"If I seem minute in my description, let those who read my story

remember that such courteous dignity, however natural, I am bound

to believe, it is to them, was to me an utterly new excellence in

human nature. All my mother's Spartan nobleness of manner seemed

unexpectedly combined with all my little sister's careless ease.

"'What a beautiful poem the story would make!' said I, as soon as

recovered my thoughts.

"'Well spoken, young man,' answered the old gentleman. 'Let us hope

that your seeing a subject for a good poem will be the first step

towards your writing one.'"

Were we to extend points of admiration over a couple of columns, we

could not adequately express our feelings with regard to the above

passage. How natural--how simple! The entranced Snip gaping at the

Guido--the ladies accosting him, as ladies invariably do when they

encounter a casual tailor in such places--the passionate warmth of the

description--the ecclesiastical lore of Lillian--and the fine instinct

of the old gentleman, (a dignitary of the Church, by the way,) which

warns him at once that he is in the presence of a sucking poet,--all

these things combined take away our breath, and take, moreover, our

imagination utterly by storm! We shall not be surprised if hereafter

Greenwich Park should be utterly deserted on a holiday, and Dulwich

Gallery become the favourite resort of apprentices, each expecting, on

the authority of Alton Locke, to meet with some wealthy and high-born,

but most free-and-easy Lindamira!

But the best of it is to come. They have yet more conversation: the

strangers manifest a deep interest in the personal history of our hero.

"While I revelled in the delight of stolen glances at _my new-found

Venus Victrix, who was as forward as any of them in her questions

and her interest_. Perhaps she enjoyed--at least she could not help

seeing--the admiration for herself, which I took no pains to conceal!"

O thrums and trimmings! it is but too plain--Venus Victrix, with the

peculiar crisped auburn hair, and the skin of privet-flowers, has all

but lost her heart to the juvenile bandy-legged tailor!

Two can play at that game. Cousin George in the mean time, though

taking no part in the conversation--a circumstance which strikes

us as rather odd--has likewise fallen in love with the beautiful

apparition, and, after her departure, drives Alton "mad with jealousy

and indignation," by talking about the lady rather rapturously, as a

young snob of his kidney is pretty certain to do under circumstances

such as are described. The kinsmen part, and Alton returns to the

garret full of the thoughts of Lillian. She becomes his muse, and with

the aid of a stray volume of Tennyson, he sets himself sedulously to

the task of elaborating poetry. Sandy Mackaye, his censor, betrays

no great admiration for his earlier efforts, which indeed are rather

milk-and-water, and recommends him to become a poet for the people,

pointing out to him, in various scenes of wretchedness which they

visit, the true elements of the sublime. The graphic power and real

pathos of those scenes afford a marvellous contrast to the rubbish

which is profusely interspersed through the volumes. It is much to be

regretted that an author, who can write so naturally and well, should

allow himself to mar his narrative and destroy its interest, by the

introduction not only of absurdities in point of incident, but of

whole chapters of mystical jargon, inculcating doctrines which, we are

quite sure, are not distinctly comprehended even by himself. He has

got much to learn, if not to unlearn, before he can do full justice to

his natural powers. So long as he addicts himself, both in thought and

language, to the use of general terms, he must fail in producing that

effect which he otherwise might easily achieve.

Alton then, though still a tailor, becomes a poet; and, after two years

and a half incubation, produces a manuscript volume, enough to fill a

small octavo, under the somewhat spoliative and suspicious title of

_Songs of the Highways_. Still no talk of publishing. Then comes a

movement among the tailors, caused by Alton's master determining to

follow the example of others, and reduce wages. A private meeting of

the operatives is held, at which John Crossthwaite the Flint counsels

resistance and a general strike; but the faint-hearted Dungs fly from

him, and he finds no supporter save Alton. The two resolve, _coûte qui

coûte_, to hold out, and Crossthwaite takes his friend that night to a

Chartist meeting, where he is sworn to all the points.

Never more did Alton bury needle in the hem of a garment. Nobody would

give employment to the two protesters; so John Crossthwaite, being a

man of a practical tendency, and not bad at statistics, determined to

turn an honest penny by writing for a Chartist newspaper, and would

have persuaded Alton to do the same, had not Sandy Mackaye interposed,

and very properly represented that his young friend was too juvenile to

become a martyr. So it was fixed at a general council that Alton should

prepare his bundle, including his precious manuscripts, and start on

foot for Cambridge, where his cousin was, to see whether he could

not procure help to have his volume launched into the world. We must

pass over his journey to Cambridge, interesting as it is, to arrive

at his cousin's rooms. There he finds George with half-a-dozen of his

companions all equipped for a rowing match, and just about to start.

George behaves like a trump, orders him luncheon, and then departs for

the river, whither Alton follows, with the intention of seeing the

fun. His behaviour is a libel on the Cockneys. He sees Lillian on the

opposite side of the river, and makes an ass of himself; then he bursts

into ecstasies at the sight of the boats, feeling "my soul stirred up

to a sort of sweet madness, not merely by the shouts and cheers of the

mob around me, but by the loud, fierce pulse of the rowlocles; the

swift whispering rush of the long, snake-like eight oars; the swirl and

gurgle of the water on their wake; the grim, breathless silence of the

straining rowers. My blood boiled over, and fierce tears swelled into

my eyes; for I, too, was a man and an Englishman." The author should

have added--and a tailor to boot. So Alton, like an idiot, begins to

roar and shout, and is ridden over by a young sprig of nobility, in

whose way he insists on standing; and is soused in the river; and

insults another young nobleman, Lord Lynedale, of whom more anon, who

picks him up, and out of good nature offers him half-a-crown: all which

shows, or is intended to show, that our friend is a splendid specimen

of the aristocracy of nature. Well--to cut a long story short--he

returns to his cousin's rooms, is kindly received, introduced to a

supper party of Cantabs, and afterwards to Lord Lynedale, for whom he

corrects certain proofs, and receives a sovereign in return. The said

Lord Lynedale is engaged to a lady, the same with "the deeper voice

than most"--not Lillian--who accosted him in the Dulwich Gallery. She

is the niece of a Dean Winnstay, Lillian being the daughter. They meet.

She recognises him, and he favours us with a sketch of Miss Eleanor

Staunton. "She was beautiful, but with the face and figure rather of

a Juno than a Venus--dark, imperious, restless--the lips almost too

firmly set, the brow almost too massive and projecting--a queen, rather

to be feared than loved--but a queen still, as truly royal as the man

into whose face she was looking up with eager admiration and delight,

as he pointed out to her eloquently the several beauties of the

landscape." So Alton is introduced to the Dean, and finally asked down

to the deanery.

