Chapter XXX: Introduction (4)

There was no alienation between Crassus and his ten thousand slaves, notwithstanding all the work consumed; consequently, the only circulation implied by this consumption was in proportion to the necessaries which the master was obliged to purchase for so great a multitude: and if we still suppose all those necessaries to have been produced by their own labour, then the state of Rome could not, but by an arbitrary imposition laid upon Lucullus and Crassus, draw one farthing out of their coffers; consequently, industry could not increase in proportion to the loads of wealth brought from Asia by those generals. Whereas were Lucullus now at London, or at Paris, he would not be able to spend a shilling, without giving a penny, and perhaps more, out of his treasure to the state, which would immediately throw it back into circulation.

As we are now on the subject of circulation among the ancients, let me briefly trace the progress of it in Europe, through different modifications, to our own times, and so close this chapter.

When the seat of empire was translated to Constantinople, and all the Asiatic provinces attached to the Emperors of the East, a stop was put to the augmentation of coin and bullion in the empire of the West. A considerable part of what had formerly been there returned to Constantinople, and the remainder fell a prey to the barbarous nations which overran it. This may be called the first period.

These barbarians, by enslaving all the ancient inhabitants, and by forcing them to perform every kind of service, must have had little use for coin. What they coined appears to have been broad and thin.

Let any one reflect upon the insensible waste of silver plate, and the still greater loss on coin which circulates; the vast sums carried off in the time of the Croisades; the quantities buried or thrown into rivers in times of devastation; and add to these circumstances, that from the fifth century after Christ, till the discovery of the Indies, there was, probably, little or no silver or gold brought into Europe; and it will appear very natural, that coin should have been at that time much more scarce than formerly.

How contracted circulation was during the 13th and 14th centuries, may be gathered from the anecdote concerning alienation in France, mentioned in the third chapter upon public credit.

But farther, the great subordination established by the feudal form of government, and the military services to which such numbers were bound, had the effect of preserving the ancient simplicity of manners, so unfavourable to industry. The consequence was, that Princes could raise no taxes; and that all the money the people had was locked up in their chests. We know there were in those days abundance of wealthy people; but their wealth inspired them with no disposition to consume at the expence of ready money.

The discovery of the Indies opened a third period, and threw great riches into the hands of the Spaniards: the house of Austria was the first enriched, and appeared with great splendor for some time. Charles V. by his extensive dominions, had an opportunity of distributing this new gotten treasure among his subjects in Flanders, his native country: this set industry to work in that quarter. The Portugueze discovered the East Indies: a new enticement to luxury; a new motive to become expensive. The Hollanders became a trading people, and with the money which their industry had drawn from the magnificent Spaniard, they shook off his yoke. Money insensibly began to circulate. Princes immediately found, as has been said in the second book, that it was necessary for them also to augment their revenue, in order to maintain a proper superiority over their subjects in point of riches. The increase of circulation among individuals made it more easy to raise taxes; and the throwing the amount of them back again, in gratifications to the chief people of the state, engaged those who came by money in a manner gratuitously, to expend it as freely as they received it. No wonder, then, if Princes found it an easy matter to load their subjects. They were supported in this scheme by the great men of the state, who found a benefit from it. This revolution has totally changed the face of affairs in the present period of circulation. Courts are splendid; armies are numerous; buildings, in cities and in the country, are magnificent; an old city, compared with a new one, appears hideous; all public works are carried on with that solidity which we admire in those of ancient Princes and states, when nations led into captivity were employed to perform them. In those days the magnificence of Princes was in proportion to the groans of their subjects; now they are in proportion to their wealth and ease. Whence proceeds the difference, the effects are the same? From good government, and a well regulated political oeconomy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAP. XI.
_Considerations upon Land-Taxes, with some Observations upon those of
England and France._

Of all the kinds of cumulative taxes, that which is properly imposed upon lands seems the best: that is, it implies the fewest inconveniences to the persons paying, and to the state in raising it. That it is an unequal imposition is plain and certain: this character is unavoidably attached to every species of cumulative taxes, in one way or other. It has also the effect of casting a general discredit upon the purchase and improvement of land; because the proprietors are naturally exposed to augmentations, which may, almost with the same ease, be carried to the total amount of the income, as to any proportional part of it. This has been mentioned in a former chapter, where the interest of a nation’s debts was supposed to increase so as to equal the value of all the land-rents, and the whole revenue of individuals.

Land-taxes are imposed in various forms in different countries, and all are supposed to bear a determinate proportion to the rent. This, however, is never, nor indeed can it ever be the case. The value of land is varying perpetually, from the industry of the inhabitants. Besides this inequality, there are other inconveniences proceeding from the unequal distribution of property. In Scotland, for instance, land is divided into large portions; very few small lots are to be found. The class of farmers, for the most part, labour the lands of others, who have large possessions. This is less the case, I believe, in England, and still less in France and in Germany. A land-tax, therefore, being supposed universal, would, in Scotland, do little harm: in England, it falls heavier upon the small proprietors; because the sum exacted bears a greater proportion to the supposed superfluity of the proprietor. In France, it is still worse; for there the exemptions of the numerous class of nobles, and many other circumstances mentioned above, entirely destroy even the shadow of proportion. It is out of my way to enter into any long detail upon this head, with respect to different countries.

