ページの画像
PDF
ePub

tification on the part of man, to the exclusion of the comfort of the other sex: In other words, a continual approach to the selfishness and brutality of savage life.

Something was said about the demoralizing effect of the smuggling of tobacco on the west coast of Ireland, as the real motive for the removal of this duty. This reason is an exact counterpart of the grounds assigned for the fatal reduction of the duty on spirits, so strongly pressed on the late administration by the Edinburgh Review. The answer to both is, that the evil sought to be reduced is local and partial. The mischief done by removing it is general, and of incomparably greater extent. For thousands demoralized by Highland smuggling, tens of thousands are ruined by cheap whisky. For every man whose habits are injured by Irish tobacco smuggling, twenty would be brutified by the more general use of that noxious weed.

Besides this, it is evidently impossible to impose a tax on objects of consumption which will not prove burdensome to some class, and afford a bounty for smuggling in some quarter. The evils of contraband trade, how great soever, are inseparable from a system of indirect taxation: They are the price which the nation pays for the immense advantages of raising a revenue, without its weight being perceived by those who pay it, or being imposed on any but articles of voluntary consumption. This being evident, the repeal of the duty on tobacco, if accompanied by an increase of duties in some other quarter, was not a diminution of the evils of smuggling, but only a transference of them from one quarter of the empire to another.

The reduction of the duty on calico prints was equally unfounded in principle and expedience. It was not felt as burdensome-it was not the subject of any vehement complaint. Ingenuity and machinery had more than compensated the burden; and in spite of it, the British manufactures of that description had a most extensive and unprecedented sale. To sacrifice L,500,000 a-year, by reducing that branch of taxation, was impolitic, both with reference to domestic consumption and foreign export. To domestic consumption,

because it fell on a branch of industry which ministered to luxury or comfort, not necessity;-to foreign export, because it was directed against a manufacture in which, more perhaps than any other, the division of labour, and application of machinery, were capable of effecting an indefinite reduction of price. The continual and astonishing reduction in the price of printed cottons since the peace, is the clearest proof of the capability of machinery to reduce the cost of its production. An article of this description, which in 1814 cost fifty shillings, can now be produced in Glasgow for six; being a reduction in the price of production, to less than an eighth-part of its former amount. This being the case, it is evident that fabrics of this description were, of all others, the fittest subjects of taxation, because, from the nature of the manufacture employed in producing them, any subsidiary burden was capable of being much more than compensated by the increased skill and diminished cost of production! And, in truth, the tax was paid neither by the consumer nor the producer, but the talent of the manufacturer, called into existence by the tax, and which, but for it, would have lain dormant in the mind of the mechanist.

But of all parts of the Budget, the most extraordinary and ruinous was, the proposed tax on transfers of stock,

To understand the merits of this question, it is necessary to recollect, that the acts creating the stock had declared, in the most express terms, that," in no time coming should any tax, duty, or burden whatsoever, be imposed upon the sale, or transfer, of the said stock." This was the condition solemnly sanctioned by many acts of Parliament, on which the money was advanced by the public creditor, and on the credit of which it had passed through innumerable hands, and was now held by the proprietors of the stock. How was it possible to violate this condition, without breaking faith with the public creditor-in other words, undoing the public faith of Britain?

It was urged by Ministers, that the income tax was a violation of this original compact; and a speech of Mr Pitt was quoted by Mr Charles' Grant, in which that great statesman

declared," that he did not regard it as any violation of the slightest faith of Government to impose a tax on the income derived from stock, when imposed equally at the same time on the income derived from every other source, because the nation was not pledged to keep the income derived from the funds entirely free of taxation, but only not to impose any particular tax on that species of property." These words, thus cautiously guarded and restricted to the imposition of an universal tax, were seriously quoted by Mr Grant as supporting a particular duty of one half per cent on the transfer of funded stock. Nothing can be clearer than that the principle of Mr Pitt had no sort of application, unless the proposed transfer duty on stock were extended at the same time to every other alienation. Now, the tax proposed was solely on transfer of stock and land. The sale of manufactured articles to any amount of ships, furniture, movables of every sort, cattle, grain, farm produce, &c. were entirely free from any imposition. Here, then, was a particular duty laid on the fund and landholders, directly contrary to the plighted national faith to the former of these parties. It is idle to pretend that such a measure, if carried into effect, would not have been a direct breach of national faith.

