to an indictment for larceny,
to prove that the prisoner had embezzled to a
large amount from his employer. He must deal
with Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR and his majority
on the attorney question, and with Mr. MILNER
GIBSON on the Advertisement Duties. In each
case the views of the majorities should be re-
spected. The House should not suffer its decisions
to be despised, or treated with contumely or
neglect, more especially when the insult was
offered in endeavouring to maintain "a tax on
trade and labour—a tax on the intercommunica-
tion of wants and wishes"—a tax which, "in a
commercial community, strikes at the very root
of all transactions."