I shall therefore confine myself to a very few observations upon the method of laying this tax in England; and upon a project which has been long in agitation in France, to raise their land-tax by way of tithe upon the fruits.

This scheme was first proposed to the late King of France by the _Marechal de Vauban_, in 1699, and the proposal was renewed some years ago in a performance called the _Reformateur_. But as it would prove hurtful and burdensome to France, in a great degree, from a circumstance which has not been attended to, the examination of this system of taxation will serve as a good illustration of this part of our subject.

The land-tax in England has, in my humble opinion, two remarkable defects. First, The sums imposed at so many shillings in the pound[49] upon every district of the kingdom, whether cities, towns, universities, or open country, even upon the King’s palaces, inns of court, &c. are not distributed according to any rule of proportion upon the property of individuals; but this operation is left to assessors.

Footnote 49:

That the assessments, in the annual act for the land-tax, are
generally understood to be at the rate of 1, 2, 3, or 4 shillings in
the pound, is true; but it is to be observed, that no such rate is
mentioned in the statute with respect to real estates or land. The
rate of a certain number of shillings in the pound occurs only with
regard to personal property.

Secondly, All personal estates, except property in the public funds, and stock upon land, supposed necessary for agriculture, are charged in the same proportion as land-rents.

I shall now point out the inconveniences and bad consequences of these two capital defects.

When a tax is imposed at so many shillings in the pound upon the income of a whole district, every article of the property which produces it ought to be specified. If this be omitted, there is a legislative authority vested in those who make the distribution.

The articles which compose the whole property, and the revenue of each article being once determined, the state has it in its power to impose the tax according to what proportion it thinks fit; of one, two, or more shillings in the pound. But then, in favour of the contributors, the different articles which produce the supposed total, ought either to be specified in the law, or reference should be made to a book of valuation where they are recorded.

It is no easy matter to frame the valuation of all the property of a country: and it is a scheme I should be very far from proposing, unless the spirit of a nation took such a turn as to wish for it. But where a determinate sum has been in use to be levied upon a certain district, it does not appear so difficult to make a proportional distribution of it according to equity, and to adhere for the future to that distribution, considering it as a _proportional_ valuation, if not a _real_ one. This is done every year, and without it no such tax could be raised. But when annual distributions are made, discontents constantly arise; and the pretended equality thereby observed, produces worse effects than the inequalities which would follow from the other scheme: because the change in the relative value of possessions would then be chiefly owing to the industry of every proprietor in improving his lot.

How valuations in England were made originally I cannot tell[50]; but in Scotland, it is very certain, that as to lands they were all set down in a book of valuation at their supposed rents at that time. So let the sum raised be what it will, every man at least knows that his proportion must be according to his valuation in the general register.

Footnote 50:

There is no vestige in the history of England, since Dooms-day book,
of any regular valuation being made of all the _lands_ of the kingdom,
nor of any tax imposed, _singly_, on that branch of property.

The subsidies, monthly assessments, and pound rates, in the different
stages of the monarchy, have all been mixed duties; composed of a
charge upon the lands, upon the money and personal estates of the
subject, and frequently including a poll-tax, where qualities, that is
rank, were differently charged.

The whole operation of distributing and raising this duty, has been by
commissioners named by the King, or by parliament, who sometimes upon
oath, and sometimes not, inquired into the extent of every one’s
private fortune, and assessed them accordingly. Whoever wishes to have
a more full account of this confused method of raising a land-tax in
England, may consult Davenant’s Ways and Means, Article of Monthly
Assessments, and Aids upon a Pound-rate.

In England, the case is totally different. The proportion every district is to pay, is indeed recorded by an original distribution made many years ago in King William’s time. By this it appears what every city, county, university, &c. is to pay according as the tax is imposed at one, two, three, or four shillings in the pound. This is precisely the regulation in France, as shall be more fully observed; but still such regulations nowise prevent the most grievous inconveniences which attend this tax; because the burden of it does not consist in the total amount, so much as in the partial distribution upon the inhabitants in every subdivision.

In England, let me suppose the proportion of the general sum for a particular district to be ten thousand pounds, at four shillings in the pound. How is this to be levied as the law stands? Instead of books of valuation, which shew at least the proportion of every man’s property, if not the real value of it, assessors are constantly called in, who examine the rents of all the lands according to the last leases of them. If they have been improved and let at a higher rent than formerly, the proportion of the tax is augmented. If they have not been let, but still remain in the possession of him who improved them, the tax is not augmented. If the tax be found to fall too heavy upon the lands and houses, then personal estates are made to contribute, as is the case in London. All questions or disputes about the repartition of the tax are determined, without appeal to the courts of law, by the commissioners appointed for laying on the tax; as in France they are determined by the Intendant. Without this regulation all would run into confusion, for the reason I am now going to mention, and which regards the second defect in this tax.

