Workings of Taxation.

An important circumstance has been remarked by sir H. Parnell connected with the pressure of taxation, namely, the effect of monopolies and protections in raising the prices of commodities which are the subjects of them. These monopolies and protections impose, by increased prices, burdens on the public which neither fill the exchequer, nor forward any purpose of national utility, but support favoured trades. If the effect of the corn laws is, at least, to raise the price of corn five shillings a quarter, this advance on the annual quantity consumed, taken at 50,000,000 quarters, creates a charge on the public of £12,500,000 a year. If the protecting duties on East India and foreign sugars advance the price of sugar only one penny a pound, this advance on the quantity annually consumed, namely 380,000,000 pounds, is, on the public, £1,500,000 a year. If the East India Company’s monopoly makes the price of tea (exclusive of duty) double what it is at New York and Hamburgh, as is the case, it imposes a tax of at least £2,000,000 a year in the form of increased price; and the monopoly of the timber trade, enjoyed by the shipowners and Canada merchants, costs the public at least £1,000,000 a year: so that by these monopolies and protections 17 millions a year are taken from the pockets of the people, just as if corn, sugar, tea, and timber were taxed to that amount, and the produce paid into the Treasury.

Relief to the country is not so much to be expected from a reduction in the amount of taxation as the adjustment of its pressure. The taxes which have been repealed are considerable, and further reductions, with the present scale of expenditure, might render loans necessary to supply the deficiency. The people, however, may be greatly benefited by a commutation of taxes, and by imposing those essential to the expenditure of government on the classes and interests best able to support them. We shall in this section shortly notice a few of the taxes which require either to be repealed or modified.

To begin with Soap, which, as the cholera spasmodica has reached our shores, is rendered more than ever essential to health and cleanliness. On hard soap (the revenue on soft soap is next to nothing) the duty is three pence per pound, or 110 to 130 per cent., in some cases more. The duty is too high, and the regulations for collecting it lead to frauds of the grossest description. There is no duty in Ireland, and it is notorious that a large quantity of soap is smuggled back again from that country into England. There is no fixed rule for the collection of the tax: there are no less than seven different modes of levying it: in London there is one way, in Liverpool another, in Hull a third, and so on. This is meant to avoid fraud, and the result is to invite it, and, of course, to harass the fair trader. Mr. Thomson mentioned two Liverpool houses (House of Commons, March 26, 1830) which contrived to carry on an extensive business with government capital, by a dexterous management of the drawback allowed on the exportation of soap to Ireland.

The duty of £4 : 10 per ton on Hemp is injudicious; for it is a tax on a raw material not produced at home, and of the first necessity for shipping and domestic uses. But while we tax the article in its raw state, we admit it in a manufactured form for the use of the marine, if purchased and manufactured abroad: thus giving a premium to the foreign manufacturer and discouraging our own. The timber duties are liable to similar objections, but the subject has been so frequently before the public we shall pass on to the Silk Duties, which, as justly remarked, are a fine specimen of fiscal absurdity.

First, there is a duty on manufactured silk, to protect the weaver; then, there is a duty on thrown silk, to keep him down, and to protect the silk-throwster; then, there is a duty on raw silk, to contract the operations of both weaver and throwster. Common sense would say, abolish the raw silk-duties at all events; but Common Sense has never been finance minister, and indeed very seldom in the Cabinet in any capacity.

The Malt Laws will of course be revised. It is an act of justice due to the malster, to the public, and to the agriculturist. The duty on Tea must stand over till the East India Company’s charter is settled, when we may expect something better than an infusion from sloe-leaves to breakfast; prior to the settlement of the Charter any reduction in the duty would only tend to augment the dividends of the proprietors. The duty on Glass does not admit of delay; the gross produce is about one million, but nearly half of this sum is either returned or lost in the charges of collection. Lord Althorp proposed to repeal the glass duty, but having been bothered out of the tax on stock-jobbing by Messrs. Goulburn and John Smith, he was compelled to retain it, as also the duty on tobacco.

