The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-15 00:00:00

competing free against slave labour. It is absurd
to suppose- that • the worn-out plantations in the
British Colonies, managed as they are, will ever be in
a condition, during the life-time of the present race of
planters, to compete against the well cultivated fresh
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-
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. Agam, 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 tho duty
on all foreign grown coffee from 15d. to Bd.
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
facie 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. F.
Buxton, Bart,
Whether the admission of sugar as well as coffee to
our markets, from Brazil and Cuba, would or would
not 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 eta would, by pauperising the slave-
owners, effectually destroy .the principal slave marts ?

THE TORY INCOME TAX.

Tbe 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-tentage 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 50,000/. a-year is manifestly unjust. The amount of
tax paid by the one constitutes probably in his family the dif-
ference between plenty andliseareity, the sum contributed by
the latter cannot diminish the enjoyment of any accustomed
luxury. Sir Robert Peel has overlooked a favourable
opportunity 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 recon-
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 steps
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
portion 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 murmuring the large amount
not much less, at least, than 15,000,0001. a year) which it ex-
tracted from their pockets. But the war had scarcely closed
before a loud aad general 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
addition 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 which it was assessed. It was necessarily preceded
by an inquisitorial inquiry into the whole state 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 eba-
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 some of every man's neighbours
spies on him, and 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 not 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 some
preference for taxes on articles of consumption, 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-
s 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 capitals 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
be borne, according to their means, by the current incomes
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, corn-
mer,,:e, and so on, which those 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 Wind 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 1,000/. 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 aril popular, and a far more ex-
tensive reduction than is proposed migt.t be made in removing
those burdens that press on the spring's 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 clases. 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 would
have to pay fifty the man of two thousand a year, instead of
the tax proposed,
601., would have to pay, at six per cent.,
120/. per annum ; and it is obvious that those possessed of in-
comes from land, or realised capital to such or greaterier neunt
are in a position to bear the suggested impost
struggling
trugg i lo.ng tradesmanr n
ti
annui-
ties wi h far less inconvience than
with only 150/. a year, and a family to support, can contribute
the comparatively small sum of 4l. 10s."

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. M. Bartlett, are entirely destitute of truth.
HENRY VINCENT,
ROBERT KEMP PHILP,
W. PROWTING ROBERTS,
CHARLES CLARKE.

Bath, March 12, 1842.