Any proprietor of lands is entitled, from the words of the statute, to insist that the whole personal estates of those of the district shall enter into computation of the total value upon which the sum imposed is to be assessed. Were such questions to come before a court of law, where the judges are obliged to determine almost according to the letter of it, I believe no land-tax could be levied in that kingdom. But manners, not laws, govern mankind. The spirit of the English nation is such, as to be incompatible with every thing which savours of oppression. Hence the few complaints against the assessors, or those who judge between parties. And as the land-tax is levied without any complaints, except as to the total amount; while that remains the case, the fewer the innovations made upon it are, the better.

In France, the sum of the _taille_ to be raised upon the kingdom for the year is determined in the King’s council; and the proportion of every district (called an _Election_) is there particularly specified. The district of an Intendant is called a generality, and comprehends in it several elections. The Intendant, therefore, makes the distribution of the general sum imposed upon every election, and upon every town, village, and parish in it, according to a certain proportion; and rules are prescribed to the collectors of every parish, concerning the method of taxing every species of income, every emolument of industry, even every animal in the possession of those who are subject to this tax. This proportion is calculated to carry the most scrupulous attention to every man’s gain, upon all effects belonging to him, and upon every possibility of making profit by industry. All this is carried into execution with the greatest seeming equality in the minute subdivisions.

But as the first imposition of the tax is not proportioned to the actual value of the income it is intended to affect, and as the Intendant does not set out by a particular valuation of every man’s possession, before he distributes the tax upon the several parishes, he is obliged to make up the deficiencies by second and third distributions.

Although this _taille_ affects every species of property producing an income, as well as every kind of industry and employment, it does not affect every landlord for his rent, so much as every cultivator under lease, for his supposed profits.

Land-rents in France belong, for the most part, to the higher classes; and these, whether they be well born or not, are exempted from this tax, providing they be _noble_; a word which has no reference to birth, but to certain privileges which any man, who has money, may acquire.

It was in order to avoid this exemption, that the Marechal de Vauban wanted to substitute a tenth instead of the present _taille_; for a reason we shall presently see.

All the land-rents, therefore, of the nobles are exempted from the taille, and are only affected by vingtiemes and dixiemes but when they cultivate their own lands, their privilege of exemption from the taille is confined to as much as four ploughs can labour; and this farming must be carried on by menial servants, unmarried, in order to prevent such proprietors from defrauding the tax, by really letting their lands under pretext of holding them in farm.

This exemption, as to their land-rents, is more apparent, however, than real. It is not the _lands_ of the nobles, but the _rent_ paid out of them which is exempted from the taille; consequently, by imposing an exorbitant taille upon the lessee, very little remains for the land-rent; and this tax being laid upon a set of people who are loaded with many others, is in the end more burdensome to the proprietor, than if he paid it himself. But a change in this policy is impracticable. The gentlemen of France will probably never submit to a _taille_; and although, by yielding up that point of delicacy, their rents might be raised in the end; yet as matters stand, they know they enjoy the rents they have, free of tax, and if once they were made to pay any part of them, they do not know where such payments might terminate.

To avoid the infinite oppression which results from the French principle of sharing every man’s profit as soon as he makes it, the Marechal de Vauban proposed to abolish the taille, as it is paid at present, together with the _capitation_, _industrie_, and all the train of cumulative taxes committed to the management of the Intendants; and to establish in their room what he called a royal Tenth, meaning by this term, a proportion of all the fruits of the earth, similar to what is established in favour of the clergy. This he proposed to lay on, according to the exigencies of the state, from one twentieth part to one tenth upon every article of the gross produce of land, over all France. This he imagined to be equal to one tenth of the land-rent. And the author of a book published under the title of the _Reformateur_, containing a new plan of taxation, in which there are some things worthy of observation, follows in this particular the Marechal de Vauban, without ever considering the true nature of a tax of this kind.

Of all the taxes upon the income of land-property, the tithe is the worst; and it has undoubtedly been established among men, before agriculture or taxes were understood. Lands in all countries are of different qualities: some are proper for bearing rich crops of grain, others are indifferent; some produce pasture, others forrest; the revenue of some consists in wine, in mines, and in a thousand different productions, which cost, some more, some less expence to cultivate. The tithe takes without distinction a determinate proportion of the fruits, in which is comprehended the tithe of all the industry and expence bestowed to bring them forward. As an example of this, let me suppose a field of corn, which cannot pay the proprietor above ¼ of the grain it produces, many I know cannot pay above ⅕, but let me suppose it ¼: another may pay with ease ⅓; another even ⅖; the fields about Padoua pay ½; grass fields pay still more; and rich hay fields will pay in some places ⅔, and even ¾.

How then is it possible there should be any equality in a tax which carries off, without distinction, a certain proportion of the fruits, when those fruits bear no determinate proportion at all to the expence of raising them? But besides the inequality of this tax among proprietors, I ask how it is possible that any rent should be determined for lands, which are subject to a _variable_ tithe, sometimes at 1⁄10, sometimes at 1⁄20 of the produce? Let me demonstrate the impossibility of such a plan, by an example.