The duties on different kinds of Paper vary from 50 to 150 per cent. They form a portion of the mass of taxes imposed on knowledge and the diffusion of information. The payment of the duties is the least part of the evil; the paper-maker is harassed like the malster by an infinity of forms—in giving notice to the exciseman—in reweighing the paper before the supervisor—in lettering the rooms of his manufactory—in numbering his vats, chests, presses and engines—in taking out licenses—and in procuring and pasting labels on every ream—and for neglect of any of which he is liable to ruinous penalties. Why is the paltry Pamphlet Duty retained? It produces only about £1,000 per annum, which is much less than might be obtained by compelling noble lords and honourable members to pay the postage of their private correspondence. Yet for this insignificant sum the booksellers throughout the kingdom are hampered with forms of entry at the Stamp Office, which, if they do not observe, they must pay forfeit, or what is worse, memorialise the Honourable Board, alias the Honourable Solicitor of Stamps. The duty on Advertisements ought to be regulated, but in what way we are unable to suggest. It is certainly unfair that a short advertisement should pay as much as a long one, or that an advertisement for a place, office, or employment should pay as much as one for a loan of money, or the sale of an estate.

The produce of the duty on Sea Policies has diminished, although the amount of ship’s tonnage entered inwards and outwards has increased. The high rate of duties has driven insurers to make their policies in America, Holland, and Germany, where they could insure at a cheaper rate. In these times of low profits a difference in price of one-quarter or one-half per cent. is sufficient to influence the determination of commercial business. The case of Fire Insurances is still more flagrant. The premium in London on common risks is 1s. 6d. and upon that 3s. duty must be paid to government. A tax of 200 per cent. obviously prevents many from insuring; those who are willing to pay 1s. 6d. per cent. to the offices do not like to pay twice as much more for pensions and palace buildings. The consequence is that it is only the great properties which are insured, the smaller are left to Providence. A man with a large house and valuable furniture insures, but a man with a cottage does not: thus prudence is taxed where it ought to be specially encouraged.

The unequal mode of assessing the inhabited house duty has been before alluded to; also the mileage duty on stage-coaches (pp. 267-280) and the unfair advantage possessed by real over chattel property. The estates of the aristocracy pass to their descendants without payment of either probate or legacy duty; but the property of the merchant, trader, or mechanic, being mostly personal, is subject to both, and cannot be left to children and friends without payment of a tax, varying from one to ten per cent. The whole of the Stamp Duties require regulation, and the public has long indulged a hope that the task ere this would have been accomplished. The duty on deeds and other legal instruments should be more regular in its ascent, and not fall so heavily on property of small value. The representatives of a deceased person must swear to the amount of his property without deducting debts; and although the duty is afterwards returned (but with considerable trouble and expense), it frequently inconveniences the poorer classes, who may not have the immediate means of paying the probate duty, without which they cannot act. The license duties fall very unequally; many classes, and these best able perhaps to bear a deduction from their incomes, are wholly exempt. Then why should an attorney be subject to an annual duty, while the barrister, physician, and medical practitioner escape altogether? Or why should the large fundholder, or the army and naval half-pay, and civil superannuation people, receive their dividends and pensions without giving a stamp, especially as government will not receive its own taxes without charging the payer with the receipt-duty.

Ireland has been so impoverished by tithes and absenteeism that her contributions to the wants of the state have been personal rather than pecuniary. She was exempt from the property tax, and still is from the assessed taxes. Why, however, the gentry should escape direct taxation as well as agistment tithe, cannot be so easily explained, unless from the circumstance of Ireland having been till lately a close borough. There may be valid grounds for exempting a poor country from duties on articles of consumption; but income arising from property is really more valuable (will go farther) in a poor country than in a rich one.

Taxes on Newspapers.—The heavy duty on newspapers, whether considered as a source of revenue, or, in its injurious tendency, to restrict the diffusion of intelligence, is the most objectionable part of our fiscal system. A fourpenny stamp, on an article which sells for sixpence, is a tax of 200 per cent. Some of the weekly papers endeavour to evade this onerous impost, by selling a larger paper at a higher price, which reduces the per centage, the duty not being an ad valorem one; but they are subject to the disadvantage of a more limited sale, owing to the higher price of their publications.

A reduction in the duty would be more than compensated by an increase in the circulation of papers; but then the object of the government has been not so much to realize revenue as to control public opinion. Our limits do not admit of our treating this subject so fully as it deserves; nor is it necessary, after the able and conclusive exposition it has undergone in other publications; we shall, however, submit a few brief observations:—1. On the influence of the high stamp-duties on the state of the newspaper press. 2. On the consequences of restricting the sale of cheap political pamphlets, subjecting them to the same duty as the regular journals. Our arguments will be addressed to those who feel an interest in social improvement, not to those who seek only to thrive by abuse and oppression.

