On this page
-
Text (2)
-
December 18, 1852.] THE LEADER. 1209
-
TIIK JUri)(i.KT. 11. Tiik celebrated fiv...
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Our French Cook In The Foreign Office. A...
have now descended to the level of the servants ' halL Our policy is taken upon credit from f oreign courts , and our footing in Europe Lias assumed a totally new character . The conduct of diplomatic affairs ought to be acc ommodated to the new machinery at our command . If we have no longer a diplomatist to represent us , we should do our best to bring di plomacy within the rules of cookery . As one nation , razing its forts , stipulates that a powerful neigh * hour should do so , we might stipulate that other countries should employ Cooks in the conduct of international relations .
The new arrangement would fall in very well with customs in high places . In England much is done at the dinner-table ; political results depend , in a great degree , upon , the entertainment ; and it is the " little more or less , perceptible to the uneducated palate , " which the accomplished cook throws into his compound , that may enable the host to succeed , or condemn him to fail . How many a political object has been attained by the nice adjustment of a made dish . Let us confront the fact , and regulate our expectations accordingly . If we could induce other nations to adopt the like principle , England would not be at so great a disadvantage . It is true that England
cannot maintain , on the field of cookery , that supremacy which she has supported at sea . Her flag may have braved a thousand years , & c . ; but her casserole must bow to . that of France . By this new arrangement we should meet the desire of French ambition , and avoid offending the foreigner . The French journals claim to share with England the supremacy of the seas ; and perhaps English pride would as much resent that concession as Lord Derby recoils at the idea of confessing to Free Trade ; but by transferring the contest to the kitchen , the supremacy of France would be secured , and England might succumb with the better grace , and the safer . -
On the continent , the new arrangement might be accepted with more than acquiescence . It is the custom , at this festive season , for family quarrels to be adjusted , for new family connexions to be cemented , and for old grudges to be replaced by new alliances . How pleasant a party the new Emperor might summon for the stated dispensation of royal charity . There evidently is a disposition in the scattered family of royalty to patch up old quarrels , for fear of losing credit out of the family circle , and , perhaps , with credit , existence . It would be a graceful thing for the youngest member of the family to reunite its scattered limbs . Bound his board
might bo arranged those well-known faces—Naples , with his slanting forehead , his vacant countenance , his imbecility ; :, Young Austria , hot longsmco popular , now absolute , though his cheeks still tingle witii the maternal slaps ; Prussia , good-humoured , well-intentioned , but a little beinuzzed between revolution , hopes of German empire , and habitual champagne ; anxiobb Belgium , dragged irito the family party against his will . And ,, at the head of the table the host , with the strangest countenance of all , ' that impenetrable mask of stupidity ' covering . cruelty—a
frost of hypocrisy over a batauic lire . And England—Ifow , indeed , could Qucch Victoria be there ? How could her constitutional and independent ' tongue " conform itself to ' tho compliments of the seaaon in 8 iich a party P Evidently there is " one mode in which England might bo represented there ; " England" repre-Hcntcd by that eminent artiste " with whom most of your Jordahips aro indirectly acquainted , "" -England , " we way , might cook the dinner .
December 18, 1852.] The Leader. 1209
December 18 , 1852 . ] THE LEADER . 1209
Tiik Juri)(I.Kt. 11. Tiik Celebrated Fiv...