I suppose the Marechal’s plan established, and that the tithe to be imposed is to be deducted from the rent stipulated between master and tenant. This was his intention: he has in many places declared, that all tithes were to come out of the land-rent, which indeed is the only fund upon which a land-tax ought to be established. And he has as often declared that he never intended this land-tax should exceed one tenth of the rent, or two shillings in the pound.

I suppose a field, producing every year 1000 bushels of grain, to be let: it is to pay a variable tithe, sometimes of 100 bushels, sometimes of 50, according to the exigencies of the state. I farther suppose one third of the produce to be equal to what the farmer can pay the landlord for rent. And I suppose the rent to be paid in bushels of grain.

According to these suppositions, the rent must be 333⅓ bushels subject to the tithe. Suppose it to be laid on at ⅒, or 100 bushels. Deduct this from 333⅓, remains to the proprietor 233⅓. The tithe comes next year to 1⁄20; this makes 50 of deduction, remains to him 283⅓. So instead of 10 _per cent._ of his rent, he pays in the first case 30 _per cent._ and when at the lowest, he pays _15 per cent._ which is thrice as much as the Marechal proposed to take.

But how are masters and tenants to reckon with one another? Lands are not let according to a determinate proportion of increase. Suppose an estate in lands of different kinds, how is the tithe to be deducted then? Is the master to take the tenant’s word both for the quantity and the value of every article he has paid as tithe, of every field, of every article in his possession, even of the chickens in his yard? If on the other hand, this variable tithe is to be thrown upon the possessor, which, indeed, is the only possible supposition, which way are lands to be let, when we see that the difference of the imposition, at different times, is no less than 15 _per cent._ or three shillings in the pound? This, however, would be the only method for masters and tenants to reckon.

But let me suppose another proprietor to let a grass field adjacent to that which bears grain, and that both were to be of an equal rent, supposing all tithes out of the way. The gross produce of the grass would be to the rent, little above the proportion of 4 to 3. Let us then call the gross produce 1000, as in the other case, ¾ of which would be 750, for the rent. One tenth of the whole taken from that would leave the rent at 650, or little above 13½ _per cent._ deduction at the highest tithe, and 6¾ _per cent._ at the lowest.

What inequality, therefore, would not such an imposition occasion upon land-rents, and what inextricable difficulties in letting of grounds? From what has been said, without farther inquiry, we may declare that no land-tax can possibly be raised, with any equality, by a royal tithe; and the Marechal has never considered farther, than how the King could with certainty and ease to himself, appropriate a portion of the lands in his kingdom, leaving the proprietors and their tenants to settle accounts the best way they could.

On the whole, nothing can make us approve of the Marechal’s, royal tithe, unless it be the present oppression which proceeds from the method of levying the taille; by which it happens that in France few incline to acquire the full property of lands.

Most of the great estates consist of fee-farm rents. A man of three thousand a year land estate, covers sometimes with his nominal property (_dominium directum_) a whole country of fifty parishes; but the real property (_dominium utile_) of this vast extent is subdivided into a number of small fees, of which he is only lord paramount; and what remains is the property of the lower classes, who pay what is called _Rentes Seignoriales_, or noble rents, consisting in money and grain. These rents can nowise be affected by any tithe imposed, because they bear no proportion to the produce: and supposing they did, as in some provinces, where they are called _agriers_, (which is the ⅙ or ⅛ sheaf paid to the lord) the tithe, instead of taking a tenth of the _agrier_, takes a tenth of the whole crop; consequently, only one tenth of this sixth or eighth sheaf falls upon the lord; the tithe of all the rest falls upon the poor proprietor or lessee, who the more he is industrious is oppressed the more by this imposition; because it carries off the tenth of his expence and labour, as well as of the farm which he rents.

This is the tax which the Marechal de Vauban recommended to be raised universally over all the land-property of France, when the tithe was at the highest. To this the late reformer adheres; but proposes the twentieth instead of the tenth; and after a nice calculation of the gross produce of France, he estimates one twentieth part of it to be worth about 95 millions of livres _per annum_. Hence I conclude, that the twentieth part of the income, or one shilling in the pound of all the revenue of solid property in France, fairly collected, would not much exceed one third of that sum, or about 30 millions, or 1 333 333_l._ sterling. This first part, therefore, of the Marechal’s tithe, imposed at 1⁄20, would lay a tax equal to three shillings in the pound on the poor lessees and vassals of the nobles, while, contrary to his express intention, the whole fee-farm and noble rents of France, would escape taxation. From this we may conclude, that no tax upon land-rents can possibly be raised by way of tithe: as also that when it is taken in kind it is the most oppressive, the most unequal, and the most discouraging to industry, that ever was contrived.