The result, of course, is, that he becomes, if possible, ten times more

deeply in love than before with Venus Victrix, who is naughty enough to

flirt with Snip, and to astonish him by singing certain of his songs.

As a matter of course, he immediately conjures up an imaginary Eden,

with an arbour of cucumber vine, in which he, Alton, and she, Lillian,

are to figure as Adam and Eve--we trust in such becoming costume as

his previous pursuits must have given him the taste to devise. Miss

Staunton, however, does not appear to relish the liaison, and rather

throws cold water upon it, which damper Locke seems to attribute

to jealousy! though it afterwards turns out to have been dictated

by a higher feeling; namely, her conviction that Lillian was too

shallow-hearted to be a fit object for the affections of the inspired

tailor!! The old Dean meanwhile, quite unconscious of the ravages which

young Remnants is making in his family circle, bores him with lectures

on entomology, and finally agrees to patronise his poems, and head a

subscription list, provided he will expunge certain passages which

savour of republican principles. Alton consents; and as a reward for

his so doing, Miss Staunton pronounces him to be "weak," and Lillian

deplores that he has spoilt his best verses, which _her cousin_ had set

to music. Reading these things, we begin to comprehend the deep anxiety

of Petruchio to get the tailor out of his house,--

"Hortensio; say thou wilt see the tailor paid:

Go, take it hence; begone, and say no more."

Who knows what effect the flatteries of an insinuator like Alton Locke

might have had upon the lively Katherina?

The list, however, is not yet made up--so Alton returns to London, and

is entered upon the staff of the _Weekly Warwhoop_, a Chartist journal,

conducted by one Mr O'Flynn, a red-hot Hibernian and republican. The

engagement is not satisfactory. The editor has a playful habit of

mutilating the articles of his contributors, and sometimes of putting

in additional pepper, so as to adapt them to his own peculiar tastes

and purposes; and Alton Locke finds that it goes rather against his

conscience to libel the Church of England and the Universities by

inventing falsehoods by the score, as he is earnestly entreated to do

by his uncompromising chief. There is nothing like a peep behind the

scenes. Alton begins to suspect that he may have been misled regarding

matters of political faith, and that it is quite possible for a man to

call himself a patriot, and yet be a consummate blackguard. Touching

religious tenets, also, he has some qualms; a discourse which he

happens to hear from a peripatetic idiot of the Emersonian school

having put new notions into his head, and he is especially attracted by

the dogma that "sin is only a lower form of good." He next breaks with

O'Flynn, encounters his cousin George, now in orders, though certainly

quite unfitted for the duties of his profession; and a regular quarrel

ensues on the subject of Lillian, whom George is determined to win.

Poetical justice demands that both whelps should be soused in the

kennel. Alton gets a new engagement from "the editor of a popular

journal of the Howitt and Eliza Cook school;" and at last brings out

his poems, which, though considerably castrated, have the good fortune

to take with the public. Then he is asked to be at the Dean's town

residence, to meet with divers "leaders of scientific discovery in

this wondrous age; and more than one poet, too, over whose works I had

gloated, whom I had worshipped in secret." In short, he felt that "he

was taking his place there among the holy guild of authors." Nor are

these all his triumphs. Lillian smiles upon him; and Lady Ellerton,

formerly Miss Staunton, who has since been wedded to Lord Lynedale, and

raised to a higher title in the peerage, introduces him to the ----

ambassador, evidently the Chevalier Bunsen, who instantly invites him

to Germany! "I am anxious," quoth the ambassador, "to encourage a holy

spiritual fraternisation between the two great branches of the Teutonic

stock, by welcoming all brave young English spirits to their ancient

fatherland. Perhaps, hereafter, your kind friends here will be able

to lend you to me"!! So the brave young English spirit goes home that

night in a perfect whirl of excitement. In the morning comes reaction.

Alton, on going to leave his card for the Dean, finds the house shut

up, and is informed that the young Earl of Ellerton has been killed

by a fall from his horse, and that the whole family are gone to the

country. "That day was the first of June 1845. On the 10th of April

1848, I saw Lillian Winnstay again. Dare I write my history between

these two points of time?" By all means: and, if you please, get on a

little faster.

It will naturally occur to the reader that Messrs Crossthwaite and

Mackaye could not be remarkably well pleased at witnessing their

friend's intromissions with the aristocracy. The docking of the poems

had been the first symptom of retrogression from the Chartist camp;

the acceptance of invitations to exclusive soirées was a still more

grievous offence. Accordingly, Alton began to suffer for his sins.

His old employer, O'Flynn, was down upon him in the columns of the

_Warwhoop_, tomahawking him for his verses, ridiculing his pretensions,

exposing his private history, and denouncing him as no better than a

renegade. Then, somebody sent him a pair of plush breeches, in evident

token of his flunkyism--a doubleedged and cruel insult which nearly

drove him distracted. Old Sandy Mackaye, over his pipe and tumbler of

toddy, descanted upon the degeneracy of the age, and John Crossthwaite

told him in so many words that he had disappointed his expectations

most miserably. Under these circumstances, Alton felt that there was

nothing for him but to redeem his character as a Chartist by some

daring step, even though it brought him within the iron grasp of the

law. An opportunity soon presented itself. There was distress among

the agricultural labourers in several districts; a monster meeting was

to be held; and the club to which Alton belonged determined to send

down a delegate to represent them. Alton instantly proffered himself

for the somewhat perilous post: and the warmth of his protestations

and entreaties overcame the suspicions, and removed the jealousy, of

his comrades. Even O'Flynn pronounced him to be "a broth of a boy." In

the midst of the meeting, however, he was startled by a glimpse of the

countenance of his cousin George, who, it afterwards appears, had come

thither as a spy, armed with a bowie-knife and revolver!

As a delegate, therefore, Alton goes down to the place of rendezvous,

in the neighbourhood of the Deanery, where he had once been hospitably

entertained; listens to several speeches on the low rate of wages,

which he justly considers to be rather purposeless and incoherent;

strives to inculcate the principles of the Charter, which the

agriculturists won't listen to; and finally, by a flaming harangue on

the rights of man, sends them off in a body to a neighbouring hall to

plunder, burn, and destroy. Of course he is actuated by none but the

most praiseworthy and philanthropic motives. The mob do their work as

usual, and proceed to arson and pillage; Mr Locke, who has accompanied

them, all the while preaching respect to the sacred rights of property.

A handful of yeomanry approach; the mob begins to scamper; and the

misunderstood patriot and poet is cut down in the act of rescuing a

desk from the clutches of an agricultural Turpin. He is tried, of

course, for the offence; John Crossthwaite and Mackaye are brought to

speak to character, but they break down under the cross-examination.

