The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-19 00:00:00

~.
•ft
eX"----:------... 404:••••••
/ .
..1•
OF
cP;
41 %.........."-ts., _
N X 4 VA
Vv. )0. --•-•1.,.=,;)
..., ~. .)
e•-• ~ -
41111111110:
-----..1..........) ktgla
1 they exert themselves. Let them demo
it and petl
_
't ri,,, ...-11,-m:
7. '''k-
4
~,,,,*1 •-•
_.
‘4„,;, ---,., -
;,-,N.1 -cf -, .s., • °ll r .4t, ;* ;
--v. 4.,. ----..... ‘o\. c...: 0
Age'
riAlt.,'`e.,,,AL ,
5.,,,,‘. ,exj; 4*.'
• --
,
I\':',... -'l'.4-e-
-41.
')
, re
• ...- -11,-",\ ,
_ I‘.,\ 41,04.-, 111 c.
vir7 t, 7..
, '•
''',..•',.
: .
7421/..F.\
qi. ---•• "' Ct. '-'4lk_. \ N ''',,, -'s• , :..., , , • 6,11,
—..1-'-e--7•s'f;;,-I—*2l: ,
. ,
. ~..
. , t
.. I tion against it.
~.--t'-: ~.
:-4,vt.t,,,,-it` ,/,'"1? - .iq
..,,,,,, , Ea, , ,lltof . %.5_ 011 , 1,,, ,-- 16,,fes). Ac\l. . , ',-z..
+
.
d''37' Dl.' --
' <l'.. °ill 'll/6*,1 `,l J 1". '''' - --' :41- --1-- 3)it OI Tt. ....,
,
.
_

There may be some doubt as to the obligation on party
journals to state the whole truth on any question they
discuss, so far as they know it, or can ascertain 'it, by
ordinary industry ; but there can be no doubt whatever
that it is the duty of every statesman, and more parti-
cularly the duty of the First Lord of the Treasury,
who receives large emoluments, and is entrusted with
great power, to serve, not to mystify and deceive, the
public,p lete
m
a n n e r whenever
manner.
resources
ss
faonryobmtaeinaisiulgre
intofosrtamatetioalin
are almost unbounded ; and the plea of ordinary in-
; the facts concerning it in the most ample and most com-
dustry, which may hold good in the case of a journalist,
will not justify him who has at his command the labour
of all the servants of the State, for the smallest negli•
gence, or the least incompleteness, when he undertakes
to bring some statement before Parliament and , the
country. We yesterday pointed out the erroneous
view which Sir ROBERT PEEL had laid before the
public, of the effect on the revenue of the reduc-
tion of certain taxes. We shall now, we trust, sa-
tisfy our readers that the Right Honourable Baronet
has not only taken, an erroneous view, but we Anal
fasten on him, we think, the suspicion of having des
signedly put abroad an error, in order to promote hie
own ambitious and nefarious scheme of direct taxation,
and blind the public to the beneficial, consequences of
substituting freedom of trade and lowering of
.imports,
for monopoly and new taxes.
The examples we quoted yesterday showed that tho
consumption of wine had increased from 5,000,000 to
6,500,000 gallons, while the consumption of coffee has
increased from 9,251,8371b5., in 180'7, to about
25,000,000 lbs at present. Now, Sir R. PEEL cannot pos-
sibly be ignorant of the fact, that by this increased con-
sumption of wine and of coffee, the revenue is augmented
, in a much greater ratio than is shown by the mere pro-
duct of the wine and the coffee duties. The additional
1,500,000 gallons of wine imported must have employed
a considerable number of ships, increasing the revenue
from hemp and timber, those ships were navigated by
officers and men who consumed various articles subject
to excise and customs duties ; the Wine imported gave
additional employment and pay to porters, warehouse-
men,warehouse-
men, wine-merchants, publicans, waiters, &c., all of
whom contributed to the revenue by their additional
consumption. Similar facts arc, of course, true as to
coffee. The 25,000,0001b5. now imported and conaumed
require nearly three times as many ships to bring them into
England as the 9,000,0001b5. consumed in 1809, then re.
quired ; and tlieyproduce to therevenue over and above the
actual increase of duty on coffee itself, at least twice as
much revenue on account of the, consumption of the
different persons to whom that increase giVes the means
of consuming as it would otherwise derive from them, or
an equal number of persons. Now, when the wine duties
after being reduced nearly 50 per cent., yielded directly
within two years a revenue short only by one-fifth of the
sum they yielded before the rate was reduced nearly
one-half, it .is presumable that the indirect effects
of the reduction more than made up that - -fifth ;
or that the reduction of the duty on this
doubtful article of wine of nearly 50- ' per cent., in
Fact caused an actual increase in the whole revenue of
the country.
What, in truth, were the results on the whole revenue
of thaw successive reductions in taxation, made between

LONDON, SATURDAY E E G SUNI,

MARCH 19, 1842

PRICB 5d

1825 and 1836, which, on Sir ROBERT PEEL'S new tkeory
should have beggared the State, and made an income-
tax necessary, six years ago ? We find from Mr. POR-
TER'S tables, that between 1825 and 1836 inclusive, the
total amount of taxation reduced was 15,319,162/., arid
the amount of revenue yielded less in the same period,
was only 3,031,222/.

In the short space of ten years, therefore, the taxes
which were left on yielded 12,000,000 per annum more
than they did before the reductions, or one-fourth the
whole revenue of the State. Now, that great increase
' took place in consequence of the reduction of duties,
notwithstanding the continued existence of Corn-laws,
and various commercial restrictions, which prevented
the industry of the country from having fair play: We
therefore, have no doubt, that by the abolition of the
Corn-laws, and a due revision of the tariff, the revenue
would soon be equal to all the legitimate wants of the
State. On the article of sugar alone, we are assured by
respectable merchants that the increased revenue from
reducing the duty on colonial sugar to 205., and on fo-
reign sugar to 345.,w0u1d amount to upwards of 2,000,000/.
We could even produce men who would guarantee that
increase, or who would farm the revenue on the expecta-
tion of receiving it.

Now, we complain of Sir ROBERT PEEL that he wholly
—and, we think, inexcusably, whether it were from
ignorance or design—overlooked the indirect ef-
fects of reducing taxation on the revenue ; and con-
tented himself with stating its direct effects on tha
article alone on which the tax was reduced. In an
editor of a newspaper such a mode of reasoning would
not be ju-tified ; in Sir ROBERT PEEL it was wholly
unpardonable. The objection uhich we have stated is
to the principle of his proceeding—hii errors in arith-
metic, or his omissions, were last night ably exposed
by Mr. BARING. A formidable opposition is gathering,
kee are happy to see, against Sir lt. PREL's scheme ;
and it will not be our fault, we trtikt, if that opposition
do not compel h:m to give it up, and confess that the
only bold act he performed in his life was unsuitable to
his character, and was a perfect failure.