The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-22 00:00:00

monopoly thus created by law, and the monopoly
created by the necessary outlay of a large capital,
coupled with taxes so heavy as almost to amount to a
prohibition ? The wealthier classes, whether they
prefered it or not, would drink the wines of France in
the absence of all others, just as they now read the
Tunes; but it does not follow that they would
either drink the one, or read the other if they were
allowed a choice. Mr. GOULBURN stated that the
purchasers of Newspapers in the United Kingdom did
not exceed 300,000 persons. In the absence of more
authentic information on the subject, we shall as-
. sume this statement as correct. He further observed
the readers of Newspapers more than quadrupled that
number. Now, no man who pays for reading a paper
but would purchase it, if he could obtain it at a price
within his means. The high cost of the paper is
clearly the cause of its being monopolized by so few
hands. Were the price proportionately lower, the
number of purchasers,. on Mr. GOULBURN'S own
own showing, would exceed a million, and the mere
• readers would be proportionately as numerous as they
are at present. The high-rate of Stamp Duty narrows
at least in the ratio of 1 to 20, the circulation of the
Press ; and what narrows circulation gives a monopoly
to those who are in the field as its conductors.

There -is but one other observation in the Times
upon which we wish to make any remark. It regards
the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER'S proposed
plan for limiting the size of Newspapers
Another is the trickery of the inch-measurement project.
There are papers supporting the democratic and destructive
interest through thick and thin, which hardly thrice in a whole
twelvemonth publish an enlarged sheet or supplement. There
are others which resist the tide of Whig-Radical destruction,
and we now allude to the Times particularly, which publishes
a large sheet four or five times a week. (The superficial-inch
measurement is so contrived that the journal subservient to the
Minister passes unscathed by any- but the ordinary tax, while
the anti-Spring Rice journal, which pays more than double
the amount of any other in advertisement duty, appears to
have an extra tax invented for, and imposed upon; it alone, an
additional penny being actually laid on as a punishment for
the crime of paying duty at once on 400 or 500 advertisements,
which would otherwise be distributed through several succes-
sive days."
There is something singularly short-sighted, or very
unfair in this charge' preferred by the Times against
Mr. SPRING RICE. We cannot believe that the
Right Hon. Gentleman could be so simple as to lay
an embargo on the Times for opinions which it may
renounce before a month. The Times is now opposed
to the Government—but what of that.? Two years
have not elapsed since it worshipped the very men who
now compose it, and it is possible that before the ex-
piration of as many weeks, it will denounce LYND-
HURST and PEEL as a pair of the most. arrant politi-
cal quacks that ever undertook to tinker a constitution.
We remember when the Times adored Mr. SPRING
RICE; and we are confident that the Right Hon.
Gentleman looks forward to a bespattering with praise
in its leading columns, and that too before he is a
twelvemonth older. The Times is therefore manifestly
in error in attributing the course proposed by the Right
Hon. Gentleman, with respect to a limitation in the size
of the sheet, to spleen or any other feeling of a personal
nature.

But the Times complains of an extra tax upon its
400 or 500 advertisements " as a punishment for the
crime of paying extra duty." This again is an unfair
way of putting the question. The Times does not devote
its columns to advertisements merely out of pure love to
the Treasury ; neither do advertisers appeal to the
public out of mere r:gard for the Times. What,
then, is to prevent the Times from adopting the rule
which it tells us it adopts with respect to the present
high rate of Stamp-duty? Why not cast the burthen
of the additional tax upon its purchasers ? If double
sheets be so very desirable, nonperson will refuse to
pay an additional penny for each of them ; and,
on the contrary, if an additional rate of duty be
considered onerous, does it not follow that the addi-
tional sheet is worth nothing in public estimation ?
We have neither space nor inclination to refer again
to the debate on Monday evening ; but there was one
fal!acy in the speech of Mr. GOULBURN, which our
Tory Contemporaries have seized upon as a sort of
Godsend, that we cannot pass over without exposing.
The Right Hon. Gentleman, after summing up a
long string of calculation., told the House that " the
relief given to the public in the case of Newspapers,
would be but one-twentieth part of a penny, while
that in the article of Soap would be 44-,d. or 3d., ac
cording as they used hard or soft soap." Now had
the Right 'Hon. Gentleman only paid a little
more regard to his own tabular statements, he
would have found that the relief given to Newspaper
purchasers would be nearly two pounds a-year, over and
above the- facilities otherwise afforded to advertisers.
By his own average estimate, the purchasers of Soap
exceed 15,000,000 ; the purchasers of Newspapers,
on the contrary, do not exceed 300,000, and yet the
amount of revenue in both cases is nearly the same.
Is it not then clear that there can be no comparison
between the relative degrees of oppression of these
taxes ? The one is scattered over the whole eotnmu-
, pity—the other is paid exclusively by a few.

Our fair Contemporary, the Morning Herald—or
" Granny," as the Times has happily baptised her—
shakes her aged head at us this morning, after the
true Tabitha-Bramble fashion ; and is specially sati-
rical on, what she is pleased to call, " the vast versa-
tility of talent and illimitable knowledge of The Sun."
Now why should the old lass act so like a vixen to-
wards us ? We have never done aught to deserve her
ill-will ; on the contrary, we have done the best we
could to conciliate her good opinion, having always
spoken of her with the reverence due to her grey
hairs, even while we regretted the petulance and co-
quettishness to which, like the rest of her charming
sex, she is at times addicted. We trust it is not in
our nature to speak harshly of a female—still less of
one situated as poor " Granny" now is, bowed down
with years and infirmities ; bed-ridden—purblind—
paralytic—with scarcely a tooth in her head, or an
ounce of flesh on her old bones. We think, however,
we have discovered a cause for our fair Contemporary's
spleen. She was to have been married, it is well
known, to the late Mr. SINIPSON, of Vauxhall; the
wedding-day was fixed, and even the bride-cake was
purchased (we have this fact from " Zeta," of the
Morning Post, who was to have been one of the
bride's-maids), when unfortunately the worthy man
was summoned away to that kingdom where " they
neither marry nor are given in marriage."
The conse-
quence of this disappointment has been fatal to poor
" Granny's" temper and peace of mind. She knows
well that at her time of life she can never expect to meet
with another SIMPSON—one so exactly like her, in the
eloquence of his style and the fascination of his
address —hence her petulance, her spite, and her irri-
tability towards all with whom she is brought into
contact. We state these things " more in sorrow than
in anger," for we have a feeling heart; and at this
very moment, despite her cruel conduct towards us,
we entertain none but sentiments of the deepest com-
passion for poor " Granny."

It appears, by a conversation which took place in
the House of Commons last night, that a point of
some importance to the Tea Trade has been definitively
settled. Last year an alteration was made in the
mothe duty on Tea. Instead of three
2s. 2d., and 3s. per lb.,
idaceri
separate
otiefl a
(l dutiessb' )e, ietlng
fOoftiusl.p6rotictive of the greatest fraud
on the revenue, injustice to the fair trader, and impo.