An extempore witness, however, gives evidence in his favour, which

suffices to clear him of the most serious part of the charge. He

intends to make a magnificent speech in his defence, and has actually

got through three sentences, "looking fixedly and proudly at the

reverend face opposite," when a slight deviation of the eye reveals to

him the form of Lillian!

"There she was! There she had been the whole time--right opposite

to me, close to the judge--cold, bright, curious--smiling! And, as

our eyes met, she turned away, and whispered gaily something to a

young man beside her.

"Every drop of blood in my body rushed into my forehead; the court,

the windows, and the faces, whirled round and round, and I fell

senseless on the floor of the dock."

Alas for poor Snip! They gave him three years.

Three years passed in prison afford ample time for reflection, and

are calculated to lead to amendment. We are sorry, however, to say

that Mr Alton Locke by no means turned them to profit. He had many

long interviews with the chaplain, who attempted to reclaim him to

Christianity; but it would seem that the reverend gentleman did not set

about it in the right way, as he advanced only old-fashioned arguments

against infidelity, whereas the inspired tailor "was fighting for

Strauss, Hennell, and Emerson." So the chaplain gave him up at last,

and he turned for recreation and solace to the works of M.M. Prudhon

and Louis Blanc, which he got somehow smuggled into his cell. During

his imprisonment he experienced great tribulation by the sight of a

handsome new church rising not far from his window, and occasional

glimpses of a person whom he took to be the incumbent, and who bore

a marvellous likeness to his cousin George. Sometimes this personage

was accompanied by a lady, who might possibly be Lillian--for the

mooncalf, notwithstanding the court-scene, and the consciousness that

he was a sentenced felon, still seems to have supposed that he was

beloved, and to have expected a visit to his cell--and the bare idea

was distraction. And it turns out that he was right. George Locke, the

incumbent, was about to be married--a fact which he learned immediately

before his own release, coinciding in point of time with the French

Revolution of 1848.

Back to London goes Alton, and, as a matter of course, instantaneously

consorts with Cuffey. Then come the preparations for the memorable

demonstration of 10th April, the provision of arms, and the wild

schemes for resorting to physical force. That a large, ramified,

and by no means contemptible conspiracy then existed, no man can

doubt; and there is but too much reason to believe that social

suffering was as much the cause of the projected outbreak as abstract

political doctrines, however pernicious, or even the influence of the

revolutionary example extended and propagated from the Continent. Alton

had by this time worked himself up to such a pitch that he was ready to

mount a barricade, and so was his companion and coadjutor, the valorous

John Crossthwaite. But old Sandy Mackaye, who had some acquaintanceship

with pikes in his youth, and experience of the extreme doubtfulness of

the popular pluck, especially under the guidance of such leaders as

the imbecile and misguided fools who made themselves most prominent

in the Convention, astonished his friends by denouncing the whole

concern as not only silly but sinful, and prophesying, almost with his

dying breath as it proved, its complete and shameful failure. Very

beautifully, indeed, and very naturally drawn, is the deathbed scene

of the old reformer; the spirit, ere quitting for ever the tenement of

clay, wandering back and recurring to the loved scenes of childhood and

of youth--the bonny braes, and green hillsides, and clear waters of

his native land.

Old Sandy dies, and Alton watches by his corpse till the morning of

the 10th of April, the day on which the liberties of England were to

be decided, and a general muster of the adherents of the Charter held

on Kensington Common. Going forth, he encounters at the door a lady

dressed in deep mourning, who had come to visit Mackaye, and who should

this prove to be but the widowed Countess of Ellerton! It now comes out

that Alton had been altogether mistaken in her character: instead of

being a proud imperious aristocrat, she proves to be a lowly, devoted,

and self-sacrificing friend of the poor, who has surrendered her whole

means for the relief of unfortunate needle-women, and even lived and

worked among them, in order personally to experience the hardships

of their condition. There is nothing in this to provoke a sneer; for

it is impossible to exaggerate the extent of that sacrifice which

women in all ages have been content to make, either at the call of

love, the claim of duty, or the demand of religion; and the noble and

unswerving heroism, which they have exhibited in the accomplishment of

their task. To tend the sick and dying even in public, hospitals--to

brave the pestilence and the plague--to visit prisons--utterly to

abjure the world, and to give up everything for the sake of their

Divine Master--all these things have been done by women, and done so

quietly and unobtrusively as to escape the notice of the multitude;

for good deeds are like the sweetest flowers, they blossom in the

most secret places. But our author goes a great deal further, and, as

usual, plunges into the ludicrous. Lady Ellerton has, from the first,

recognised Alton Locke as an inspired being; she has kept her eye upon

him throughout the whole of his career; has paid his debts through old

Mackaye, with whom she seems to have been in constant correspondence;

has supplied the means for his defence at his trial; and has now come

to arrest, if possible, the headlong career of the outrageous and

revolutionary tailor! We must indulge ourselves with one more extract,

and it shall be the last.

"'Oh!' she said, in a voice of passionate earnestness, which I

had never heard from her before, 'stop--for God's sake, stop! you

know not what you are saying--what you are doing. Oh! that I had

met you before--that I had had more time to speak to poor Mackaye!

Oh! wait, wait--there is a deliverance for you; but never in this

path--never! And just while I, and nobler far than I, are longing

and struggling to find the means of telling you your deliverance,

you, in the madness of your haste, are making it impossible!'

"There was a wild sincerity in her words--an almost imploring

tenderness in her tone.

"'So young!' she said; 'so young to be lost thus!'

"I was intensely moved. I felt--I knew that she had a message for

me. I felt that hers was the only intellect in the world to which I

would have submitted mine; and, for one moment, all the angel and

all the devil in me wrestled for the mastery. If I could but have

trusted her one moment.... No! all the pride, the suspicion, the

prejudice of years, rolled back upon me. 'An aristocrat! and she,

too, the one who has kept me from Lillian!' And in my bitterness,

not daring to speak the real thought within me, I answered with a

flippant sneer--

"'Yes, Madam! like Cordelia, so young, yet so untender!--Thanks to

the mercies of the upper classes!'

"Did she turn away in indignation? No, by heaven!--there was

nothing upon her face but the intensest yearning pity. If she had

spoken again, she would have conquered; but before those perfect

lips could open, the thought of thoughts flashed across me.

"'Tell me one thing! Is my cousin George to be married to----?' and

I stopped.

"'He is.'

"'And yet,' I said, 'you wish to turn me back from dying on a

barricade!' And, without waiting for a reply, I hurried down the

street in all the fury of despair."