Supposing it had been as true as it in reality was false, that Mr Pitt had, by the income-tax, infringed the condition on which the stock was subscribed, was that any reason why so great a violation of faith should be repeated? Because a man, ́under the pressure of extreme want, has once committed theft, is that any reason why the crime should be again committed, when no such palliating circumstance exists? Because the nation, during the difficulties of a mortal conflict, was obliged to tax the fundholders, along with other classes, is that any excuse for the imposition of a similar burden on him alone, during a period of profound peace ?

It may be added that the tax on the funds, apparently directed against the rich, was, in reality, levelled at the most meritorious and valuable of the poorer classes. The public debt constitutes the great deposit of the savings of the nation, and more espe

cially of the middling and lower orders.

This is sufficiently demonstrated by the fact, that the funded proprietors are 280,000 in number, and that two-thirds of the three per cents are in the hands of persons who permanently use their stock as a source of income. The tax, therefore, was not a burden on the bankers of Lombard Street, or the capitalists of London, but on the little stock of the shopkeeper, and the savings of the poor. The great and meritorious investments of the Life Insurance Societies, the resource of the middling, and of the Savings' Banks, the deposit of the poorer orders, were all threatened by the proposed measure. No less than L.13,000,000 is lodged in the three per cents from the Savings' Banks, and this sum, from its belonging to the humblest classes, is, in an especial manner, liable to be frequently drawn out, that is, to be frequently brought under the operation of the tax.

But the ruinous tendency of this tax is not to be measured by its actual and immediate operation. It is as a precedent of violation of national faith that it is chiefly of importance. Considered in this view, it would have inflicted a lasting and irremediable wound on the national credit, of which the bitter fruits would have been experienced in the next crisis of the national fortunes. In vain would government, on the recurrence of similar scenes of financial difficulty with those which were so common during the late war, have sought to impledge the national resources for immediate assistance; the fatal precedent of 1831 would have risen up in judgment against them, and the nation been under the necessity of guaranteeing the capitalist against future spoliation by the severity of present exaction. Good faith with nations is like honesty with individuals; it can never be violated without the consequences visiting the children unto the third and fourth generation of those who have broken

it.

Nor would this first grand precedent of injustice have been less fatal, as a measure of relief, to succeeding governments. We have seen how gladly the ministers recurred to the precedent, so little in point, or rather so decidedly against them, of Mr

Pitt and the income tax. How gladly, under the influence of the same motives, would succeeding administrations have recurred to the Whig budget! How triumphantly would they have referred to this grand example of a concession to necessity to justify future violations of good faith, from still lower motives, or under the pressure of inferior difficulty!—Majus et minus non variant speciem is a maxim of morality not less than law; the first step in the career of iniquity is the one which must be resisted; when it is once taken, the difficulty of ulterior resistance is increased with every deviation from rectitude which has been made.

The proposed duty on transfers of and was as objectionable, on the footing of political expedience, as that on funded property was on principles of public justice. If there is any one circumstance more than another to be regretted in the present political state of Britain, it is the small extent to which the investments of the poor are directed towards land, and the consequent engrossing of estates in the hands of a few great proprietors while the landed proprietors of France are above 4,000,000, those of Britain do not exceed 50,000. This is an evil of the very first magnitude, both with reference to the stability of the state and the habits of the labouring classes. Nor is it difficult to perceive from what cause this anomalous state of things has arisen. The expense of making out feudal titles, and the heavy duty on the disposition, operate as a complete bar against the investment of small savings in land. The ad valorem duty of one per cent, coupled with the expense of legal titles, amounting to at least five per cent more on small properties, are such serious burdens, that the lower orders never, think of investing their savings in that species of property, but either put them in a bank, or in the funds, which costs comparatively nothing. Because these burdens were not already sufficiently great, the Ministers proposed to put an additional tax of half a per cent on transfers of land; the effect of which would have been to close the door altogether

[blocks in formation]

against this salutary species of in

vestment.

