The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-05 00:00:00

have been brought against him by Lord Brougham, we
perfectly agree with a northern contemporary, that the
friends of Lord Durham ought, for the sake of their
favourite, to let the matter rest where it is
" What are Lord Durham's avowed opinions now ?" says
the Edinburgh Evening Post. "He has declared himself
a- supporter of Household Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, and
Triennial Parliaments.' We would ask him, whether, in
consenting to the principles of the Reform Bill, he did not
clip and compromise' each and all of these measures?
How, then, dare Lord Durham to accuse any man of
clipping and compromising,' when he is thus so glaringly
self-convicted of the very offence, in its grossest form, with
which he charges another ?"
Enough I When Lord Brougham has answered
these interrogatories to the satisfaction of the British
public, we may again—but not till then—return to a
subject which, as the Courier justly states, " becomes
more offensive, the more it is meddled with."—Morn-
ing Advertiser.
A letter has lately appeared in the columns of some
of our contemporaries, written by Mr. John Dickinson,
on the subject of the duty on paper. It is a commu-
nication most worthy of notice, on account of the facts
which it brings forward and the arguments which it
employs, although the force and merit of both are de-
teriorated by their intermixture with some prejudiced
reasonings, and some inuendos—for we shall not call
them inferences—which only demonstrate the imma-
ture reflection and hasty consideration of the writer.
Mr. Dickinson proposes the abolition of the paper
duty, instead of the abolition of the stamp duty on
newspapers. Now, with the first part of the proposi-
tion we concur, though not with the second. We do
not see why the two duties should be brought into
comparison, nor the necessity of retaining the stamp
duty on newspapers, because the abolition of the
paper duty may be considered, or proved to be, a
beneficial measure. The abolition of the paper duty
is a measure which ought to stand on its own
merits, and we recommend and advocate it, not
because we concur with all the reasonings as-
signed for the adoption of the measure by Mr.
Dickinson, but on far less objectionable grounds ; on
grounds connected with the most valuable inferences
of political economy, and with the most clearly demon-
strated advantages of free trade, both as concerns the
increasing welfare of society, and the undiminishin,,g
condition of the public finances. It is on the ground
of the interests of commerce generally, of the interests
of free trade, and of the general interests of society,
that we advocate the abolition of the paper duty, and
not on such absurd and narrow grounds as those par-
tially set up by Mr. Dickinson in the passages of his
letter, where he refers to the " political publications in
favour with the gin-shop and the pot-house," and which
he idly presumes would be superseded by the augmen-
tation of such cheap public instructors as the Weekly
Visitor, published by the Religious Tract Society."
We may be here permitted, en passant, to re-
mark, that there exist other poisons besides
those of a political and physical description ;
among which the moral poison of fanaticism, and of
blind and uninquiring prejudice, may be reckoned. No
reasonable man can look in the most cursory way on
the question of the paper duty without being convinced
that it is a duty open to the condemnation of all sound
principles of legislation, and that it is baneful and
pernicious to society in a very extensive degree. In
the first place, it is clearly a tax on the free operations
of the mind, on the diffusion of knowledge, and on the
interests of literature. On this head the arithmetical
calculations brought forward by Mr. Dickinson in his
letter, and previously enforced by Mr. M'Culloch, in
his " Commercial Dictionary," cannot, by any possi-
bility, be impugned. It is quite clear that if the duty
were taken off, the profits both of authors and of pub-
lishers might be doubled without the imposition of
a single farthing additional expense on the pub-
lic. The removal of the duty would act as a direct
premium on the diffusion of knowledge, by securing
publishers from the risks which they now run in pub-
lishing works of any description (and not more than
one out of three books is known to pay its expenses),
and encourage literary men and authors generally, as
well as raise the character of the literature of the
country, by a more adequate remuneration for the ex-
hausting productions of intellectual labour that can
now be afforded. The paper duty, however, is not
limited in its fatal action to its restriction on the labours
of the mind, but extends the baneful sphere of its
withering influence to a large variety of important
trades, and to the injury of a very considerable number
of industrious operatives. Sir Henry Parnell has
shown that it prejudices the interests of letter-press and
copper-plate printers, bookbinders, paper-stainers, card
and pasteboard-makers, artists, &c. &c. It also greatly
prejudices the revenue, not only by decreased con-
sumption, and by inferior quality of manufacture, but
also by prompting to great frauds under the excise
laws. Mr. M'Culloch calculates that 27,000 indivi-
duals are supposed to be directly engaged in the paper-
making trade, and besides the workmen employed in
the mills, that the paper manufacture creates a con-
siderable demand for labour of mill-wrights, ma-
chinists, smiths, carpenters, iron and brass-founders,
wire-workers, woollen-manufacturers, and others, in the
machinery and apparatus of the mill. These facts and
arguments are quite sufficient to warrant our calling on
all the extensive capitalists embarked in the trade,—on
all the commercial classes and operatives depending on
the employment of their capital—on all the advocates
of the free-trade system—on the entire bookselling
trade—and on all authors ,and literary men,—in other
words, on the intellect of the country, to unite hand
and heart in a grand effort to shake off the fetters of
the paper duty.—Morning Advertiser.
Though the result may seem a little startling and
incredible to some, the fact nevertheless will, in the
end, we are persuaded, turn out to be, that, were the
property of the different City Companies well ma-
naged and duly administered, the revenue would be
found sufficient to educate all the children of citizens
who might be found to accept such aid, and to main-
tain in comfort all such members and their families as
may fall into decay ; and that, were the immense re-
venues of the Corporation itself duly expended, it
might relieve the inhabitants from every local burden,
besides seeing a large sum annually expended in im-
proving and beautifying the city, with its trade and
port. Yet how different are the real results from these!
In most of the principal and wealthy Companies not
only is all knowledge of their affairs confined to a
chosen few, but Commissioners appointed by the Crown
are openly set at defiance by the very persons who, if
they have been acting honestly in the execution of their
respective trusts, would, we should think, be proud to
divulge, and shrink from concealment. But while this
reluctance and concealment of itself speaks volumes,
enough
has been elicited to evince the extent of mis-
management
and abuse which prevails in most of
these Companies, proving undeniably that the few are
in most instances reaping the benefit which was meant
for and indeed belongs to the many. From what
passed a few days since at a meeting of the Common
Council, it would seem that while the income
of the larger body, the whole Corporation, is
diminishing, the expenditure proceeds in an inverse
ratio ; so that unless the tide of wanton and unneces-
sary outlay be stayed, we may soon expect to see Gog
and Magog themselves among the insolvents in their
own Hall. Yet here is an annual Parliament, that
chosen panacea of so many of our modern patriots,
entirely unable either to control expenditure or to ac-
quire even a knowledge of what their actual means
and resources are. Though we trust that any such
suspicion as the fact gives rise to, must be groundless,
it is impossible not to be struck with the extreme
sensitiveness with which the knowing members of
this body uniformly shrink from any thing like fair
and open investigation into its affairs. Though the
most gross and palpable imputations are cast, nothing
can ever tempt the arraigned to defend themselves;
while an apparent dread of recrimination, a tacit
acknowledgment that " both are in the wrong," puts
its extinguishers both upon inquiry and disclosure.
Coupling these exhibitions with the extraordinary fact
so often complained of, of the very auditors appoint(d
by the livery not being allowed to see the vouchers for
the accounts which they are called upon to pass, that
mind must be stfangely. wedded to. the continuance of
abuse which can deny the 11e9eSsIty gf Corporate re-
form. Except as far as nnnecessary fees and exactinis
are concerned, no honest Reformer; we are convince 4,
wishes to see any Corporate body throughout do