But Alton Locke did not die on a barricade, any more than Mr John

O'Connell on the floor of the House of Commons. He did not sever with

his shears the thread of life either of soldier or policeman. He got

down from the waggons with the rest when Feargus showed the white

feather, and by way of change of scene and subject, contrived to get

into the house where Lillian was residing, and in a very sneaking way

to become witness of sundry love passages between her and his cousin

George. As a matter of course, he was kicked into the street by two

able-bodied servitors in plush. Then follows a scene with a former

comrade of his, a drunken, worthless, treacherous Dung, by name Jemmy

Downes, who had become a sweater and kidnapper, and descended through

every stage of degradation to the very cesspool of infamy. His wife

and children are lying dead, fever-stricken, half-consumed by vermin

in a horrible den, overhanging a rankling ditch, into which Downes in

his delirium falls, and Alton staggers home with the typhus raging in

his blood. Then come the visions of delirium, ambitiously written, but

without either myth or meaning, so far as we can discover. Sometimes

Alton fancies himself a mylodon eating his way through a forest of

cabbage palms, and "browsing upon the crisp tart foliage,"--sometimes

he is impressed with the painful conviction that he is a baboon

agitated "by wild frenzies, agonies of lust, and aimless ferocity." The

conscience, it would seem, was not utterly overpowered by the disease.

He at length awakes to reality--

"Surely I know that voice! She lifted her veil. The face was

Lillian's! No! Eleanor's!

"Gently she touched my hand--I sunk down into soft, weary, happy

sleep."

Of course, with the Countess for his nurse, Alton gradually recovers,

at least from the fever, but his constitution is plainly breaking up.

He then hears of the death of his cousin George, caused by infection

conveyed in a coat which he had seen covering the wasted remains of

Downes' wife and children. His first impulse is again to persecute

Lillian; but the Countess will not allow him, not because he is an

impertinent, odious, contemptible, convicted snip and coxcomb, but

because "there is nothing there for your heart to rest upon--nothing

to satisfy your intellect"!! So she reads Tennyson to him, and

expounds her views throughout several chapters upon Christianity as

bearing upon Socialism--views which we regret to say that the noble

lady, by adopting that peculiar exaltation of speech which was said

to characterise the oracles of Johanna Southcote and Luckie Buchan,

has rendered unintelligible to us, though they appear to have had a

different effect upon her audience.

The end of the story is, that Alton is sent out to Mexico by the

desire and at the expense of the Countess, in order that he may become

"a tropical poet," not only rhetorically, but physically; and he is

accompanied by Crossthwaite and his wife. We are led to infer that

failing health, upon both sides, was an insuperable obstacle to his

union with the Countess. He pens this autobiography during the voyage,

and dies within sight of land, after having composed his death-song,

than which, we trust, for the credit of tradition, that the last notes

of the swans of Cayster were infinitely more melodious.

Such is an epitome of the story of Alton Locke; a book which exhibits,

in many passages, decided marks of genius, but which, as a whole, is

so preposterously absurd, as rather to excite ridicule than to move

sympathy. What sympathy we do feel is not with Alton Locke, the hero,

if we dare to desecrate that term by applying it to such an abortion:

it arises out of the episodes which are carefully constructed from

ascertained and unquestionable facts, and in which the proprieties

of nature and circumstance are not exaggerated or forsaken, whilst

the pictorial power of the author is shown to the greatest advantage.

Of this character are the scenes in the needlewoman's garret--in the

sweating-house, from which the old farmer rescues his son--in the den

inhabited by Downes--and the description of Mackaye's deathbed. These

are, however, rather the eddies of the story than the stream: the

moment we have to accompany Alton Locke as a principal actor, we are

involved in such a mass of absurdities, that common-sense revolts, and

credulity itself indignantly refuses to entertain them.

We are sorry for this, on account of the cause which is advocated.

If fiction is to be used as an indirect means for directing the

attention of the public to questions of vital interest, surely great

care should be employed to exclude all elements which may and must

excite doubts as to the genuineness of the facts which form the

foundation of the story. A weak or ridiculous argument is, according

to the doctrine of Aristotle, often prejudicial to the best cause;

and we cannot help thinking that this book affords a notable instance

of the truth of that observation. But we have more to do than simply

to review a novel. Here is a question urgently presenting itself for

the consideration of all thinking men--a question which concerns the

welfare of hundreds of thousands--a question which has been evaded by

statesmen so long as they dared to do so with impunity, but which now

can be no longer evaded--that question being, whether any possible

means can be found for ameliorating and improving the condition of

the working classes of Great Britain, by rescuing them from the

effects of that cruel competition which makes each man the enemy of

his fellow; which is annually driving from our shores crowds of our

best and most industrious artisans; which consigns women from absolute

indigence to infamy; dries up the most sacred springs of affection

in the heart; crams the jail and the poor-house; and is eating like

a fatal canker into the very heart of society. The symptoms at least

are clear and apparent before our eyes. Do not reams of Parliamentary

Reports, and a plethora of parole testimony, if that were needed

to corroborate the experience of every one, establish the facts of

emigration, prostitution, improvidence, crime, and pauperism, existing

and going forward in an unprecedented degree--and that in the face,

as we are told, of stimulated production, increasing exports, also

increasing imports, revivals of trade, sanitary regulations, and

improved and extended education? Why, if the latter things be true,

or rather if they are all that is sufficient to insure the wellbeing

of the working classes, we should be necessarily forced to arrive at

the sickening and humiliating conclusion, that the English people

are the most obstinately brutalised race existing on the face of

the earth, and that every effort for their relief only leads to a

commensurate degradation! That belief is not ours. Though we think

that a monstrous deal of arrogant and stupid jargon has of late been

written about the indomitable perseverance and hereditary virtues of

the Anglo-Saxon race--principally by contemptible drivellers, who,

so far from possessing the pluck, energy, or sinews of the genuine

Anglo-Saxon, are cast in the meanest mould of humanity, and endowed

with an intellect as poor and feckless as their limbs--we still look

upon the British people as the foremost on the roll of nations, and

the least willing to degrade themselves voluntarily, to transgress the

boundaries of the law, to avail themselves of a humiliating charity,

or to subside shamefully into crime. And, if this view be the correct

one, how is it that misery not only exists, but is spreading--how is it

that the symptoms every day become more apparent and appalling? When

Ministers speak of the general prosperity of her Majesty's subjects, as

they usually do at the opening of every session of Parliament, it is

perfectly obvious that they must proceed upon some utterly false data

as to the masses; and that the prosperity to which they allude must be

that only of an isolated class, or at best of a few classes, whilst the

condition of the main body is overlooked and uncared for. The fact is,

that her Majesty's present advisers, one and all of them, as also some

of their predecessors, have suffered themselves to be utterly deluded

by a false and pernicious system of political economy, framed expressly

with the view of favouring capitalists and those engaged in foreign

trade, at the expense of all others in the country. Their standard of

the national prosperity is the amount of the exports to foreign parts;

