The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-29 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, T U ESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 29, 1859.

pRIZE CATTLE SHOW of the Smithfield
Club.—The Annual Exhibition of Pr ze Cattle, Seeds,
Roots, Implements, &c., commences on TUESDAY Morning
and closes on FRIDAY Evening, 6th, 7th, Bth, and 9th De-
cember.—Baker-street Bazaar, King-street Entrance. Open
from daylight till nine in the ETening. Admittance One
Shilling.

ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE OFFICE,
~‘ Royal Exchange, London,

16th November, 1859.
The Court of Directors of the Corporation of the Royal
Exchange Assurance do Hereby give Node:, that their
Transfer-Books will be shut from THURSDAY, the Bth of
December next, to THURSDAY, the sth of January following;
that the Annual General Court appointed by their Charter
will be holden, at their Oflice on the Royal Exchange, on
WEDNESDAY, the 21st of December, at Twelve o'clock at
noon, and that a dividend will be considered of at the said
Court. JOHN A. HIGHAM, Secretary.

IMPERIAL CONTINENTAL GAS ASSOClA-
TlON.—{lncorporated by Act of Parliament).
Notice is Hereby Given, That the HALF-YEART.Y
ORDINARY ➢IEETING of the Proprietors of the Imperial
Continental Gns Association will be held at the Office of the
Association. No. 7, White Hart-court, Lombard-street, Lon-
don, on WEDNESDAY, the 30th November, 1859, at two
o'clock in the afternoon, precisely. when a Report ►ill be
made to the Proprietors, an a Dividend declared for the
Hall-year ending 30th lure, 18.19.
By order of the Board.
WILLIAM WALTON, Secretary.
Dated this 2d day of November, 1859.

THE ROYAL STATION HOTEL, Paragon-
-a- street, Hull, requires only to be visited to he pronounced
one of the most splendid hotels in England. The situation is
open and healthfill, a few minutes' walk from all the public
buildings and places of business, and being connected with
the Railway Station, affords railway passengers arriving or
departing by every train day: or night, the advantage of being
on the spot, and having their wants and wishes immediately
attended to.
The public should know that tinder the present manage-
ment they will find every comfort and convenience at the
same charges they are paving at the minor hotels. It has
accommodation for upwards of one hundred and fifty visitors,
Is fitted up with every luxury an hotel can command, and is
so arranged for the advantage of every class of visitor, that
Beds can be had from Is. to 2s. ; Private Rooms, from 2s. to
Is. ; Breakfasts, from Is. 6d. to 2s. ; Dinners, from 2s. ; and
all other charges of that moderate character which will give
satisfaction to every class of visitor who may pay the hotel a
visit.
The hotel contains Gentlemen and Ladies' Coffee Rooms ;
a special Room set apart for Commercial Gentlemen ; fourteen
Private suits of Rooms ; large spacious Rooms for Dinner
Parties, Public Meetings, &c., kc. ; two first-class Refresh-
ment Rooms ; two Smoke Rooms ; Bath and Billiard Rooms.
A Night Porter in attendance.
EDWIN TAYLOR,
Proprietor of the Royal Station Hotel, Hull, and Crescent
Hotel, Filey.
N.B.—TAYLOR'S CRESCENT HOTEL, fronting the sea,
for Families and Gentlemen. It has accommodation for up-
wards of one hundred and fifty visitors. Table DIEM* at
five o'clock.. Omnibuses and Cabs from the hotel meet all the
trains. Good stabling and coach-houses. Moderate terms.

MR. BRIGHT ON TAXATION.

(From the Derbyshire Courier.)
The 'demonstration of Mr. Bright and the Man-
chester School of Financial Reformers is fixed for
the Ist of Decemkr. The Times had an article on
Wednesday on the "impudent fallacies" and "mis-
chievous untruths" put forth by Mr. Bright in his
recent letter on taxation, in which he tells the
working classes " that there is something
essentialy mean and singularly cruel in the way in
which the taxation of this country has been and is
levied." And he affirms that the great bulk of the
indirect taxes is paid by the labourers and working
men. The limes states, from the calculations of
th-E;onomist, that of the Cus:oms andlExeise duties
"the richer classes for themselves or their ser-
vants pay about six-tenths," and shows that the
desire of the House •of Commons for the
last 17 years has been to reduce the taxes paid by
the working classes while it increased those paid
by the upper and middle classes. The Times justly
observes that " the English workman is more
vitally interested in the safety and good govern-
ment of England than even any other class," and
concludes by telling Mr. Bright that " it is an easy,
but a wicked act, in any public man to persuade a
credulous multitude that they are unjustly treated
in this matter, and to .raise a roundless dissatisfac-
tion for a political impose."
Now while we fully admit that the working man
ought to contribute his fair share to the national
taxation, and also admit that there has been a
decided intention on the part of the Legislature to
lessen the burdens of the working classes, we beg
to repeat what we have so often stated, and we
think demonstrated, before, namely, that the opera-
tion of our monetary laws does throw an unjust
proportion of taxation on the producing classes, to
the benefit of the consumers. This is the case
whenever the contraction of the currency prevents
the producer from obtaining a fair price for his
produce, and consequently obliges him to lower
unduly the wages of his workmen. At a time of
panic this process takes place to such an extent
that the producer, the manufacturer, not only can-
not give reduced wages, but is obliged to cease from
giving any wages. lie shuts up his mill or factory,
and buys no more labour for a time.
What the Times does not say in reply to Mr.
Bright has been most ably said by Mr. John Bell
in a letter which states the argument with logical
force and precision, and affords an unanswerable
reply to the fallacious misstatements of Mr. Bright.
We beg to commend this letter to the attentive
consideration of our readers.
TO JOHN BRIGIIT, ESQ., M.P.