The Marechal’s principal motive for proposing this mode of taxation, was to avoid the difficulty of obliging the nobles to pay the taille. He found also, that there would be great ease in collecting this revenue for the King, without demanding money of the lower classes. The consequence, however, would have been, either to ruin all lessees, if they continued to pay the same rent for the lands as formerly; or to introduce the greatest inequality imaginable among proprietors, if the tithe had been totally cast upon their rents: but as to the method of settling accounts between master and tenant, in consequence of this tithe, both the Marechal and the reformer are totally silent.

The Marechal’s _Dixme royale_, with all its defects, is a book of great value, from two considerations.

The first, that he had all possible access to come at the true state of the nation. The second, that he wrote with great impartiality, and with a sincere desire to serve the landed interest, without intending to hurt that of the King his master. From this book, we have an opportunity of judging of his notions of taxation; and from the consequences he himself points out, we discover the miserable state of the common people in France, whose situation at this day is not much changed for the better.

The Marechal’s scheme was to reduce the whole revenue of France under four heads.

The first, a general tithe of all the fruits of the earth, without distinction, which we have already explained.

The second, a tithe upon every income whatsoever, even upon the profits of labour, servants wages, employments, possessions, and trades of all denominations.

The third, was a modification of the _gabelle_, or the duty upon salt.

The fourth, which he calls the fixed revenue, was to be composed of the domain, and several other branches of taxes which he allowed to subsist, judging them, I suppose, not hurtful to the state.

I shall now shew wherein the Marechal’s plan of taxation is contrary to principles, and leave the reader to make his conclusions.

First, he has declared in many places, that his intention was only to impose a tax upon the income of land, which he understands to be that part which remains after the deduction of all expences of cultivation &c. in other words, what every one understands by land-rent, and which, no doubt, is the only proper object of taxation: but in order to impose upon this part his royal dixme when at the real tenth, he takes the tenth part of the whole produce, instead of the tenth part of what goes for the rent; and, as far as I have been able to discover, he never perceives that there is the greatest difference between these two quantities.

The second article was the tithe of every income, not consisting of the fruits of the earth.

Where an income arises from a branch of property which can render it determinate, I shall form no objection to a tithe or two shillings in the pound upon it. But when he comes to tax lawyers, attorneys, physicians, &c. according to the value of their emoluments, I own I cannot find a possibility of preventing abuse in the collection, or inequality in the imposition of the tax.

The Marechal’s principal point in view was agreeable to the standing maxim in France, to make every one contribute according to his income. Very right, so far as it is possible, without implying much greater inconveniences than what can be compensated by this imaginary equality. I call it imaginary, because in the execution it will be found, that no body will really pay what they ought, except those whose income cannot be concealed. Whenever any part can be hid, there must, in my opinion, result a great inequality, and great oppression, in endeavouring to ascertain it.

A short observation will suffice to give a view of his notions with regard to merchants and trade in general. His intention was to be very indulgent to this class of inhabitants; and he feels all the advantages of trade. He proposes, however, to proscribe all notes of hand payable to bearer, as it is a method of concealing wealth and exacting interest for money; which he supposes to be contrary to scripture. Trade would be ill carried on with the Marechal’s restrictions.

When he comes to the lower classes, which he supposes to comprehend one half of the people, to wit, all tradesmen, manufacturers, and day-labourers, their wives and children; he takes the example of a weaver, as a middle term, to judge of the gains of the tradesmen and manufacturers. He supposes this weaver to have a wife and family, to work 180 days only (because of the many holidays, as well as accidental avocations) at 10½_d._ sterling a day. This makes his year’s labour worth 7_l._ 17_s._ 5_d._ sterling. Of this he takes 10_s._ 10½_d._ for the greatest tithe. Besides this, he exacts of him for his salt-tax, for four persons in his family, 12_s._ 9_d._ So that this man, whose whole labour is only worth 7_l._ 17_s._ 5_d._ sterling, is to pay 1_l._ 3_s._ 7½_d._ of cumulative taxes out of it, which is above ⅐ of the whole fund of his poor subsistence: after which he adds, “This, in my opinion, is a tax high enough for a weaver, who has only his two hands to gain his bread with, and who has house rent, meat and clothes to provide for a family, who frequently can gain very little for themselves.” To this I must agree.

I shall give one specimen more of what the Marechal considered as an ease procured to day-labourers, in their then situation; which relief, however, they have not hitherto obtained.

These he also supposes to work 180 days in the year, at not quite 8¾_d._ sterling. He values his year’s labour at 6_l._ 10_s._ 6_d._ sterling, and here is the employment of this sum according to the plan.

He is to pay for tithe of his _industrie_ £ 0 8 8½
For his salt-tax 0 12 9
For five English quarters of rye 4 7 1
For clothes to the family, utensils, and repairs 1 1 11½
———————
6 10 6

I have been the more particular upon this part of the plan, because it gives us a notion of what the Marechal thought a moderate easy tax laid upon 8 000 000 of inhabitants, to wit, 2 000 000 men and 6 000 000 women and children, according to his calculation.

I come next to the tax he proposed to lay upon salt, of which mention has been made.

This tax is of the nature of an excise, and is called the _gabelle_, which we have explained already in a note; and the objections to it, as the Marechal has proposed them, are no less than three very material ones.