of the home trade, which is of infinitely greater importance, they

take no heed whatever. Thus, while the vessels on the Clyde and the

Mersey are crowded with industrious emigrants, forced to leave Britain

because they can no longer earn within its compass "a fair day's wage

for a fair day's labour"--whilst benevolent people in London are

raising subscriptions for the purpose of sending out our needle-women

to Australia--whilst the shopkeeper complains of want of custom, and

the artisan of diminished employment and dwindling remuneration--we are

suddenly desired to take heart, and be of good cheer, because several

additional millions of yards of calico have been exported to foreign

countries! And this, according to our philosophical economists, is

reasoning from cause to effect! Cotton manufactures are, no doubt,

excellent things in their way. They give employment or furnish

subsistence to about half a million of persons, out of a population

of twenty-seven millions--(that is, in the proportion of one to

fifty-four)--but the exportation of these manufactures does not benefit

the artisan, neither is its augmentation any proof or presumption that

even this single trade is in a flourishing condition. Increased exports

may arise, and often do arise, from a decline in home consumption--a

most ominous cause, which even cotton manufacturers admit to have been

last year in operation. But this is not a question to be narrowed,

nor shall we narrow it, by dilating upon one particular point. We

shall reserve it in its integrity, to be considered fully, fairly,

and deliberately in a future article, with such assistance as we can

derive from the exertions and researches of those who have already

occupied themselves in bringing this subject prominently before the

notice of the public. It may happen that some of those writers to whom

we allude have greatly overshot their mark, and have arrived at hasty

conclusions, both as to the cause of the evil and as to its remedy.

The Communist notions which peep through the present publication, are

not likely to forward the progress of a great cause. But those ideas

evidently have their origin in a deep conviction either that Government

has been wanting in its duty of protecting the interests of the masses,

or that it has erred by adopting an active line of policy, to which the

whole evil may be traced. Both propositions will bear all argument.

It would be easy to point out many instances in which Government has

refrained, to the public prejudice, from using its directive power;

and instances, still more numerous, in which legislative measures have

been proposed and carried, directly hostile to the best interests of

the nation. And therefore, although some remedies which have been

proposed may appear absurd, fantastic, or even worse, we are not

entitled, on that account, to drop the investigation. Failing the

suggestion of possible cures, people will grasp at the impossible;

but the tendency to do so by no means negatives the existence of the

disease. There is at present, we believe, but little or no active

agitation for the Charter. So much the better. If the experience of

1848 has taught the working-men that this demand of theirs is as

visionary as though they had petitioned for a Utopia, they will be

more prepared to listen to those who have their welfare thoroughly at

heart, and who have no dearer or higher wish than to see Englishmen

dwelling in unity, peace, and comfort in their native land; all these

disastrous bickerings, feuds, and jealousies extinguished, and order

and allegiance permanently secured, as the result of an altered system

of domestic policy, which shall have for its basis the recognition and

equitable adjustment of the claims of British industry. The task may

be a difficult one, but it is by no means impossible. Every day some

fallacy, hatched and industriously propagated by selfish and designing

men, is exposed or tacitly withdrawn; every day the baneful effects of

cotton legislation become more apparent. If the representations of the

Free-Traders were true, the condition of the working-classes would now

have been most enviable. Is it so? The capitalist, and the political

economist, and the quack, and the Whig official may answer that it is;

but when we ask the question of the masses of the people, how different

is the tenor of the reply!

Next month we propose to resume the consideration of this most

important topic.

FOOTNOTES:

[48] _Alton Locke, Tailor and Poet: an Autobiography._ In 2 vols.

London: Chapman and Hall, 1850.

[49] As more than one pen has been occupied with the subject

of Crichton, we think it proper to state, in order to prevent

misinterpretation, that the author above alluded to is Sir Thomas

Urquhart, and not Mr William Harrison Ainsworth. Nobody will suspect

the latter gentleman of having trodden too closely on the heels of

history. In his hands, the young cadet of Cluny is entirely emancipated

from the sanctuary or the cloister, and entitled to take permanent

rank with the acrobat Antonio, whose feats upon the slack-rope must be

still thrillingly remembered by the frequenters of the Surrey-side, or

with the late lamented Harvey Leach, in consequence of whose premature

decease the gnome-fly has vanished from the ceiling of the British

stage.

[50] _Cheap Clothes and Nasty._ By PARSON LOT. London: 1850.

THE RENEWAL OF THE INCOME-TAX.

Although a considerable period must yet elapse ere the expiration

of the Parliamentary holidays, it will be well for the public to be

prepared for the discussion of certain questions which must perforce

engage the early attention of the Legislature. We know not, and have

no means of knowing, what may be the nature of the coming Ministerial

programme. Were we to argue entirely from the results of past

experience, we might well be excused for anticipating the absence of

any kind of programme; seeing that the Whig policy of late years has

been to remain as stationary as possible, and to take the initiative

in nothing, unless it be some scheme devised for the evident purpose

of bolstering up their party influence. Whether the old line of

conduct is to be pursued, or whether Lord John Russell, desirous to

give a fillip to his decreasing popularity, may propound some organic

changes--for there are rumours to that effect abroad--is at present

matter of speculation. One subject he _must_ grapple with; and that is

the taxation of the country, taken in connection with the Property and

Income Tax, which, unless renewed by special Act of Parliament, expires

in the course of the ensuing year.

That an attempt will be made to continue this tax, no reasonable person

can doubt. Ever since it was imposed, Ministers have acted as though it

was permanent and not temporary. They have done this in spite of the

solemn pledge given to the country by its originator, that it should

not be made a regular burden--in spite of the frequent and unanswerable

remonstrances advanced by many who felt themselves aggrieved by its

unjust and unequal operation. The limited nature of its duration was

made the first excuse for avoiding its revision--the necessities of

Government the next excuse for continuing it in all its imperfection;

and yet these necessities, so far from being casual, were purposely

created by the remission of other taxes, in order to afford the Premier

of the day an apology for breaking his word--in plain English for

violating his honour. We defy any man, however skilled he may be in

casuistry, to alter the complexion of these facts, which are anything

but creditable to the candour of the statesmen concerned, or to the

character of our political morality.

