The Sun.
London, England, 1825-05-06 00:00:00

view the Catholic Question iu the same light as,
themselves an by a possibility be just as honour
ale asthemselves, -
they cannot give him credit
bc
for 'wishing as heartily as they do to promote the,
welfare of the Cotnmonwealth. If indeed the
virtue and patriotism of either party is to be
Nveighed, agahM the other, we are sure the op-
ponents of the Catholic Bill need fear nothing ;
and we speak thus moderately because we are
loth to follow the evil example that has been
set us, and draw comparison's that. Must redound
to the singular disadvantage of the supporters of
h! Catholic Relief Bill. Let the public con-
sider, that a Committee of the House of Com-
mons is at this moment employed in endeavour-
ing to discover the person who imposed on
the credulity of the
HousP, and caused a Pe-
tition to be presented to it in favour of the
Catholics as the Petition-of fourteen iindividuals,
when, in point of fact, thirteen out of the four-
teen not only did not know of the petition, but
whose sentiments were opposed to its prayer.
From this they can easily judge against which
party such_ charges can with most justice be
brought.

Mr. Millet:l:y brought forward last night his
Motion' for a repeal of the Duties on Beer. It
was lost by a Majority of 65, the numbers being,
for the Motion 23, against it 88. The question
discussed was not whether the tax should be
taken off altogether, but whether its amount
could not be transferred to another article,
(as Malt for instance) and the Beer left quite
free of duty. The inequality of the ope-
ration of the present tax was the ground taken to
seek for its removal, it being alleged that the
poor paid the greater part of the tax, and the
rich almost altogether escaped it, whereas, if the
duty was laid upon malt it would operate
more equally both on the
.rich and on the poor.
The rich in very many
,instances escape the duty
altogether by brewing at home ; and although
it may be said that is open to the poor to do
so likewise, it is very truly replied, that in towns
it is quite impossible, and even in the coun-
try, in nine instances out of ten, they have not fa-
cilities to do so. The first part of this question,
viz. the inequality of the operation of the tax,
appears to us, to present abstractedly, no
ground of complaint, because, where ought a
tax to fall if not on the consumer of the article
on which it is charged ? To make this tax
objectionable, it is necessary to go farther, and
spew that the article on which it was charged
was an article in daily consumption amopgst the
labouring. classes, and that it was chiefly used by
titer!). I❑ the present instance we may admit
that to be the fact, but how would they be
bettered if the duty was taken from Beer and
placed on Malt ? The price of Beer would remain
just the same. In this view of the case then,
the transfer of the Beer Duty to Malt is un-
called for, but if we go a little further it can
easily be shewn that such a transfer might be
attended with a reductio►l, of the price of beer,
without at the same time reducing the amount of
revenue raised by it. We take it for granted
that no sound reason can be given why those who
brew their own beer should escape the tax laid
on those who drink beer brewed by the public
brewer.

The whole amount of the Beer duty in a year
is near three millions, and this is paid by the pur-
-1 sons who drink their beer brewed for them by
the public brewers. Beer cannot he made with-
out malt, and if therefore the Beer duty was
transferred to Malt, it would increase the number
of persons by whom the three millions are now
paid, by the whole amount of those persons who
at present brew at home, and thus there would
be a greater number of contributors to the three
millions than before. By these means the
share each person originally paid would be
diminished, and thus the duty on beer
might be reduced in proportion to the increas-
ed number of contributors, and consequently
the price of beer might. be reduced also. To
make the proposition clearer, we will suppose
that the total annual sum paid by the persons
who drink beer made by the public brewers to
per roan. We will further suppose the num-
he 10001., which is paid by 2000 persons, being
her
I)°s
,
of the persons who brew their own beer to
be 200. Now, if the duty on beer was trans-
ferred to malt, it is plain that these 200 would
contribute to pay it, and thus there would he
2200 persons to pay the 10001. instead of 20001.,
making a reduction of rather more than is. per man
per ann. In this view Mr. MAIIERL'IPS motion is
more entitled to support, and we are not without
hopes that one of these days the transfer may yet
be made. The CHANCELLOR of the ExcncouEß
does not feel himself bound. to support a bad
plan because now in use, if a better one suggests
itself, and a little consideration will shew the
truth of what we have before stated. As to
the objection made last night of the in-
not at any
duty by
tchrieeasiendcretaesme potaf titohtei
amloouenLadiet
couldthe
time be very powerful, and it altogether fails,
num-
ber by taking off one branch of taxation you
withcati givenlore augmentedeffec
effect,
b because
vigilanceause o f
the t
decreased num-
o another, and
of persons you have to cope with,

The report in the City this morning, that
Rangoon had been destroyed by fire by the
Burmese, with all the stores and warehouses,
had an effect on Consols, and caused them to
lower 4 per cent.; but the well-informed state
that it is only a repetition of the late Gazette
published
by Government on our India Air •
rs
at
and it is entirely discredited. )
COPENHAGEN, AP4IL 23.—A letter from Nor-
way says, " The wire works at Eidsrald, belonging to the late
Counseller K. Auker, were purchased last month by Mr. Gee.
Norman, in London, who had a large capital employed in the.
Establishment."-1200 Shares of the Baltic Company are dis-
posed of.
Mr. ROTHSCHILD is about to visit Paris, in
consequence of the indisposition of Mrs. Ron's_
CHILD.