This is a matter of the very utmost importance for the future habits of the lower orders. No man knows better than Lord Brougham the powerful influence of habits of frugality and foresight on their character, or the necessity of a secure investment to promote the growth of such habits among them. In his Colonial Policy he has pointed it out in the clearest manner.* How, then, has it happened that a Whig cabinet, composed of men professing the utmost regard for the labouring classes, should begin their career by a measure calculated to weaken these habits; to prevent altogether the purchase of land, with all its consequent blessings, by the industrious poor, and to diminish the security and profits of that great investment, which embraces nine-tenths of the savings of the nation?

The duty on Canadian timber, now fortunately abandoned, was another part of the Budget utterly inexplicable, both on the previous principles of the Cabinet, and on the plainest dictates of expedience. Lord Brougham's work on Colonies was expressly intended to point out the superiority of the Colonial over the Foreign Trade, on account of the profit being double to the nation, from the intercourse with its colonies, and single only on its commerce with foreign states. And there can be no doubt that this observation was well founded. Colonies are to be regarded, according to his well-known expression, as "distant provinces of the empire." The wealth gained by the trade with Canada, enriches both the British merchant in the St Lawrence who exports timber, and the British manufacturer in England who exports cottons. The profit is felt "at both ends," and both flow into the British treasury. But the trade with the United States enriches only one of these parties, viz. the English manufacturer; the profit at the other end goes into the pockets of the American merchant; and instead of adding to the sum of British wealth, tends directly to strengthen the resources of his rival. This distinction is of the utmost importance,

Ibid. II. 232.

and illustrates the great superiority of the colonial over any other foreign trade; of the trade in timber with Canada, for example, over that with Norway.

But, farther, the timber trade is connected with another and a still more momentous consideration. It is of the utmost moment to a maritime power to have its naval resources within itself, and to depend on no foreign power for the materials of its national defence. This state of things was fast approaching in this country, The Canadian forests were yielding an inexhaustible supply of timber for the navy; and its climate promised. to render that important dependency the nursery of all the stores required in ships. The alleged inferiority of the wood was disproved by the fact, that, at the very time when the Budget was brought forward, the newspapers contained advertisements for a great supply of Canadian timber for the use of the royal navy. For many purposes, the American wood is fully as good as the Norwe gian; and if for others it is not so, the difference is compensated by the great difference in price. Of the importance of having our naval resources within ourselves, ample evidence was afforded by the armed neutrality of the northern powers in 1780, the coalition of the Baltic states against England in 1800, and the closing of all friendly harbours in that quarter after the treaty of Tilsit in 1807. Of this immense advantage the nation was to be gratuitously, and without any compensation, deprived by the proposed duty on the timber brought from our Transatlantic possessions.

The trade with Canada has become of immense importance. It amounts to 400,000 tons annually, being about a fifth part of the whole trade of the empire; while the trade with North America employs only 80,000.* Great Britain enjoys the exclusive right of supplying these colonies with manufactures; and articles of that description, to the value of L.2,700,000, are annually sent to her American colonies. The seamen employed in this trade are 18,700; while those engaged in the intercourse with

• Hall's America, i. 404.

North America are only 3646+ These facts demonstrate the importance of this traffic, both as a nursery for seamen, a vent for manufactures, and a storehouse of naval resources. It is rapidly increasing, having quadrupled in the last ten years; and at a similar rate of progress it would soon amount to a half of the whole foreign trade of Great Britain.

Extreme delicacy is required in the management of these colonies. Though warmly attached to the mother countries, their inhabitants are of an extremely jealous and irascible disposition. Many very serious disputes have arisen between the British governor and the colonial legislature. The tenure of our authority is extremely slender. It might be snapped asunder in a moment; and the Ame. rican dominion established from the Frozen Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. The advantages afforded by the present low state of the duties on timber, is at present the chief link which unites them to the mother country. What the consequences would have been of the removal of this advantage, may easily be foreseen.

