The Sun.
London, England, 1831-02-04 00:00:00

PRINTED CO-170.5.

The duty on printed c.):toi% is Bnpjr to h, the m-st
utijmt, olotoi.,m1; the nmst open to f: nn.), anti
the most unprofi ah'e of an: tax claiming a rep,,t.

[t iF SIP.IIIO4CII to be '• 7.ix nii;st rresslog up0:1 the
tigtry of the peaple; by its exer:sive amet.mt

-itst4t."

Tire ino.t absurd, brcatoe the tint; cannut he I i-7,1
in any way exc,pt the present one; on
.this sysktn, hra
400+14 for the ti-e of the !icor are taxed front 80 per ant.
lownward-, till liner onrs for t! e tNe of the rich r'w:A,l
with asp. r cent. duty—The gre ter Ow u:y f.;
the tax.

The most absurd, because -the gree and increash:4
wei.,;l:t of the burden ro depresses trails, thlt
amount realized from the tar is aurtml y itlim•ning ;
it is at the same time luinitr the nitn-t imporaut bramia
of the cotton trade.

It is the most absurd duty, betv.use it taws and fi tt. rs
tradt• consuming more imported produce praying

;an any other.

It is absurel, bee-arise it taxes awl is t talent,
awl genius; and consequently the trwst i,roatsti deser:p•-
tiou of labour.

It is the most unjust tax, because it varies in every
res;,e,,t from tie original intention of the Act by whi,.(4
it was at first imposed. The averag, p r cept,:ge of tl:e
duty at that time might be 24 per cent. ; now it is
per cent.
It is the most unjust, bet-ause it is ti-.e enly
any deFcription if Wearing appir,l, or en aory t Line, of
the cotton, silk, or woollen trades.
It is now more seritundy It to he tinjo,i, 11,141.6,3
fact that cotton is printed in the tls,d, out :be duty by
that means avoided; and frcin the duties on the pointing
of silks and woollens having hoe!), been copeah.d. •

It is the mint iiht103110.11.4 tix, from :he niam,ur iu
which it is raised—the Excise effieer exei eising an auth.t-
rity hateful and disgusting to every independent and h(lncSt
man, and completely at variance with eve.ry idea of con-
mereial freetlom.

It is mast ohnoxionc, because its td;vnrdity retp‘iics
many restrictive and titjtist laws for the security o' t!,e

Revenue.

It is a tax most open to frAtd, from the necessary de-
pendence of the Government on the bonrsty of E%cise
officers receiving salaries of about 1001. to 1201. per
annum, and whom it would pay the dishonest print; r
well to seduce by slims of any amount, from .51. to
20,0001. per annum, to connive at fraud.
It is the most unprofitable tax, from the cot ,:f eo!-
lection being necessarily extravagant. `early two mil-
lions being annuals- raised to place in the Treasury a'net
sum of only about 361,000/., subjecting the c.aintry to
a still further less occasioned by costs (caused by re-
strictions, &az%) of 200,0001. leaving, then fore, 164,0001.
as the probahle profit of tie tax. Suppose the falling
off in the I,st year to be equal to that of the previous
one, and we have to deduct 100,000/. more, which %sill
give 64,0001. as the result of his truly absurd and un-
profitable-impost.
It is the tax pressing, most upon the industry of the
people—not so much from the taxing the lower clivses
ten or fifteen times as much as the higher on the prints
they consume ; but ft om its depressing a trade capable
of consuming more profitable labour than any other.
The duty on- printed cottons, if repealed, it is belinred
would tilt be a lass, but a positive gait to the Revenue
in the course of a single year after the repeal.
Berating the duty would certainly create an increased
demand for prints, to the extent of the cost of collec-
tion, lo,s to the country by restrictiies, and the appa-
rent amount given up—suppose ahogether 730,000/. per
annum.

It would cause an average reduction in the price of
prints of 30 per cent., and, consequently, if the remand
increased (as that for all other commodities has done upon
which such reduction of duties has taken plate), we it,iy
calculate it very moderately at 750,000/. more. Out
these two stitis it may be fairly inferred not less ti an two.
thirds, or one milion sterling, wculd be paid annually for
labour alone.

Fite repeal would thus, probalilv, create an increase of
profitable employment f m 40,000 hands, and the !emission
of a sum amounting to 261,0001., and relief from en
surd and unjust tax would find the means of retainin,;
444,000 individuals in their native land, in a state of profit-
able employment, in preference to exiling them at a loss to
the country of so much tax-paying labour, and at a cost of
perhaps 480,0001. for emigration.
The repeal of the print duty, causing one million p-
annum extra to be paid in wages, would yield I greatly
increased revenue to the Government, as use-half of that
sum at least must and would be spent in the purchase of
exciseable commodities, taxed b 0 per cent.

The repeal of theduty would cause increased production,
and proportionate increase I consumption of cotton pay iog
6 per cent. duty, of imported drugs pay;ng averaged du-
ties of 10 per cent. The probable increase of thuy frcm
these items alone, it is thought, would repay any sums the
Gtivernment would lose by the repeal of the duty on printed
cottons. _ . _

uv•These arguments, together with many others in fiLvour
of a repeal of the duty on prints, may be found more fully
shown in a pamphlet lately published by James Ridgway,
Piccadilly, entitled " A Letter to Lord Althorp, on the
subject of the duty on printed cottons."—January 25,
1831.—Morning Chronicle.