The first and most obvious effect of the high duty is, by enhancing the price, to curtail the benefit of newspapers, whether as the source of innocent amusement or useful instruction, to the more opulent classes. But the newspapers depending for support upon what may be termed the proprietary of the country, they will, of course, be conducted on such principles and in such spirit as is likely to be most agreeable to the interests, the prejudices, and passions of their subscribers. Hence the predominant character of the press has been aristocratic: and it seldom compromised the favour of its chief patrons by the fearless exposition of any political abuse, superstitious error, commercial or chartered privilege, private vice, or public oppression, in which they were especially interested.

But the Press being under the influence of the opulent, it leaves the indigent, as we shall term them for brevity, without protection. They may be calumniated with impunity, as they often are; their motives, views, and conduct may be distorted, and they have no effective means—no organ—by which they can set themselves right with the community. Hence it is that the great mass of society—the industrious and trading classes—those numerous and useful orders, which constitute the bone and muscle of the social state—are no more represented—their interests are no more maintained, by the daily journals, than they are by the Commons’ House of Parliament.

Of late years a great deal has been said of the advantages of commercial freedom and unrestricted competition; but is a monopoly of knowledge less pregnant with mischief than a monopoly of corn or other article of general consumption? The exclusive privileges of Oxford and Cambridge have been objected to as well as of the Bank and East-India Company; but how does it happen there is so little outcry against the Press? The reason is obvious enough; the Press is the common crier; but, though loud and prompt in proclaiming the abuses of others, it has been marvellously silent concerning its own. How much the monopoly of the great brewers was reprobated, even by most of the journals; but the public injury, from this source, was limited and unimportant, contrasted with that originating in the monopoly of the Press. No doubt the beverage of the people was diluted and adulterated, but this evil, at the worst, was local in its effects; it was not like the Press, whose despotic authority is not limited to the metropolis, nor the provinces, nor even the empire, but extends to every corner of the globe.

The provincial press takes its tone and character from the London prints; some of the country papers follow in the wake of the Times, some the Morning Chronicle, some the Sun, some the Courier, and some other journals; but all have their guide and prototype in the metropolis, from whom they cut or copy their opinions. From this sort of paternity and connexion arises a most portentous danger to the liberties and prosperity of the empire. The Press has been designated a fourth estate, next in influence and importance to King, Lords, and Commons. But, Great God! only think of what this fourth estate consists—twelve daily papers established and carried on solely for gain—whose proprietors are unknown—whose editors are unknown—whose reporters are unknown—in short, belonging and attached to which there is not the slighest thread of responsibility, whatever may be the character and magnitude of their delinquency. Upon this vacillating and intangible pivot one-fourth—aye, a great deal more—of the government of this great empire depends. What nonsense it is to complain of the Treasury boroughs, of Gatton, or Midhurst, or of rotten boroughs with only a dozen electors, while an overwhelming influence like this is tolerated! What dolts ministers would have been, had they exclusively concerned themselves about the influence to be derived from these sources, and not availed themselves of the more potent agency which might be derived from the Press. And do we suppose that Government alone may avail itself of this power; that great commercial companies, loan-mongers, speculators in the funds, and getters up of bubble companies may not resort to similar aid? Assuredly not; for we know the contrary; we know that the Press has been the great agent not only in the oppressions of the Oligarchy, but in the fraudulent devices by which one portion of the community has plundered another.

Only place at our disposal, out of the secret service money, £20,000 per annum; a few judgeships and offices in the Colonies; a few leases of houses and crown lands in the metropolis; a few livings and dignities in the Church; a few places in the Customs, Excise, and judicial administration; and a few appointments to the magistracy and shrievalties in the country: let us, we repeat, have these things in our gift, and we will engage to make the boasted fourth estate of this realm as subservient as the most corrupt and despotic minister could desire. We do not mean to affirm we would render the Press undisguisedly prostituted to the Government; we would further its ends in a much more adroit and effective manner; nor would we go openly with bribe in hand, for, in that case, the sly rogues would bruit our offer, knowing they would gain more by proclaiming it, and boasting of their incorruptible integrity, than accepting our tender: we would not adopt any such vulgar mode of procedure; nevertheless, we would accomplish our employer’s purpose. If the premier wished to interfere with France, or Belgium, or to get up a war of any sort, we would render the undertaking popular to his heart’s content; if he wished to set his face against the reform of domestic abuses, we would convince ninety-nine out of every hundred that our institutions had stood the test of ages, and are the best the wit of man ever devised; if he wished to hunt down a troublesome individual, we would render the caitiff an exile from all decent and respectable society; if he wished to destroy all public spirit in the people, we would throw such discredit on every meeting and association for a patriotic object, that the parties thereto should appear nothing better than gaping idiots or poverty-stricken knaves, whose sole purpose was the plunder of the rich!

