The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-14 00:00:00

THE SUGAR. QUESTION.

Sir R. Peel, in submitting his financial statement
to the consideration of the House of Commons on
Friday evening last, justly remarks, that to diminish
the duty on British plantation sugar without admitting
foreign sugar to our markets to compete with it,
would be to increase the bounty already conferred by
monopoly on the West India sugar producers, and
that such a reduction would not benefit the consumer,
while it would infallibly damage the revenue. He
then proceeds to state that if her Majesty's Govern-
ment were not embarrassed by the Slavery question,
it might be of great advantage to propose a reduction
of duty on all descriptions of sugar, but that he can-
not consent, nor can those with whom he acts consent,
to permit the importation of sugar, the produce of
Brazil and Cuba, without making some stipulation
with respect to the state of slavery in those countries,
especially Cuba. He then goes on to admit, that, be-
sides being of advantage to the revenue, if the com-
petition were free, it would also be greatly to the ad-
vantage of the West India be
to en-
courage the consumption of sugar, &c. Would not
a person ignorant of the actual state of the case, ima-
gine from the foregoing remarks, that sugar is pro-
duced in no other parts of the world, excepting the
British possessions, Cuba, and the Brazils ; and that
because it is raised by slave labour in the two latter
countries, that Her Majesty's Government is reduced
to the dire necessity of either making the consumers
in the United Kingdom pay threefold the value of the
sugar they purchase, or encourage slave labour by
allowing its produce to compete with that raised by
free hands ? If Sir Robert Peel clings to the notion
that the community at large is so uninformed, as not
to perceive the fallacy of the position he has assumed,
he clings to an error which will be fatal to his admi-
nistration. The British people know as well as he
knows, that sugar is raised by free labour in large
quantities, in various parts of the world, and they
also know, as he does, that mixing up the ques-
tion of slavery with that of the admission of
foreign sugar, is nothing more or less than
a pitiful manoeuvre, practised for the purpose of en-
riching, at their expense, the West India proprietors,
not on account of any services rendered by them to
the mother country—services they have rendered
none ; on the contrary, the West India Colonies have
ever proved a most costly appendage to -Great Bri-
tain, a drain on her wealth, and a grave for her gal-
lant sailors and soldiers.* It is quite clear, therefore,
the West Indians are not propitiated for their merits.
The truth is, they happen to form an influential class
in the State, without whose aid Sir Robert is aware
he would not be able to maintain the position of Pre-
mier for a week. Come what will of it, then, he
must buy their alliance, although not by another open
gift of twenty millions, yet by an indirect mode
of getting at our pockets through the interven-
tion of a close and vicious monopoly, which will
yield them incalculably more. The public may rest
assured, that the bargain driven by Sir Robert with
this baneful class has, in plain English, been
* Let the reader ascertain the numerical strength of any
regiment at the period it was embarked for the West Indies,
and after it has served the usual time in those colonies let him
add the number of recruits sent hence to reinforce that regi-
ment, and deduct from it the soldiers who return home, and he
will have the amount of'life sacrificed in one regiment for the
sake of our sugar proprietors.
this: Support my sliding-scale for the sake of the
landlords here, and as a recompense, your sugar
monopoly, however at variance with other measures I
may propose, shall not be touched. How the land-
lords of Great Britain may relish the partnership, is
difficult to say, but they are now compelled to fra-
ternise with West Indian lords of the soil, and, like
Lockit and Peachum, in the Beggar's Opera, turn to,
each other and exclaim, " Brother, brother, we have'
both sinned," &c. The harmony of these allied land-
lords will be presently disturbed by a third class—a
legion, namely, the consumers, who will demand
from Sir Robert Peel a reason why they are de-
barred the use of sugar, raised by free labour in the
Philippine islands, Java, and Siam, and why they are
called upon to pay an income-tax of 7d. in the pound,
when the money required to satisfy the deficit in the
revenue might be raised by the admission of these
sugars to British consumption, thereby, too, fairly