TIIK JUri )( i . KT . 11 . Tiik celebrated five-hours' speech of the Chancellor of the , Exchequer requires further comment ; not , however , ho'much for the purpose of forming any estimate of that high functionary , as of k-iu mug what wp may from his treatment of tho questions he undertook ! , <> discUtfH . On one point , if not more , wo ¦ may . ( , 'ivo credit to «>« ri f ? Ut honourable gentleman lor greater connivency <» f opinion . tihun that of most of those who have entered into Un « debate . Jlo Bays that tho repeal of the Malltax will be a direct benefit to tho consumer and an indirect benefit to tho farmer ; and from this Htatcment !» e docs not swerve , hi other quiulera , extreme difler-• - ' »«•« and uncertainty prevail . Some say the benefit «> f the repeal of l . honinlt t >« would go to the consumer ; Homo « ay it would go to the fanner ; uud « hr < 11 " tumw >
perhaps the greater number , affirm it would go to neither farmer nor consumer , but to the publican and brewer . The speech of Sir Charles Wood , the late Chancellor of the Exchequer , contains in different parts all three opinions . We are not now going to pronounce for or against any of these conclusions ; the subject of the ultimate incidence of taxation requires separate and careful discussion . But if authorities so differ as to the effect
of one indirect tax , how is it possible to know whether by means of any given system of indirect taxation you are taking from each bis fair quota of the public expenses ? For anything which can be shown , you may be exempting a man , or a class of men , from effective taxation altogether , or you may be crushing them by the occult accumulative incidence of many indirect taxes on one point . And if the truth on this subject cannot be ascertained by those who devote themselves to its investigation , how can there exist that popular confidence in the wisdom and fairness of our fiscal system , which is essential to its permanence and to the general contentment and prosperity ?
Mr . Disraeli says , " What you want is , that you shall have as much as possible unrestricted industry and its consequences , as far as the cultivator of the soil is concerned . " And this he gives as a reason for the reduction of the malt tax . No doubt the levying a tax on any article to the exclusion of others is an interference with industry ; it is the opposite of protection . If a tax be drawn from one article or from the parties interested in it , which is not equally drawn from others , then , those who do not pay the tax are favoured , protected , at the expense of those who do . A certain sum of money must be raised in the whole , and if malt or anything else pay more than its share , others pay less , and so are protected . This is _ not " unrestricted industry . " Moreover , if it is objected
that a man who has an income of 150 / . per annum is unfairly dealt with because his neighbour with 1001 per annum leaves him to bear the burden of both , it may equally be objected by the maltster that the blacksmith in like manner puts on him a double share of taxes . For , be it observed , that the unfairness lies not in like articles being differently taxed , but in articles , however different , which are defended in like manner by the strength of the whole , being unequally taxed . It is just as unfair if calico is not taxed like malt , as it is if a house of 101 . rent is not taxed like one of 201 ., and just as unfair if the park or picture gallery is exempt from taxes which fall on the factory or the workman ' s cottage . In either case one party is made to pay , the other is protected .
If , however , this argume nt calls for the repeal of the Malt-tax , it calls also for much more . No tax is consistent with the fundamental principle of Free-trade but an equal and universal tax on property : for : i tax of any other kind protects one at the expense of another , whether t ^ he exemption arise from the inequality of taxation of objects of the same kind , or from that taxation being made to fall only on objects of certain kinds to the exclusion of the rest .
The Chancellor of the Exchequer , in discussing the reduction of the malt tax , quotes Sir Henry Parnell to the effect that an article may be taxed of which tho supply is limited by natural causes ; for then a part of tlie high price which would go to the . possessor of the special natural advantages , could not escape going to tho State . So long as the supply of hurley was limited to the growth iindbythepxtentofyurow | iaoil , solonnyoumight tax . ; and in that case you luid lieUer not rediueyour fax , because reduction of tax per 1 > us 1 il : 1 could nof , increase the consumption ( the supply being limited ) and so bring up a « -ain tho total amount ' of the tax . But who
knows or can know that the supply of any article la unlimited ? We all thought Unit of gold and silver was limited , and the form and mode of the dealings of the whole human Mace with each , other are founded almost entirely on that supposition , Hut we now know how much that universal base has latterly been aiflected . The productive power of our own soil was believed to be limited to that which it had usually exhibited , and systems of political economy had been reared on that mound . We now find , it easy to
increase our crops 50 per cent , or more . ( Suano and drainage might have done for the supply of barley whiifc Sir Ueifry Varaell anticipated as only possible from a repeat of the Oorn-kws . How can we say , then , of any article heieullor , that its mipply is limited , and that it may therefore be taxed ? Moreover , supply in correlated to demand , and a substitute for an article , or a change of desirofor it , may render a supply elllctively greater which has not actually heen increased , and the condition of taxibility is then invalidated ( us often