We are, therefore, fully prepared for a demand on the part of the

Chancellor of the Exchequer for the reimposition of the Property

and Income Tax. He will attempt to justify that demand by the usual

allegation that it is absolutely necessary in order to meet the

exigencies of the State; and that it yields very near five and a

half millions of revenue, not one penny of which he can spare if he

is to defray the expenses of the public service and the interest of

the National Debt. This might be an excellent argument if employed

to meet the proposal of any financial Quixote for abolishing a tax

which the Legislature has solemnly declared to be permanent. But

it is no argument at all for the continuance of this tax after its

stated legal period has expired, any more than for the imposition of

some tax entirely new. The real state of the case will be just this,

that our recent commercial policy and its attendant experiments have

landed us in a deficit of some five and a half millions, which, on the

whole, in the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, may be most

conveniently supplied by a NEW ACT authorising the direct taxation of

Property and Income, on the same terms as before, for a certain period

of years. That is all that can be said for the reimposition; and,

_cæteris paribus_, the same argument would be as effective and as well

grounded, if the honourable gentleman using it should propose to raise

the sum required by clapping on an additional land tax, or by doubling

or trebling the assessed taxes.

What the exigencies of the State now require is the raising five and a

half millions more than the ordinary produce of the revenue, and NOT

the resumption of the Property and Income Tax. These are two separate

and distinct things; but, as a matter of course, we must expect to

see them confounded, as if the fact of a peculiar tax having once been

raised, gives a sort of servitude to the provider for the Exchequer

over the property from which it is levied, notwithstanding the express

limitations of the statute, continuing the impost for a certain time,

but no longer. This has been, and no doubt will be the Whig logic;

and it is very material for those who think with us that it is full

time that this odious, unjust, and inquisitorial tax should cease, to

remember that they stand now on precisely the same footing which they

occupied when the impost was originally proposed. Sir Robert Peel,

then in the zenith of his power, and with a large and undivided party

at his back, dared not propose it as a permanent source of revenue.

He asked it, in 1842, as a special and exceptional boon--almost as a

mark of personal confidence in himself; and as such it was given. He

did not attempt to aver that the measure was perfect in its details;

on the contrary, he admitted that it was partial; but he excused that

partiality on account of the shortness of its duration; and the public,

believing in the sincerity of his statement, was willing to accept

the excuse. He used the money thus partially raised for the reduction

of other taxes, in the hope of effecting "such an improvement _in the

manufacturing interests_ as will react on every other interest in the

country;" and when, in 1845, he proposed its continuance for another

limited period, he expressly said, "I should not have proposed the

continuance of the Income-Tax unless I had the strongest persuasion,

partly founded on the experience of the last three years, that it will

be competent to the House of Commons, by continuing the Income-Tax,

to make such arrangements with regard to _general taxation_ as shall

be the foundation _of great commercial prosperity_." And again, "If

we receive the sanction of the House for the continuance of the

Income-Tax, we shall feel it to be our duty to make a great experiment

with respect to taxation." So, then, by the confession of Sir Robert

Peel, its author, the Income-Tax, a great portion of which is levied

from the agricultural section of the community, was laid on for the

purpose of enabling him to stimulate manufactures; and that being done,

it is to be made permanent,--the landed interest, in the meantime,

having been almost prostrated by the subsequent repeal of the Corn Laws!

Such is the history of this tax; and we apprehend that, even without,

reference to the iniquity and inequality of its details, it is so

manifestly unjust in point of principle, that no statesman can,

consistently with his honour and duty, propose it again for the

adoption of the Legislature. Have manufactures benefited by the

remission of duties thus purchased for them by the extraordinary

sacrifice of so many years? If so, let them contribute to the national

revenue according to the amount of that benefit. If not, why, then,

the vaunted experiment has totally failed--the money been uselessly

squandered; and the sooner that the taxes which have been taken off

are reimposed, the better. But to subject the agricultural portion of

the community and all professional men to a perpetual extraordinary

tax for the purpose of advantaging the manufacturers, is a proposition

so monstrous, that, notwithstanding the tenor of recent legislation,

we can hardly bring ourselves to believe that it will be seriously

entertained.

But we must not be too confident as to that. The Whigs are not famous

for financial ability; and even if their talent in that line were much

greater than it is, they would find it difficult, without seriously

compromising that course of policy to which they are committed, and

mortally offending some of their slippery supporters, to devise means

for raising a revenue at all adequate to the deficiency. Last year an

annual sum of nearly £600,000, the average amount of the brick-duty,

was remitted, nominally for the benefit of the peasantry, actually

for that of the manufacturers: the window-duty may be considered

almost as doomed, and there are clamours for other reductions. So

that we need not be surprised if, about the time of the opening of

the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be driven nearly

to his wits' end, and the Whigs determined, at all hazards, for the

fourth time to lay on the Income-Tax. Now, in counselling opposition

of the most determined nature to any such attempt, we are actuated by

no factious spirit. We are quite aware that money must be raised for

the efficiency of the public service and the maintenance of the public

credit. We see the difficulty as clearly as Sir Charles Wood can state

it; but the existence of a difficulty by no means implies that most

of us are to submit to gross injustice, and many to be subjected to

positive plunder. In short, we hold _that the period has now arrived

when, for the public safety, the general good, and the satisfaction

of all classes, the whole of the taxation of Great Britain should be

revised, and adjusted on distinct and intelligible principles_, so

that each man may be made to bear his own burden--not, as at present,

either to carry double weight, or to shift his load to the already

cumbered shoulders of his neighbour. Surely this is no extravagant

demand, no unreasonable expectation. Heaven knows, we have now been

experimenting long enough to enable our rulers, if they are at all fit

for their duty, to have arrived at some positive results. Why should

any "experiments" have been tried, if they were not to lead to such an

end? We say deliberately, that no better opportunity than the present

can occur for forcing on that revision of the taxation which almost

every one believes to be necessary. The excise reformers--those who

demand the repeal of the taxes on paper and on soap--those who wish

the window duty abolished--those who advocate a further reduction of

customs duties, and those who, like Mr Disraeli, desire an equitable

adjustment of the burdens upon land--have all here a common ground to

rest upon,--namely, the injustice or the inexpediency of our present

fiscal regulations. We occupy the same ground in protesting against the

continuance of the Income-Tax. Surely, with such general testimony from

men of all parties against the continuance of the present heterogeneous

and unsatisfactory arrangements, it is time that our statesmen should

really bestir themselves, and announce to us upon what principles for

the future our taxation is really to proceed. We cannot go on for ever

robbing Peter to pay Paul. We cannot always submit to a perpetual

shifting of burdens, as if the people of this country were so many

dromedaries, to have their hourly capabilities of relief determined by

the caprice of their drivers. Yet such, in effect, is the present state

of matters; and such it will continue, unless we are resolved to avail

ourselves of an opportunity like the present, and force our governors,

as is the clear right of the governed, to explain and justify the

principles upon which their method of taxation is framed. Unless this

be done, we are indeed a degraded people; because, when every class

believes that it suffers injustice, to submit tamely to that, with

constitutional remedies in our hands, would argue a pusillanimity

utterly unworthy of a free and enlightened nation.