competing free against slave labour. It is absurd
suppose
Colonies,that
ntahneagewdort: Thuety pa
rl aen twa tiilol nesv
ever
toB ritis h
a condition, during the life-time of the resent ra4M2-
planters, to compete against the well
cpultivated soil of Cuba and the _Brazils. The eastern countries
just named may do so • ; and the surest way to dis-
courage sugar making by slaves, would be to bring
the produce raised by free hands into active competi
i-
tion with the former in our general markets, both for
home consumption and for re-exportation. In lieu of
that, Sir Robert's policy throws cold water on the
exertions of these free labourers, and by so doing
absolutely stimulates the production of sugar by slave
labour in Cuba and South America. Again, where
is the consistency of rejecting sugar with one hand,
while with the other he actually promotes the
interest of the slave-owners by reducing the dnty
on all foreign grown coffee from 15d. to sa.
per lb. ? Has he such consummate confidence in
his own powers of oratory as to suppose he could
blow hot and cold in the same hour, and to the same
party, without a detection of his speciousness? Was he
so blind as not to percieve, that the very line of reason-
ing he adduced for the rejection of foreign sugar
would operate against the admission of coffee, and
vice versa, that what he advanced in favour of coffee,
applied equally to sugar ; the more especially as the one
is rarely used without the other ? Or did his con-
fidence arise from a feeling of security in having at his
command a majority of banded monopolists who would
applaud his speech, however inconsistent, to the sky ?
Some of the Anti-Slavery Society, taking a prima
fade view of the question, doubtless feel repugnance
to the introduction . of slave-labour sugar into the
British market, because they apprehend consumption
of that produce here would stimulate the cultivation
of the canes by slave-labour. Others, however, of the
same party, actuated by similar feelings of
hostility to slavery, advocate the admission of
the sugar, because they think the most secure
mode of extinguishing slavery would be to ex-
pose its produce to an active competition in our mar-
kets against sugar, &c. raised by free labour. Amongst
the many who entertain this view of the question is
Mr. Beldam, a gentleman well known to the Anti-
Slavery Society, who has, in a pamphlet replete with
sound argument, addressed his opinions to Sir T. P.
Buxton, Bart,
Whether the admission of sugar as well as cake to
our markets, from Brazil and Cuba, would or would
mot promote slavery, or whether it would annihilate
that horrible system altogether, is not now the sub-
ject for consideration ; the real question being simply
this, why British consumers, who have to pay three-
fold the foreign value-of all the sugar they purchase,
are to be debarred by law the use of a cheap and
abundant supply of sugar raised by free labour in
countries east of the Cape of Good Hope, the more
especially as those descriptions of sugar can be
brought to our markets, and sold for less than the
cost of making sugar by slaves, creating a competi-
tion which in the end would, by pauperising the slave-
ners, effectually destroy the principal slave marts ?

THE TORY INCOME TAX.