Sir,—ln the letter which you recently addressed
to Mr. Brierley, you have given expression to
opinions which, if sound, affect not your constituents
only, but all classes of the community. If unsound,
these opinions ought to be denounced by every man
who prizes the honour and prosperity of England.
In your discourse on taxation, you calumniate
(as is your fashion) the whole body of British land-
owners. Their elder sons, you observe, take the
family estates; the younger sons, you assert, live
on public plunder • therefore (such is your conclu-
sion) landowners foster every form of public extra-
vagance. The rich impose taxes, which, as you
allege, the poor pay. Our whole fiscal system is,
in your opinion, marked by meanness and cruelty.
The Customs' and Excise duties yield £42,000,000
annually. Of that sum the greater portion, you
allege, is paid by people without property; while
the burdens affecting visible property do not, you
contend, exceed £10,000,000 a yeat. The Income
Tax you describe as "hateful and intolerable," NA
more " intolerable" and more " hateful" stkll, seems
to you our whole system of indirect taxation.
the remedy which you propose for this " hateful
and intolerable" state of things is the transference
of political power from the hands of the middle
classes to the hands of the elasscs who possess no
" visible property."
If your assertions as to the character of our
fiscal system were absolutely true, it by no means
seems to follow from your own principles that the
remedy which you prescribe would be efficacious in
working out a better state of things. In the first
place, as the waste of public money has, in your
opinion, been becoming more scandalous every
year during the last (outer of a century, and as
democratic influences have during the whole of that
period been acquiring greater force, it is difficult
to understand why the mere extension of demo-
cratic power shouid be hailed as the infallible coy.
rective of public extravagance. In the next place,
as the rich, according to your theory, use their
political power as an instrument for plundering
the poor, does not your unfavourable estimate of
human nature warrant the csnclusion that, after
the transference of political power which your
system demands shall be completed, the poor will,
necessarily. plunder the rich.
If robbery be perpetrated by law, the aim of an
honest legislator ought surely to be to put a stop
to the system—not merely to change the victims.
The assertions, however, which you parade as
facts, happen to bo widely removed from truth.
It is not true that the families of British land-
owners live on public plunder. It is not true that
landowners have an interest in promoting wasteful
expenditure by Government.. It is not true that
"visible property" contributes only £10,000,000
towards the £65,000,000 which the English Go-
vernment levies year by year.
Of the £42,000,000 raised annually by means of
Excise and Customs' duties, have you attempted to
ascertain what'proportion is paid, directly, by the
rich ? And of the proportion advanced by the
labouring classes, have you attempted to ascertain
whether any, and what, part is repmented in the
wages paid by the employers of labour?
You, Sir, characterise the income tax as " hate-
ful and intolerable." Is that tax more intolerable,
more hateful, and more unjust than all direct taxa-
tion may be shown to be ? Yet you are understood
to be an advocate of direct taxation.
Are you, Sir, justified in asserting of excise and
customs' duties that they are in themselves " hate-
ful and intolerable ?" If consumers did in reality
pay all taxes on consumption, and if labourers
might add to the prices of the articles which they
produce, the taxes on consumption which they ad-
vance while engaged in the business of production
—what reasonable objection could any labourer
urge against• excise and customs'
duties ? If all
taxes might be thrown on consumers, the pressure
of taxation on the labourer would, obviously, be
very light. Labourers produce everything.
Labourers do not consume everything. Let con.
sutners be exclusively taxed, and the burden of
taxation would not merely rest on the shoulders of
the rich; but no class of rich men could shirk their
fair contribution to the Exchequer. Taxes on con-
sumption, fairly levied, would of course affect the
owners of " visible property," like houses and lands.
Taxes on consumption, falsely levied, would affect
also the owners of property not quite so " visible"
—would affect the usurer, the " hard calculator,"
and all the race of rich men who profit by the de-
pression of productive industry.
I have assumed, Sir, that taxes on consumption
shall be fairly levied—that the labourer shall, in
other words, be enabled to add to the price of the
article which he produced, the indirect taxes which
he has advanced during the process of production.
But to the attainment of such a result, the labourer
needs the aid of a peculiar system of currency. Me-
tallic money, with gold at a low fixed price—or
paper money convertible into metallic money of the
kind indicated—will not secure justice to the
British labourer. Metallic money is the money of
the world at large. The money c f the world can
only be made to express those values, which form
the basis of the system of commerce carried on by
various divisions of the world. The money of the
world is not capable of' representing the taxation,
or other social necessities, of particular communities.
Each nation, therefore, needs a peculiar system of
currency—a system of currency which, by permit-
ting taxes pressing on the labourer to be added to
prices, may secure to the labourer a fair share of
the wealth which he creates. Taxation Money
would shield the producing classes from every form
of fiscal oppression.
You may, perhaps, ask what is meant by taxa-
tion-money ? Taxation-money would be money
issued by. Government, subject (so far as amount is
concerned), to the control of Parliament. With
that money, Government would effect its annual
disbursements. In that money Government would
receive its taxes. That money would constitete a
legal tender in the discharge of private obligations.
In that money, the price of gold and silver would
rise and fall, as the prices of all other commodities
mould rise and fall, in obedience to the law of sup-
ply and demand;
ITaxation-money would be the English labourer's
safeguard, for which taxation-money prices would
rise in direct proportion to the increase of taxation,
and in direct proportion Eli() to the increase of na-
tional wealth. The enhanced prices would keep
the balance even between producers and consumers
—between the debtor and creditor classes of society.
Nor would these enhanced prices affect injuriously
our foreign trade. Quite the reverse. Our foreign
trade would be fairly'regulated by metallic values ;
and these would be undisturbed by the use, in this