All this we would do, and more, and the great beauty of our doings would be that they should be so dexterously managed that they would neither bring scandal on ourselves, our employer, nor the agents of our Diabolism. The only machinery necessary to put in motion would be simply a well-directed mensonge, with which gentlemen connected with the “respectable part of the Press” are well acquainted. It would consist of an artful and incessant grinding of paragraphs—an amplifying and improving, or, if an opponent, a garbling, curtailing, and suppressing of speeches—the omission, misrepresentation, or blazoning, as the case might be, of all public meetings and proceedings—in short, in picturing every thing and person on the broad sheet in such a way that they should be viewed through a multiplying glass, or the right or wrong end of the telescope, as might best suit the purpose of our employer.

All this we should be able to effect without fear of detection or exposure: we would manage the Press with less noise than the famous William Holmes in the olden time managed the orgies of St. Stephen’s; the close monopoly affords every facility for bribery and concealment; and though these diverging rays of intelligence, the country papers, would partake, equally with the rest, of the impulse given at the primal source, they would be as unconscious of the presence, as unparticipant in the favours of the great operator at the focal point.

Perhaps our almost allegorical description of the relation in which the journals stand to the community may not be fully comprehended by all our readers; but it would be a more invidious task than we should like, to illustrate our subject by practical examples. What we have said applies to the Press in its corporate and irresponsible capacity; of the individuals connected with it, they are, we believe, as estimable as any other class; and some there are, we know, animated by an almost enthusiastic devotion to popular rights and social happiness. It is not their faults exactly that they are placed in a false position, in respect of society; that from the operation of the stamp duty excluding competition, they have been raised into great and hazardous undertakings, which renders it almost madness, and something like breach of trust to the proprietors, to indulge their private sentiments at the risk of compromising the partial interests on which the prosperity of the journals confided to their management notoriously depends.

This is the most that can be said in extenuation of their timid, see-saw, and compromising conduct; and after all, it does not lessen the magnitude of the evil under which the public suffers. That this evil exists, and to an enormous extent, we shall establish, from the present state and management of The Times. This journal exercises an irresponsible power, dangerous to the interests of society; and were this power exercised in opposition to the government—which, by the by, is not likely, as this journal has evinced a fixed determination to stick to the dynasty de facto, whether Tory or Whig—it would be dangerous even to the government. Had we the option, whether, as an instrument of the general happiness, we would prefer the return of 100 honest members to parliament from the unrepresented towns, or we would have the Times at our beck, we should unhesitatingly say, give us the beldame of Printing-house-square, with her good name, her Medusean front, her quiver of poisoned arrows, her subtlety, literary tact, experience of town, and general acquaintance with all the springs of life and action. The influence she is enabled to exercise over public opinion is incredible, and can only be appreciated by those habituated to observe social movements, and the agency by which they are produced.

It is because a newspaper has such power, which may be directed to a beneficial or malignant purpose, that we consider the state of the Press objectionable. Irresponsible authority is as objectionable in the gentlemen of the Press as in the Boroughmongers, and for the remedy of this literary usurpation we know nothing so well adapted as the opening of the trade, by means of minor publications. The suppression of the cheap political pamphlets by lord Castlereagh always appeared to us both unjust and impolitic. Sedition and licentiousness might have been effectually restrained without destroying an instrument which, ultimately, might have been made subservient to the attainment of the most salutary ameliorations. It is the imposition of the stamp duty, not the demand of security of which we complain; the former completely interdicting, to a vast majority of the community, a source of amusement and intellectual improvement.