First, the proportion of the duty is far too great, considering the value of the commodity. The second is, that being imposed upon an article of subsistence, it operates immediately on the price of the salt, and only consequentially on the price of labour. This is no great objection, were the proportion moderate; because insensibly the price of labour would rise, were the tax generally and exactly levied in proportion to the consumption: but this was not the case; and this circumstance opens the last objection, and the greatest of all, to wit, that the tax, proportional in its nature, is rendred cumulative, by being raised at the end of the year, in order to oblige every one to consume the salt required.

Now by this mode of levying the tax it loses every advantage, and becomes an addition to the tithe laid upon the industry of the consumer. If every man in England were to be rated at the end of the year, in proportion to the excise of as much beer as he may reasonably be supposed to consume, would that be an excise? certainly not. It would be a poll-tax to all intents and purposes, which no man could draw back.

I have little or nothing to object to the fourth article of the Marechal’s plan. He proposed no essential change, either as to the imposition, or method of levying the taxes which composed it. The principal heads of them are,

1_mo_, The royal domain, or the king’s landed estate, together with all casualties attached to royalty, or feudal superiority; stamp-duties, and the _controle_ of public acts by notaries.

2_do_, The customs upon importation and exportation.

3_tio_, Certain taxes of the purely proportional kind; among which was one upon tobacco, and one upon liquors drank in public houses in the country. Here entire liberty is left to the consumers; and the taxes are principally calculated to affect, or, as he calls it, to punish luxury, intemperance, and vanity. With this view, he wittily proposes an imposition upon large and ridiculous wigs, at that time much in fashion, and upon several other articles of extravagance.

This is a short sketch of the Marechal’s system of _royal tithe_, considered as to the principles only, upon which the several taxes were intended to be imposed. The treatise contains several admirable things; especially with regard to recapitulations of inhabitants, lands, houses, animals, &c. highly deserving the attention of the statesman, who intends to execute any plan for national improvement.

I shall now set before the reader the Marechal’s calculation, as to the amount of the four articles, when at the lowest, and at the highest taxation. When the tithe is understood to mean the 20th part of the fruits, &c.

I. The tithe of the lands 60 000 000
II. The tithe of all revenue and industry 15 422 500
III. The salt-tax at eighteen livres the minot[51] 23 400 000
IV. The fixed revenue 18 000 000
——————————
Total of the four articles, when at the lowest taxation 116 822 500
——————————
When the tithe is understood to mean the tenth part of
the fruits, the two first articles are just double of
what they are stated at above, viz. 150 845 000

The salt-tax at thirty livres the minot 39 000 000
The fixt revenue never changes, and stands always at 18 000 000
——————————
Total of the four articles, when at the highest
taxation 207 845 000
——————————

Footnote 51:

The _minot_ is a measure of capacity equal to three Paris bushels, or
the fourth part of a septier; which is about one half of an English
quarter. This makes the _minot_ to be about an English bushel. The
Marechal proposed that this quantity, when at the lowest price, should
be sold for 18 livres, or 1_l._ 6_s._ 1½_d._ sterling; and when at the
highest, at 30 livres, 2_l._ 3_s._ 6½_d._ from which we may judge of
the exorbitancy of the gabelle, even after all the diminution he
thought proper to make upon it. The French money mentioned in the
Marechal’s Dixieme royale, is here converted into 52¼_d._ sterling,
for the French crown of three livres: because the silver coin in
France, at the time he wrote, was 30 livres 10 sols the marc (Dutot,
chap. 1. art. 6.); and at present it is at 49 livres 16 sols.

In imposing this tax upon the fruits, he allowed no exemptions, not even in favours of the princes of the blood: for this he gave an excellent reason. Tithes, said he, were the ancient patrimony of kings. The Roman emperors and kings of France enjoyed them. From those duties no noble was exempted. This appears from the ecclesiastical tithe, which, he alledged, to be nothing but the royal patrimony, alienated in favour of the church; consequently, there is nothing derogatory in paying the tithe, although nothing be more so than paying the taille. So great is the difference between terms, when the ideas of a nation are connected with them!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAP. XII.
_Miscellaneous Questions relating to Taxes._

The subjects of credit, debts, and taxes, have been so extensively treated of in the two last books, that I hope no question I now can propose will serve for any purpose, but to suggest the solution of it, so far as it comes under the principles we have been deducing.

QUEST. 1. What is the most proper method for imposing a land tax?

I answer, that according to equity and justice, all impositions whatsoever ought to fall equally and proportionally on every one, according to his superfluity; but in land-taxes this equality is not so essential as in most others. The great hurt arising from inequality in taxation proceeds from the inequality occasioned thereby in the competition between the classes of the industrious. When the same tax affects people of the same class differently, those who bear the heaviest load gain less, though their industry be equal. But in land-taxes the case is different: the tax there only diminishes an income already made, and in fact diminishes the value of the property; so that were land-taxes made perpetual deductions, the whole loss of the tax would fall at once upon the actual possessors at the time it is imposed. Every subsequent purchaser, by deducting the land-tax out of the rent, would calculate the value of the remainder only; and the consequence of the tax would be, virtually, to transfer a part of the land-property to the state.