We have long foreseen that some such crisis as the present must arrive.

It was, indeed, inevitable, from the time when the two rival Premiers

began to bid against each other for popular support, and to make the

British nation a chess-board for the purpose of exhibiting their

individual dexterity. The cleverer man of the two lost the game by

over-finessing. But before that occurred, enormous mischief had been

done. All was disorder; and the conqueror at this moment does not see

his way to a proper readjustment of the pieces. But order we must have,

and arrangement, and that speedily too, if the functions of the State

are to go on tranquilly and unimpeded. Men are tired of being used as

actual impassive puppets. They want to have a reason for the moves to

which they have lately been subjected; and a reason they will have,

sooner or later, let Ministers palter as they may.

Very little consideration will show that such a revision, _upon fixed

principles_, is absolutely necessary, if justice is to be regarded as

any element of taxation. The ordinary revenue of the United Kingdom,

on the average of the last ten years, is rather more than fifty-five

millions, whereof twenty-nine millions constitute the annual charge

of the public debt. Those fifty-five millions, it is evident, fall to

be paid _out of the annual produce of the country_, as well as the

local burdens, which amount to a great deal more, there being, in

fact, no other means of payment; for, without produce at home, foreign

commodities cannot be purchased, and the consumer of such commodities

is the party who pays not only the prime cost of the article, but all

the taxes which may be levied upon it; and this he must do, if not

directly, at least indirectly, out of produce. Hence, the burden of

taxation remaining the same in money, and not fluctuating according

to the value of produce, it is evident that it never can be for

the general interests of the country that produce should be unduly

depreciated; that is, that it should be sold at prime cost to the

consumer, perfectly free of that portion of taxation which it ought

on principle to bear. It is really amazing that so self-evident a

proposition should have escaped the notice of our legislators; nor can

we otherwise account for the fiscal blunders which have been committed,

than by supposing that men in power had become so used to shuffle and

deal with taxation, that they entirely lost sight of its clear and

fundamental principles. Let but the reader bear this in mind, _that

all taxation is ultimately levied from production_, from which also

all incomes are derived,[51] and he will be able clearly to follow

our reasoning to the points at which we wish to arrive--first, the

absurdity, anomaly, and injustice of the present system; and, secondly,

the necessity for a complete and speedy remodelment.

The direct burdens or taxes upon agricultural produce, by far the

most important, permanent, and extensive branch of production in this

country, are levied principally through the land. These are estimated

as follows:--

Land-tax, £1,906,878

Tithes, 2,460,330

----------

Carry forward, £4,367,208

Brought forward, £4,367,208

Property-tax on land, 1,334,488

Poor and county rates, 5,714,687

Highway rates, 766,854

Church rates, 377,126

Turnpike trusts, 939,085

Property-tax on dwelling-houses, 664,383

Property-tax on other property, 196,212

-----------

Total, £14,360,043

===========

It is foreign to our purpose at present to compare this amount with

that of the direct and local burdens paid from manufactures, though it

may be useful to recollect that the latter amounts only to £4,432,997,

being less than a third of the sum derived from the other. What we

wish the reader to observe is, that the sum of fourteen and a quarter

millions is a primary fixed burden upon the land, and must, in the

first instance, be levied from the land's productions.

But the cost of production is further increased by the effects of

indirect taxation. More than one half of the fifty-five millions which

constitute the public revenue--twenty-eight and a half millions, arise

from taxes imposed on the following articles of consumption--spirits,

malt, tobacco, tea, sugar, and soap. All these are consumed principally

by the labouring classes, and must be paid for out of produce in

the shape of wages. Consequently, in addition to the prime cost of

produce and the profit of the grower, the consumer does or ought

to pay that portion both of direct and indirect taxation which is

leviable according to justice, and distinctly levied by the State on

the article which he purchases. To make this matter more plain, let

it be understood that every quarter of wheat grown in Great Britain,

before it can be brought to market, is charged with a portion of the

direct taxes which we have enumerated above, and also of the indirect

taxes which come through the labourer; and that these are positive

burdens levied by the State for the public service and the payment

of the national obligations. Now, mark the anomaly. The cry is raised

for cheap bread, and it appears that cheap bread can be obtained by

importing grain free of duty from abroad. A law is passed allowing

that importation, and an immense quantity of corn is immediately

thrown into the British markets. But on the production of that corn

on a foreign soil, no such charges are leviable as exist here. Direct

burdens on the lands do not, in many countries, exist; and in no

country save our own are indirect taxes levied to the same amount upon

articles indispensable for the labourer's consumption. The excise duty

on soap alone--in 1848, close upon a million--is said to cost each

labouring man in this country a week's wages in the year. What is

the consequence? The foreign grain is brought into this country, and

exposed at a price which immediately drags down the value of British

grain. If the supply were limited, the power of the foreign grower to

exact an enormous profit might in some measure tend to counteract the

evil; but the supply being unlimited--not confined to one locality,

but extended to two continents--there arises a competition between

foreign markets for the supply, which drags down prices still more.

The farmer, when he complains of the ruin which has overtaken him, and

the writer who advocates the cause of Native Industry, when he points

out the disastrous consequences which must arise from the pursuance of

such a course of policy, are met--not by argument, but by flippant and

contemptible sneers. We are asked "whether we object to have our food

cheap?"--"whether plenty is a positive evil?"--and so forth: questions

which only expose the shallowness and the imbecility of the inquirers.

We have no objections to cheap bread--quite the reverse--provided you

can have that consistently with putting the British grower upon an

exact level or equality with the foreigner. Take off the direct taxes

on land, and the indirect taxes which bear upon the labourer; persuade

the manufacturers, now so uncommonly prosperous, to defray the interest

of the national debt; clear away customs and excise duties on malt,

tea, tobacco, sugar, and soap: and then--but not till then--will we

join with you in your gratulation, and throw up our caps in honour of

your veiled goddess of Free Trade.

Two things cannot be doubted--the existence of such burdens here, and

their non-existence abroad. Well, then, let us see if Britain possesses

any peculiar counterbalancing advantages. Our climate, it will be

conceded, is later and more uncertain. This remark applies even to the

south of England, which is but a section of the corn-growing districts.

In Scotland we notoriously struggle under vast climatic disadvantages.