country, of paper money for the expression of taxa-
tion prices. -
Our system of indirect taxation is not, in itself,
unjust. It has been rendered unjust in its opera-
tion by the action of the Money Laws of 1819 and
1814. Of these laws you, sir, are a supporter. You'
are, therefore, a supporter of that fiscal system
which, as you allege, is unmatched in " meanness
and cruelty."
You may, perhaps, allege that the evil effects of
the Money Law of 1819 have passed away. These
evil effects never can pass away, so long as the
level of prices in our markets is.leept low by Act of
Parliament. Let British prices be determined by
unlimited British competition ; but to inflict by
law, a low level of prices, is to rob the mass of
British producers of their fair measure of reward,
and to convert British commerce into gambling of
the wildest description. The evils which the
Money Law of 1819 inflicted at the period of its en-
actment, on all classes of debtors and of producers,
are re-produced every year, in the adjustment of
our commercial labours with foreigners. Our skill
may increase—our industry may expand to any
conceivable extent—but our money laws secure
foreigners against any increase in the reward of the
British labourer. The results are before us. Every
year we give to foreigners more and more. Every
year we receive from foreigners less and less. Year
by year the mass of exports increases, while the
prices paid for these exports lessen. Year by year
the relative mass of our imports lessens, while the
prices which we pay for these imports increase. In
our commercial intercourse with foreigners we
now throw away every year a larger sum than is
paid by the labourers.uf. England in the form of
taxes on consumption. Yet you, Sir, rejoice in the
extension of our foreign trade, conducted as that
trade has been ever since the money law of 1819
came into operation on principles ruinous to the
labourers of England. You applaud a system which
has rendered the industry of England tributary to
annuitants and to money dealers at home, and to
foreigners in every quarter of the globe. You, who
profess to see- in the system of Free-trade a con-
summation of political wisdom uphold a scheme
which limits prices by law, which decrees that if
the wealth of England should be multiplied an
hundred-fold; the labourers of England shall never,
directly, participate in that wealth, except to the
extent which prices limited to a level conforming
to gold at £3 17s. 101 d. per ounce may allow. La-
bourers create all values. Our money laws limit
the increasing prices in which increasing , values
would naturally find expression. Our money laws
have decreed that all values, above and beyond
what may be represented by an artificially low
level of prices, shall be transferred partly to usurers
and to annuitants at home, and Partly to
foreigners with whom we have commercial dealings.
Our money laws, by denying taxation prices to
British producers, have for 40 rears doomed the
British labourer to increase in toil, and to no share
of the national wealth, except that which is not
permitted to increase in proportion to the increase
of the productive power of England. Our money
laws have narrowed the field of productive industry.
Our money laws have driven millions of our de-
serving countrymen into exile. Our money laws
have filled our streets with " homeless poor.' Our
money laws have at times invested the-interests of
British agriculture with an appearance of antago-
nism to the interests of British trade. Our money
laws have proved the fertile source of " strikes," by
sowing dissension between employer and employed.
Wl e e prices are limited by law there will be fre-
quent misunderstandings between the recipients of
profits and the recipients of wages. Our money
laws generate periodical " panics," and " panics"
involve total privation
,of employment to tens of
thousands of industrious artisans. Our money laws
gliVe liirt la to the atrocities of our factory system.
Yon, 'Sir, in Parliament, to the last defended these
atrocities. To the last yoft resisted the emancipa-
tion of Women and children from factory slavery.
You, Sir, in like.marmer, uphold our money laws;
and you, at the same time, -advise the labourers of
England to rise aga.instei system of taxation which
has been rendered oppressive merely by the action
of princ,iPles.of which you are the supporter.—
I have the honour to be, Sir. your obedient servant,
Jon BELL.
lla4hurst, Kent, November 14,1859.