What were the advantages proposed to counterbalance these enormous evils in the proposed change of the duties? Nothing; but that Norway timber should be encouraged in preference to Canadian; in other words, a stranger's property rather than our own subjects. So obstinately did Ministers cling to this determination to encourage foreigners instead of ourselves, that after they had been compelled to abandon the proposed increase of the duties, they brought in a prospective resolution to lower the duties on Norwegian timber in 1832; that is, since they could not impose a burden on their own subjects, they were at least determined to take it off the inhabitants of foreign states!

It is no doubt desirable to purchase good wood cheap; but this is a trifling object in comparison of the disadvantages at which it was to be acquired. The trade with Norway is important; but it is not of a tenth part of the importance of the Canadian commerce-to sacrifice the great and vital interests bound up in the colonial timber trade to the pros

+ Parl. Papers, 5th May, 1829, No. 197.

pect of getting Memel logs somewhat cheaper than at present, is not to legislate like statesmen, but like narrow-minded shopkeepers.

The same objections apply with equal strength to the proposed increase on the duties on Cape wine. To subject inferior wine at so great a distance, and in an infant colony, to nearly the same duty as French wines on the other side of the Chan

nel, was to expose the cultivation of that article at the Cape to certain destruction. The proposed rise from 28. 8d. to 58. 6d. a-gallon, would at one blow have annihilated both the growth and the commerce in Cape wine. No less than L.1,800,000, vested in these employments on the faith of the protection of the British Statutes, would have been destroyed. For what purpose was this great sacrifice to be committed, and the prosperity of an infant colony to be nipt in the bud? To follow the phantom of Free Trade, at the expense of our best interests: to destroy our own colonial industry, in order to encourage that of our hereditary rivals.

Cape wine, it is said, is of an inferior quality-so it is; but is that any reason for totally extinguishing its growth? It is not so good as claret or champagne; but is that a sufficient ground for subjecting it to the same import duties? Unless the duty bears some proportion to the value of the article taxed, it must operate as a prohibition. If wine worth 1s. 6d. a-bottle is subjected to the same burden as that worth 5s., of course the former will disappear from the market. If wine raised at the southern extremity of Africa is taxed as heavily as that raised on the Garonne, the cultivation must speedily cease at the distant point.

The motive for this extraordinary tax cannot be divined. It certainly would not have the effect of cheapening any kind of wine in the market to double the duties on that produced at the Cape. The interests of the middling orders evidently require that cheap wines should be accessible to limited fortunes: and how is this to be done, if the cheapest wines now raised are to be elevated in price by the imposition of the same duties as those levied on the finest wines of French growth? Ministers proposed to lower the duties

on champagne and claret from 7s. to 5s. 4d. a-gallon; and to raise those imposed on Cape Madeira to the same amount, or in other words, to enable the rich man to consume his luxuries at a cheaper, and compel the poor one to purchase his necessaries at a dearer rate.

The duty on raw cottons, calculated as likely to produce L.500,000, is equally inexplicable both on principle and expedience. Professing to wish to lighten the springs of industry; to cheapen the raw produce, which enters into and forms the substratum of our manufactures, they brought forward a proposal to burden the article which forms the staple manufacture of England. The manufacture of cotton goods has now risen to such an extraordinary height, that no less than 227,000,000 pounds of cotton were imported into the empire in the year 1828, being nearly five times what it was at the conclusion of the war. The working up of cotton goods is by far the most important branch of British manufacturing industry; in fact, it is equal to all our other manufac tures put together. How is the imposition of a burden on the staple of this immense branch of industry to be defended? Proceeding on the principles of free trade, and on the experienced benefit of reducing the duties on raw silk, by what extraor dinary process did Ministers arrive at the conclusion, that by raising the duties on raw cotton, the springs of that important branch of industry would be lightened?

By increasing the prime cost of the article, an increase is given to the ultimate price, incomparably greater than the mere addition of the newly imposed duty. The cost of production, the original outlay being increased, the capital expended on the article in all the subsequent hands through which it goes, must be increased also. A larger outlay is required for manufacturing it, for selling it to the wholesale merchant, for disposing of it in the retail trade. Every one of these persons must have his profit on the enlarged advance he is required to make. The prejudicial effect of such an addition to the original outlay has been distinctly proved by the result of the duty on leather,malt, and other ar

« 前へ次へ »