Some of the most dangerous popular errors, we are convinced, were eradicated solely by the agency of the cheap tracts. Among these we reckon the prevailing opinions on Catholic Emancipation. Before the establishment of the weekly pamphlets the mass of the population was decidedly anti-catholic, and hardly less obstinate in their prejudices than Lord Eldon or Sir C. Wetherell. A prodigious change was effected in the character of the people in another respect. During a scarcity, or high prices, the rage of the labouring classes was mostly vented on the butcher, baker, and farmer; such senseless outrages are now never heard of. The introduction of machinery, for obvious reasons, was opposed by the mass of the people. It was impossible they should at first be reconciled to inventions which, though tending to the general advantage, by the multiplication of commodities at a cheaper rate, yet, if they did not deprive some classes of the means of subsistence, degraded them into lower stations. It was natural, therefore, they should resist this innovation; and, in so doing, we believe, they did no more than the legal, ecclesiastical, or any other class would have done, had their interests been sacrificed, though that sacrifice were made for the general good. It was necessary, however, the principle should triumph. The people resisted; severer laws were made against frame-breakers, and a terrible sacrifice was made at York: but all this would have been ineffectual, had not another cause interfered. This cause, we verily believe, was the introduction, by Mr. Cobbett, of the two-penny trash; which demonstrated that, however injurious the employment of machinery might be to particular branches of industry, yet, inasmuch as it augmented the supply of food and clothing, consequently rendered them cheaper to all classes, it must be ultimately beneficial. We are convinced if pamphlet writing had continued unchecked during the last twelve years, the effects of the knowledge it would have spread, and the discussion it would have excited, would have saved the country from the ‘Swing fires,’ and those outrages against the machinery and property of individuals who suffer as much as their unfortunate work-people from the manifold difficulties in which we have been involved by a long course of misgovernment.

Much has been said about the pernicious, dangerous, and absurd doctrines which were propagated. It might be the case; with important truths, error also might be inculcated; ideas beneficial to society might be accompanied with others of a contrary tendency. This, however, was matter of opinion; and a more proper subject for discussion than coercion. Admitting that cheap publications were injurious as well as beneficial, it afforded no argument whatever for their suppression. The same objection might be made to plays, novels, romances, and almost every other publication; the same objection might be urged against the amusements of the theatre: all these, no doubt, are productive of evil as well as good to the community; but who ever, on that account, thought that they ought to be suppressed? Who ever expects to see any improvement unaccompanied with some countervailing disadvantage? The only principle in this, as in every other case, is to balance the good against the bad; and it was on this principle the fate of the cheap publications ought to have been determined.

It is unnecessary, we think, to say any thing more in defence of political pamphlets. We were desirous of submitting a few observations, because it is generally understood Ministers have some measure in contemplation by which the future state of the Press is to be regulated. There appear only two courses open to them to pursue; either we must have a restricted or free trade in politics. Public opinion has declared against the former,—it would require a literary preventive service to enforce it, and after all the people would obtain the contraband commodity, though, perhaps, both dear and deleterious; whereas, by open competition, the cheapest and best, in the long run, would possess the market.

We have not dwelt much on the fiscal part of the subject; it has been better done by others than we could do it, and, moreover, is exhausted; beside we have not so bad an opinion of Ministers as to think that the loss or gain of the revenue will form a material item of consideration when the question is whether a great community shall be informed, or remain in ignorance of its real and permanent interests.

There is one point we have omitted to notice; namely, the opinion entertained that the reduction of the stamp-duties would inflict serious pecuniary loss on the newspaper press. We cannot foresee such result; our impression is, that both the public income and the newspaper proprietary would gain by the alteration. Under the existing system the circulation of the journals is chiefly confined to the opulent; were the price reduced one-half many would take in two or more papers who only take in one: hundreds of thousands who are restricted to an hour’s inconvenient and hasty perusal, or obliged to resort to a coffee-house, news-room, or alehouse, would become subscribers to a paper for their exclusive use, or for the morning, after-dinner, or evening amusement of their families. The consequence would be a prodigious increase of sale, and, of course, revenue. The Times, which now circulates 7000 or 8000, would circulate 20,000 or 30,000, and the Morning Chronicle and other journals would have a corresponding augmentation of demand. That there would be increased competition we believe, but it would be a competition of opinion rather than of profit. The old journals would retain their supremacy,—the result of great capital—admirable business arrangements—literary connexion—valuable correspondence in every part of the globe—and long established channels of circulation. Against such advantages new rivals might contend, but they would contend with the odds greatly against them, and if they succeeded, their success would be the result rather of the special favour of the gods than of any other favouring circumstance.

To conclude, we think, by a reduction of the newspaper duties, a vast social benefit would be conferred, without inflicting loss on any class of individuals, or even the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would be like the discovery of some new and useful invention, which brings within the reach of the whole community an article of luxury or comfort that had previously been confined to the richer classes. Were newspapers sold for threepence, every respectable family could afford its daily journal, and every working man his weekly one; their circulation would be as great in England, in proportion to the reading population, as in France or the United States. The advantages that would result—moral, social, and political—are too obvious to be enforced.