The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-19 00:00:00

titg _SIM.

LONDON
THURSDAY MORNING, MAY 19, 1842.

The question mooted by Lord Howlett, on Friday
last, and which seems to have been misunderstood, as
it Luis certainly been misrepresented, was, whether it
be advantageous, or. otherwise, when duties are im-
posed on foreign commodities, for the sake of a re-
venue, to subject similar commodities, the production
of our colonies, to a less import duty? Lord HOWICK
broadly maintained that it is not advantageous ; and,
therefore, he objected to establishing, by the tariff,
more differential duties, in favour of our colonial pro-
ductions, than now exist. The Ministers maintain
that it is advantageous ; and, therefore, they at first
proposed, when they brought forward their tariff, a
whole series of such diminished duties. They con-
tinue several of them by their amended tariff, and
they:. resisted Lord Howicx's motion, which was
thus worded :
" That in making a new arrangement of the Customs'
duties, it is not expedient to impose different rates of
dutyNipon the same articles when imported from foreign
countries or from British possessions, in any case where
no such difference now exists ; and that in those cases
in which such a difference already exists, it is not expe-
dient that that it should be increased."

The Ministers affirmed, then, that it is expedient
to impose different, meaning lower duties, on colonial
articles ; and they perwadecl the House of Commons,
which, more foolish than sheep, runs into danger
whithlersoover its bell-nether leads, to affirm that ex-
pediency by a large majority.
The Tories in Parliament, and the Tories out of
Parliament, roar out in chorus—" You would treat
the colonies as foreign countries, we would treat them
as integral parts of the empire; and the lower and more
numerous we can make such discriminating duties, the
more we approximate the colonies to ourselves, and the
more we make their trade with the mother country 0,
home trade, a trade completely under our control,
and the more we proniote the welfare of both States."
If that be the true principle, why do they not apply
it to the mother country itself? If it be good to
encourage the growth of tobacco in the Wrest and
East Indies, by a discriminating duty, it must be also
good to encourage the growth of tobacco at home by
similar discriminating duties. But what has the Le-
gi,ilature done ? It has absolutely prohibited the
growth of tobacco in Ireland, and passed a law to

root it out. The very same fact is true of sugar. A
man wished to manufacture sugar in Ireland,
and put the duty paid on foreign sugar into his pocket ;
the Legislature forbad him. But while it is so cruel
to our own people—while it will not allow them to
produce an article which they might produce at the
price of that article in the market as raised her the
duty, if they had not to pay the duty on it which is
imposed on the foreigner,—it permits the colonists,
nay, it invites the .colonists, to put a part of all such
duties into their pockets, at the expense of the duty-
, paying people of England. In fact, and unhappily,
-oar people have submitted with such unexampled pa-
tience to the continued extortions of the tax-gatherer,
that the Tories have no conception that they commit
any wrong, however much they may fleece them, to
promote any idle scheme which that " insidious and

crafty animal," as Dr. SMITH says,
a statesman," may take into his head.
The instances of tobacco, and of sugar, set in a
clear light the principle on which the Legislature acts.
It imposes the duty on foreign commodities for the
sake of a revenue, thereby it raises the price of those
commodities in the market, and it will not permit its
own subjects in England and Ireland, who can grow
or manufactur.e those commodities, to bring a grain of
them into the market without paying an equal duty
with the foreigner. Why, then, should the colonists
even if we consider them to be on the same footing
as the English and Irish, not, like them, pay the same
duties ? Is there any reason why they should be
allowed to diminish the public revenue, by bring-
ing their commodities into our market at a less
rate of duty than foreigners ? The practice, un-
doubtedly, has been to act on the Tory principle ; and
coffee, sugar, and timber, each of which extracts large
sums from the consumer here, which never reach
the public Treasury, are exafnples of the pernicious
effects of so acting. The Tories admit, in all these
cases, that they have acted erroneously, and they
only abstain from applying the same principle, of re-
ducing discriminating duty, to sugar, as they now pro-
pose to apply to timber, by considerations extrinsic
from those of revenue and the encouragement of pro-
duction.
The objection to all such duties is, that they tax
the consumer to the full amount of the discriminating
duty, in order to encourage tke trade of the colony.
If the Legislature be bound to promote that, it is
equally bound to pro Mote the welfare of the people at
home ; and every farthing it gives to the colonies
by such discriminating duties, it takes from the
pockets of our own people. If cheese imported from
Canada, and cheese imported from Holland, be of
equal goodness, the cheese will fetch the same price
in the market. The consumer will give 60s. a cwt.,
whether he buy Canadian or Dutch cheese ; but the
latter, according to Sir R. PEEL'S tariff, will have to
pay 10s. 6d. to the revenue, while the former will have
to pay only 2s. The tax, as long as we consume any
Dutch cheese, raises the price of all cheese sold in the
market 10s. a cwt., and the consumer will consequently
have to pay Bs. a cwt. on all colonial cheese which only
pays 2s. duty. That Bs. will go into the pockets of
the Canadian cheese maker, and to that extent he is
benefited at the expense of the English consumer. It
becomes a bounty on the manufacture of cheese in the
colony. What is true of the discriminating duty on
cheese is true of every discriminating duty. It arti-
ficially directs labour into that channel which is not
naturally the most profitable, otherwise it would flow
thither of its own accord.
The system of discriminating or differential duties,
is only the old system of bounties in disguise. Govern-
ment undertakes to promote particular production,
and direct farmers in the *colonies how they shall
employ their capital. Bounties, however, come from
the pockets of the tax-payers ; Government has no
funds of its own. It unjustly takes something from
some of its subjects, partially and favourably to give
to others. The Ministers who at this time act on that
system have not yet learned the A B,C of that great
social science—the production and distribution of
wealth, on which, above all other sciences, depends
the well-being of the community.
At the same time, it must be admitted, that those
who tax the consumer to give a bounty on the pro-
duction of wheat at home, only follow out their own
principle, when they tax the producer of wheat in Eng-
land, to give a bounty on the production of cheese in
Canada. Their whole system is based on taxing each
class in turn for the benefit of some other class, and
making all believe, when they have taxed all, that all
are benefited. Such a system requires a perpetual re-
adjustment of the tariff, such as Sir It. PEEL is
now about to try his hand at; and it would be prefer-
able gradually to alter it, on the principle laid down
by Lord HowicK, and allow the prices of all com-
modities, and the profits of every trade, to be wholly
and entirely regulated—abolishing all discriminating
duties—by the " higgling of the market."

" vulgarly called

\\*%,