happens ) in another direction . Hut still more : thin argument supposea that the State has a right to take money , at its own pleasure , wherever it can find it ; a pretension wo do not hetututi )
to deny . The relation of the State to the individualthat is , of all the members of tho State to any one of their own number—is just as amenable to moral principles as that of its component individuals to each other . It is just as possible for the State to steal as any one of its members . If a man has cultivated peculiar faculties , or is rightfully " possessed of special natural advantages , the State has precisely as much need of a moral justification in taking any part of their produce from him , as any private person would have . Suppose a man had acquired a unique capability of making a finished chronometer in a day , and so earned wages to the amount of a lordly income ; or another
had a spot which grew exclusively a special quality of lavendar , and so had a lucrative market and high prices to himself ; how should the State set up a pretence to share the proceeds ? Why is either of these men to pay a heavier contribution to common expenses , when he incurs to his fellows no special cost ? It is not enough to say " this man will get neither more nor less for his goods , if I tax him for them , and therefore I will tax him . " The State must show what right it has to take that particular amount from that particular man , and it is no answer to declare , as our current systems of taxation do declare , " I want money , and here I find it "
We object , then , to the very principle of Sir Henry ParnelFs argument , and of course to Mr . Disraeli's application of it ; and we have adverted to this point the more at length , because we feel , at every step , the necessity of placing the whole question of taxation on grounds very different from those on which , financiers and oeconomists usually discuss it . The right honourable gentleman believes that our prosperity " depends upon conditions and circumstances which have never before prevailed in this country , — upon natural circumstances and permanent conditions , —and that , if we only act with prudence , with such advantages as we derive from a low rate of interest , arising from natural causes , this country has before it an opportunity of material progress such as never occurred before to the vision of any statesman . "
If this prosperity now depends on " natural circumstances and permanent conditions , " it is certainly not to be attributed to Corn-laws , which are not to be classed with such ciicumstances and conditions ; and possibly this might bo included in Mr . Disraeli ' s meaning . If he did really intend the sense we have put on his words , we fully agree with him . The fault of artificial systems is , that being only interferences with , and contraventions of , " natural circumstances , " they
are always changeable and deceptive . They violate natural justice in a thousand unexpected ways ; they , therefore , keep up perpetual discontent ; and their crude , conjectural devices fail just when society , in tho extremity they themselves bring on , has most need of their aid . Happy is that nation which rests its material well-being not ; on the temporary , changing , and ill-understood devices'of artificial regulation , but on the endurintr basis of " natural circumstances , " and ,
therefore , oji " permanent conditions . But then there are such things us " natural circumstances and permanent conditions , " in relation to taxation , as well as ' to commercial policy : and injustice , disappointment , discontent , and weakness , or justice , confidence , and strength , just as much follow tho violation or observance of these directing principles in one ease as in the other . hv . t any man look at our fiscal system , either standing as iitoretime , or as it is
proposed to Ik ; by the-present Budget , and say whether there is in it ' tho slightest coherence , of principle , the faintest unity of design , or the least regard for " natural eireiunstanceri or permanent conditions . " If amended attention to these indispensable murks and objects of true policy has dono ' so much for us in one great department of our common interests , what may it not do ifi another , where one-sixth of our total national income is now dealt with by nwans of ancient ' , devices , more empirical , more complicated , and less excusable , than even the corn-laws ?
What hope there uia . y be of a " financial reform in accordance with these views , it , is perhaps not yet , time to say . It in clear , however , that , a vague preference for some sort , of " direct , taxation" is gaining hold of the public , mind . Mr . Disraeli ( who bus thoroughly unsettled tho old system ) insinuates dillieulty in execution , but not dissent from the principle . * In nil other quarters there are perpetual references to it as to an approaching question which must be . seriously entertained , whatever Mm ultimate decision . Perhaps as few venture now to oppose it wholly on principle , uh continue to assert the justice of treating all kinds of income alike- Hut tho success of any attempt to * ] l < i limlicH , however , tho utraiigo mistuko of Haying , I luil . I > y meaiiH of indirect taxation " tho imiiato of ( ho pnliu'D tuxl oi' tho cottage are taxed an coiiBumorw j > ro 2 > orm tiomitohi . "
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), Dec. 18, 1852, page 13, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_18121852/page/13/
-