The Herald thus speaks of Sir Robert Peel's projected
scheme of an income-tax :—" The objection which we took at
once to the proposed income-tax—against the uniformity of
per-centage without reference to the amount of income—further
consideration only confirms. The per-tentage ought, we
think, to have graduated according to the amount of income ;
we do not mean that it should have increased in exact propor-
tion to income; but for a man of 2001. a-year to contribute to
the exigencies of the State in the
_same proportion as the re-
ceiver of 50,C00/. a-year is manifestly unjust. The amount of
tax paid by the one constitutes probably' in his family the dif-
ference between plenty andf scarcity, the sum contributed by
the latter cannot slily inish the enjoyment of any aceustomed
luxury. Sir Robert Peel has overlooked a favourable
opporunity of introducing a most valuable principle into direct
taxation, although it may be one which under the anticipated
results of his scheme as a whole will not prove to be of great
practical importance, and for this reason; the compensation
which Sir Robert Peel expects will be derived from the di-
minished cost of articles of necessity flowing from the vcon-
struction of the tariff, will be received by the tax-payer of
narrow income to the full extent of his contribution, whilst
that compensation will only be felt by the possessor of annual
thousands to a limited amount, unless, indeed, his establishment
be an enormous one. The omission of the sliding scale from
the income-tax is, however, to be regretted, even though that
tax is restricted to yearly revenues of upwards of 1501."
The Chronicle makes the following just and forcible remarks
on the subject of the proposed income-tax :—" The imposition of
an income-tax in time of peace appears to us to be, of all s.eps
that could be taken by a Government, that which is fraught
with consequences the most disastrous to the prosperity of the
country and the maintenance of order. Six-and-twenty years
have now passed since the repeal of the property- tax, which
had, in one form or another, existed through the greater
pm tion of that long war that sprung out of the French Revo-
lution. Many of our readers can have no personal recollec-
tion of the circumstances which led to the repeal of that
tax. Its original imposition, under the name of an income-
tax, by Mr. Pitt, in 1798 ; its renewal by Mr. Addington,
under the name of a property-tax, after the rupture of the peace
of Amiens ; and its augmentation by the administration of the
talents, had been carried with very slight resistance ; and the
people had contributed without marinuring the large amount
(not much less, at least, than 15,000,0001. a year) which it ex-
tracted from their p ickets. But the war had scarcely closed
before a loud at,d, gelleral outcry for the immediate reduction
of this before all other taxes resounded from every portion of
the country. Those who experienced the property-tax can
testify at once to the justice as well as the universality of this
feeling. The tax was odious, because it was direct. But, in
idtfition to the unpopularity incidental to its -being a heavy di-
rect impost, the property-tax was pecul.arly odious, on account
of the mode in whi,:h it was assessed. It was necessarily preceded
by an inquisitorial itiqu.ry into the whole Mate of a
man's pecuniary affairs. He himself was obliged to furnish the
information ; the tax-gatherer pried into his affairs , his neigh-
bours were made spies on him ; and the malignity of his ene-
mies was tempted to impeach his :character, and augment his
burdens. The secrets of prosperity and adversity were dragged
before the public ; large gains were inconveniently published;
heavy losses and embarrassments still more injuriously revealed.
The tax was a heavy tax on distress, for men overcharged them-
selves rather than acknowledge that their fortunes were de-
clining. It was a tax on enterprise, and industry, for it was a
tax in proportion to a man's gains, either accumulated or accru-
ing. It was a tax on honesty, operating as a premium on de-
ceit; for, while conscientious and sensitive men thought to
err on the right side by paying more than their due,
the unblushing scoundrel could save his pocket by a lie. The
tax exposed every man to anxiety and scruples, then left him
open to informers, and finally subjected his fortune and cha-
racter to the insolent injustice of a set of political opponents or
jealous neighbours, whom the choice of the Minister had
given power to decide, without appeal, on the amount of his
assessment. Revive the income-tax, and you must revive the
odious inquisition by which alone its amount can be ascer-
tained you must again make same of every man's neighbours
spies on him, arid others tyrants over him. Again you will
.shake down every tottering fortune and unstable credit in the
land; and impose on distress the necessity of submitting to the
pressure of undue taxation in order to escape a fatal exposure."
The Post, speaking of the threatened income-tax, says :
" The present Government being resolved that, however for-
midable the deficiency of the revenue, the richer classes, and
they alone, should make it up, has proposed an income-tax—
excluding, however, from the operation of the tax all incomes
which do not reach the sum of 1501. a year. We do net mean
to say that an income tax is not without its grave objections.
It is frequently inquisitorial—it is often vexatious—it makes
the burden of taxation extremely obvious. But we are to con-
sider whether any large tax can be devised which would not
carry with it even greater objections. We confess to scone
preference for taxes on articles of cossumption, because they
are apt to be so mixed up with the price of the commodity that
there is frequently no direct consciousness of the payment of
the tax."