The consequences of such a change upon property may produce a variety of new combinations. The state may then sell this portion of their property; they may with the price received pay off part of their debts; they may acquire certain districts of the country, where, being both sovereign and proprietor, they may abolish taxes, which would then in a great measure affect themselves only, and establish manufactures for foreign exportation.

Although an absolute equality in this tax is not so very requisite, still the inequality ought to be ascertained, and every income intended to be affected by the tax should be specified in one way or other. For this purpose, the best method seems to be, to make the regulation of any one year a rule for the subsequent years, until it be judged proper to make a new general valuation of every part. This is a consequence of what has been said: a fluctuating annual valuation, which is the case in France, produces numberless inconveniences; and upon the whole, they are far greater than those which it is intended to avoid.

I agree that the same land may be worth more one year than another; but it is impossible by a fluctuating valuation to ascertain that difference over a whole country, to the satisfaction of every one; and although, by fixing it at one rate upon every possession, inequalities must take place, yet fixing it from rising in proportion to improvement, will prove an encouragement to industry, which will greatly overbalance such an inequality. Every one then will be in the way of acquiring an addition to his income, free of land-tax; and if this be thought too great an encouragement to improvement, let the regulation be only fixed for a determinate time; suppose a century. This is no more than giving every one a lease as it were of their land-tax for a hundred years; and experience shews, that without granting long leases it is impossible that lands should ever be improved.

Were innovations practicable, according as right reason and plain principles direct, it is very certain that a land-tax might be imposed in a better way than I have here suggested. But to what purpose would it be to lay down schemes beyond the power of execution, when the principles already deduced so plainly point them out?

QUEST. 2. Which is the best method of levying taxes; by farm, or by the management of commissioners appointed by the state?

The best way to answer this question, is to shew the inconveniences and advantages of both. The arguments against farming are,

1_mo_, The great fortunes made by the farmers occasion jealousy, and expose to the eyes of the people a set of men who are become rich at their expence; hence envy arises, and hatred against government.

2_do_, In years of scarcity, war, or public calamity, deductions of the rent, or annual sums paid by the farmers, are demanded, and can hardly be refused, and the farmers always overvalue their loss; here therefore is an unequal bargain: the farmer _must_ gain, the state _may_ lose.

3_tio_, The people pay less willingly to the farmers than to the King; magistrates in general support the raising of duties with more unwillingness, and severities upon delinquents are less easily born.

These inconveniences are avoided in the management. There men of the best abilities may be entrusted with that employment; experience shews that many branches of taxation have been carried to great perfection under management, and men of probity and capacity will act with as great zeal for the public as for themselves.

The principal arguments for farming are; the advantage of having a fixed and certain revenue to depend on at regular terms; that the farmers act with more zeal for themselves, and with greater impartiality in employing under-officers, as well as more frugality, and therefore can afford to give a higher rent, with considerable profit to themselves, than can be made effectual under the best management: besides, every one judges himself capable to administer the King’s affairs, because he finds profit in it; but people think twice before they undertake to be farmers of a revenue they do not well understand.

In the administration of taxes, it ought to be the object of a statesman’s attention and care to profit of every advantage attending the different modes of levying them. It is not sufficient to inquire into the general consequences of the two modes of administration, the management and the farming of taxes: those of the cumulative kind especially, affecting the lower classes, would be very improper objects of a farm; because it would be in a manner delivering over the greater part of a people to the rapacity of tax-gatherers.

On the other hand, the farming of proportional taxes is not liable to so many inconveniences. The farmers there are principally employed in watching over those who _advance_ the taxes, and who are themselves, as has been said, in reality the tax-gatherers over the people.

When therefore circumstances permit, without inconvenience, the fabrication of exciseable goods to be incorporated with the farm, this of all others is the best method of levying taxes. Examples of this are familiar almost every where. The farmers of the salt and of the tobacco in France are in this situation. In retailing those commodities, they collect the price they pay for the composition; that is, for the farm of them. It is not the same of the aids in France. There the farmer superintends the immediate tax-gatherer, to wit, the retailer of spirituous liquors, or of other things subject to the tax. The circumscribing the number of places where exciseable commodities are fabricated, and the shutting them up within inclosures, would greatly facilitate the levying of all excises, whether by farm or by management.

In order therefore to decide whether the preference ought to be given to the management or to the farm, circumstances are to be weighed. When a tax is new, or has been ill managed, or has fallen, without any visible cause, below what it formerly produced, or ought to have done; when the amount is unknown, by being of an extensive collection: in such cases, short farms, and even several subdivisions of them in a country, may be of use. But when a tax is well understood, and a good plan of levying it laid down, it may be well raised, and perhaps better improved, under a management; as also, when it is of a nature to be easily understood, and when the very exercise of levying it points out all the frauds possible to be committed.