The Times remarks as follows on the subject of the income-
tax :—" The assessing the values of estates, houses, funded pro-
perty, and salaries, is easy and simple ; but Sir Robert Peel
has not stated, and we shall wait with some anxiety to hear him
state by what machinery it is intended to ascertain that in:•
comes which arise from the floating capitali*of our. merchants
and manufacturers, our brokers and bankers, or from the daily
exertions of our lawyers, authors, or physicians. And with
regard to some of these last, we would venture to make a few
equitable suggestions of some importance. It seems per-
fectly fair that the current expenses of each year should
incomes
of borne, according to their means, by the current
of those who for that year have the benefit of the exist-
ing state of things—who enjoy. the security of pro-
perty, tranquillity of society, facilities for locomotion, com-
merce, and so on, which thosd current expenses are intended
to provide. But when any extraordinary expense has to be
met, it does seem more appropriate that such charges should
fall on those who are not only in the receipt of immediate pro-
fits, but who have a continuing interest in the country—on
property, not on income. No one would think of taxing in-
come to pay off suddenly the national debt ; and so all perma-
nent benefits should be paid for by permanent sacrifice—should
be levied on the invested capital, not on the yearly produce of
the country. We would also observe, that the holders of in-
comes arising from, and fluctuating with, any kind of business,
who must now make an annual exposure of their circumstances,
are thus, by the proposed law, subjected to a serious evil, from
which the proprietors of steady and obvious incomes are
exempt—an additional claim which such persons possess to the
consideration of the Legislature ; and all this, independent of
the natural feeling, of which none can, we should think, divest
themselves, that those who work for their money deserve a
more liberal treatment from the nation than those who only
sit down and receive it. Sinecure property, we think, then,
might be fairly taxed more heavily than the fruits of mere
labour."

The following are the opinions of the Advertiser on the
income-tax ;—" It is much to be regretted, however, that the
Right Hon. Baronet did not introduce into his scheme his
favourite sliding scale, which in this case might be applied
with far more justice and salutary effect than to the importa-
tion of corn, upon which he has adhered to it with such mis-
chievous and ruinous pertinacity. If, for instance, the tax
per cent. were to be raised in proportion to the larger in-
comes, so that incomes of 1,0001. a year should bear five
per cent., 2,000/. six per cent., or at a similar rate, and
thus in like manner, raising the tax in the direct ratio of
the income, and bringing the enormous rentals and ple-
thoric capitals under a due contribution to the na-
tional expenditure, the Ministerial proposition would be
infinitely more productive and popular, and a far more ex-
tensive reduction than is proposed might be made in removing
those burdens that press on the springs of manufacture and
commerce, the removal of which, as Sir Robert Peel truly ob-
served, is the best and surest mode of improving the condition
of the working classes. Under the proposed system a man
with a thousand a year will pay in round numbers a tax of
thirty pounds, whereas by the plan which we suggest he weakd
have to pay fifty ; the man of two thousand a year, instead of
the tax proposed, 601., would have to pay, at six per cn.it.:
1204 per annum ; and it is obvious that those possessed
comes from land, or realised capital to such or greater amounts oouni
are iu a position to bear the suggested impost 02.! ,
annui-
ties wi h far less inconvience than the struggling
with only 1501. a year, and a family to support, can contribute,
the comparatively small sum of 4/. traantribmutane,

TO THE CHARTISTS OF THE
UNITED KINGDOM.
We, the undersigned, hereby declare that the speeches, sen-
timents, and resolutions, attributed to us in the report pub-
lished in the Northern Star of Saturday last, and sent to that
paper by Mr. G. 31. Bartlett, HENRY entirelyVlVENT, destitute of truth.
ROBERT KEMP PHILP,
W. PROWTING ROBERTS,
CHARLES CLARKE.

:L:~

Bath, March 12, 1842.