Davenant, who well understood this question, in his 4th Discourse upon revenues, recommends farms which are not _absolute_, but _limited_, as the best. By limited, he understands, that the farm should first be given for a fixed sum; that the farmers should carry on an open administration, liable to the government’s inspection in every particular; that in case the profits of the farm should exceed the rent stipulated, a certain sum should be ascertained for the charge of management, and the surplus should belong to the King, allowing a certain poundage to the farmers to animate their diligence[52].

Footnote 52:

This plan of Davenant’s was carried into execution in France by
Monsieur Silhouëtte, in 1759.

He very justly observes, that a tax, when farmed, in order to be improved, will naturally draw, at first, a less rent than the sum liquidated as a free profit by the former management; because the farmers will be willing to secure to themselves a good profit; and next, because they will be obliged to make a considerable advance, as a security for fulfilling their engagement, which must also be considered as a deduction out of the produce of the tax.

All the advantage therefore in farming must be looked for after the expiration of the lease; for which reason, the shorter the term is, the better: three years, it seems, was the common term in England, in Davenant’s time.

All new imposed taxes ought to be raised with the greatest lenity, not to revolt the minds of the people: the first year’s deficiency is well bestowed, if government can but discover the different ways which may be fallen upon to defraud the tax, and form a good judgment how far the amount of it may go in time, when the management is brought to perfection. As long therefore as a management continues to improve a tax newly laid on, I should not think of farming it: but when, either from the extent of the imposition, or the nature of it, frauds begin to multiply, and management begins to become more and more difficult, then is the time immediately to put it into farm, either for different districts of a country, or in sub-farms. If this be delayed, frauds will daily increase; and the difficulty of preventing them will carry government to the expedient of imposing penalties, severe in proportion to the frequency of the crime. Commissioners will constantly put these in execution with reluctance; the management will become slack; or if penalties are rigorously exacted, they will become a handle for oppression; and even though justice be done, and none but delinquents be punished, yet still the people will be ill affected with the punishment of an action which in itself they are too apt not to consider as a crime: whereas in farming, frauds will be prevented by vigilance more than by fear of punishment; and this is by far the better expedient. Thus instead of feuds daily increasing, they will daily diminish, and the tax will improve yearly.

Here Davenant well observes, that _nothing but divine wisdom can at first create perfect order; but in all human affairs it must be the work of time, and the result of much labour and application_.

One good reason for managing a tax before it be farmed, is to learn the nature of it, and of the frauds it is liable to. When these are not rightly known, the farmer can more easily surprize the government, and obtain from it new regulations, under the pretext of preventing frauds; which regulations they may abuse, and turn to other purposes than those intended.

Davenant has a very good remark, p. 154. That a new tax, imposed upon consumption, and ill levied, equally raises the price upon the consumers, and the whole profit centers in the hands of those who retail. That when an old excise becomes ill levied, the profit is divided between the inferior officers (who collect it) and the retailers. The reason is, that a branch which is well understood, is not so liable to _frauds_ as to _collusion_. This shews that in every case, such a duty should never be imposed without exerting every endeavour to have it rightly collected. The state should also keep a watchful eye upon the augmentations made in the price of exciseable commodities, in order to keep the augmentation justly proportioned to the duty. If this be neglected, the overcharge hurts consumption, diminishes the produce of the tax, and enriches the retailers only. Here competition is necessary to be introduced: the public may even erect a manufacture which may regulate prices, and so soon as they are properly ascertained, the selling price may be fixed by an assize.

An ill levied imposition is attended with this additional inconvenience, that it establishes inequality among the industrious of the same class; consequently, an unequal competition. This happens when particular officers are diligent and exact in doing their duty, while others are remiss. The profits of retailers are _high_ in proportion to the _negligence_ of the officers of the revenue; and their extraordinary profits, enable them to undersell and to ruin those who are exactly looked after: the consequence of this is, to diminish the number of retailers; to introduce hurtful monopolies; and in general, to hurt the whole branch of the manufacture. All remissness, therefore, in collecting an excise, draws along with it a prejudice to the Prince and his people: and the relative profit, which balances this loss, falls into the pockets of the fraudulent manufacturer, and the corrupt and negligent collector. This is not all: the deficiency must be made up in another way; for taxes must produce the sums wanted. Thus the remissness in collection occasions a new additional burden to be laid on the people.

QUEST. 3. What is meant by _income_, when applied to individuals, and to a state, and what is the nature of the _expence_ which must diminish it, when it is considered as the object of taxation?

The great intricacy of this question proceeds from hence, that what is really an expence to one is the income of the other: so that without applying our reasoning to every particular fact, no general explanation can be rendred intelligible. My reason for proposing it in this place, is, that in commenting upon some passages of Davenant, in his discourses upon the revenues of England, I may have an opportunity of illustrating some things which have been already examined.

Davenant was an admirable writer; he had a remarkable genius for political theory, and his sentiments upon many things are very generally adopted. My intention here is not to refute opinions, but to avail myself of his combinations, in order to explain my own ideas.

In his first discourse upon revenues, we find the following passage.