Capital may be more easily commanded than elsewhere; but then, people

seem to forget that in order to have the use of capital it is necessary

to pay interest, and the payment of that adds materially to the cost of

rearing produce. We are said to have more skill--and we believe it in

part; but if we farm better, we farm also more expensively; and those

who are now our competitors have had the full benefit of our experience

without the corresponding risk and loss. As for freights, these are as

low from ports in the Baltic as they are from many of our corn-growing

districts to the nearest available market. If there are any other

points for consideration, we shall be glad to hear them; but we know

of no other: and the upshot of the whole is, that our landowners and

farmers are now expected to compete on equal terms with the foreigner

in the home market--the equality consisting in the produce of the

former being taxed directly and indirectly to an amount certainly

exceeding two-thirds of the whole national revenue, whilst that of the

latter is admitted tax free, on payment of the merest trifle!

"All these," says the Free-trader calmly, "are exploded fallacies!" Are

they so, most excellent Wiseacre? Then tell us, if you please, where,

when, and by whom they were exploded? Admirable Solon as you esteem

yourself--and we admit that you are qualified for the Bass--it would

puzzle you, with the aid of all the collective wisdom you can gather

from the speeches or writings of Cobden, Bright, Wilson, Peel, or your

daily organs of information, to refute one single proposition which

has been here advanced, or to negative a single conclusion. Do you

deny that the burdens we have specified exist in Britain? You cannot.

Do you deny that the wheat-growing countries from which we now receive

our principal supplies are exempt from similar charges and taxation?

You cannot. Do you deny the truth of the economical proposition, that

all burdens and taxes imposed by the State upon any kind of produce are

proper elements of the cost of production, and ought to be paid by the

consumer? You do not. Well, then, will you venture to aver that, at

present prices, wheat being at 42s. 2d. per quarter, according to the

average of England, or at any period which you may choose to specify

within the last eighteen months, the purchaser of British wheat has

repaid the grower of it the whole cost of its production, comprehending

the full amount of its direct and indirect taxation? If you venture to

say Yes, then you are at issue, in point of fact, with your own vaunted

authorities, Sir Robert Peel, Wilson of the _Economist_, and every

writer of the best ability on your side, none of whom have supposed

that wheat can be grown in this country with a profit at a lower rate

than 52s. 2d. per quarter, whilst others assume the minimum rate to be

56s. If you answer No, the whole question is conceded.

The fact is, that our opponents, if they had the least regard for

common decency, ought to be chary of talking about exploded fallacies.

We should like to know on which side the burden of the fallacy lies?

Have we not, even within the last six months, seen long and elaborate

articles in the leading Free-Trade journals, assuring us that wheat was

rising, and must rise to a profitable point? Was not this argued over

and over again in the columns of the _Economist_, with such an array of

statistical authorities as might have overcome the conviction of the

most desponding farmer? Where are the assurances now, and the arguments

to prove that a free importation of foreign corn would simply have the

effect of steadying, and not of permanently depressing prices? And yet

these men, as miserably detected and exposed as Guy Fawkes when dragged

from the cellar, have the consummate assurance to talk about "exploded

fallacies!"

But we must not suffer ourselves to be led away from the point which we

were discussing. What we wish to enforce is the fact, that at present

there are no fixed principles whatever to regulate the taxation of the

kingdom; and we have brought forward the case of the agriculturists,

not being able to find one more important or strictly apposite

as a remarkable illustration of this. Taxation remains the same,

notwithstanding the operation of a law which has produced a violent and

permanent change in the value of agricultural produce. Now, if produce

is accepted as the real thing to be taxed--and you can truly tax

nothing else, since all taxes must be paid from produce--can this be

just and equitable? Certainly not, if your former mode of taxation was

likewise just and equitable. The agriculturist who was secured by law

against unlimited foreign competition, might calculate on selling his

hundred quarters of wheat for £280, on an average of years, and could

therefore pay his taxes. You change the law, bring down the value of

his wheat to £200, and yet charge him the same as before. How can his

possibly be otherwise than a losing trade? Then mark what follows. We

have said that no kind of produce whatever can be remunerative unless

the consumer of it repays the grower the full cost of production, along

with the grower's profit, and _the whole of the direct and incidental

taxation to which it is liable_. In the case of corn this cannot be,

because you now admit to the British market grain which is exempt from

all taxes, and grown at far less cost than here, and the competition

so engendered drags down the price of British corn far below the

remunerative point, consequently the consumer does not pay the charges

and costs of production, (taxes inclusive,) and the farmer goes to the

wall. Such is the plain and inevitable course of things; and those who

sneer at the tales of agricultural distress will do well to examine the

matter dispassionately for themselves, and see if it can be otherwise.

Very possibly it may never have occurred to them--for it does not seem

to have occurred to our statesmen--that the indirect taxation of the

country is at least as great an element in the cost of produce as that

which is direct. Nevertheless it is so. The beer which the labourer

drinks, the tobacco which he smokes, the tea and sugar used by his

wife and family, the soap which washes their clothes, and many other

articles, all pay toll to Government, and all contribute to the cost

of the grain. And if the grain when brought to market will not pay

its cost, there is an end not only of British agriculture, but of the

best part of the revenue which at the present time is levied from the

customs and excise!

Sift the matter as closely as you will--the more closely the

better--and you can arrive at no other conclusion than this, that in

the long run all taxation must necessarily be levied from produce. If

so, what is the inference? Clearly this, that you cannot permanently

levy taxation except upon a scale commensurate to the value of produce.

If the value of production is lowered, the power of taxation must

decrease in the same ratio. Cheap bread then ceases to advantage the

consumer; for that amount of taxation which was formerly levied from

the production of corn in this country, must necessarily, since taxes

have a fixed money value, be raised from something else--that is, from

some other product--if any can be found adequate to sustain the burden.

Towards this consummation we must gradually tend by the operation

of an inevitable law, unless the eyes of our statesmen, and also of

the constituencies of Britain, are opened to the extreme folly of

the course which we are just now pursuing. In pure theory no one can

object to Free Trade. It is a simple rule of nature, and a fundamental

one of commerce, the free exchange of superfluities among nations.

But taxation alters the whole question. We are not now, as before the

Revolution of 1688, free from debt as a nation, and at little annual

cost for the maintenance of our establishments. By an arrangement, in

which the present generation certainly had no share, we have taken upon

us the debts not only of our fathers, but of our ancestors of the third

and fourth generation, and have become bound to pay the annual interest

of the expenses of wars, the very name of which is not familiar in

our mouths. The annual amount of taxation necessary for that purpose

has heightened the price and value of all commodities in Britain, and

consequently, by rendering living more expensive, has increased the

cost of our establishments. How, then, is it possible, under such

circumstances, to have free trade? You may have it, doubtless, in one

article, or in many--that is, you may have free importations, but that

is not free trade; nor can it exist until you have abolished the last

farthing of customs duties at the ports. Well, then, let us suppose

this done; let us assume that every article of foreign produce is

admitted duty-free: the question still remains, how are you to raise

the fifty-five millions for the public revenue, and a still further

enormous sum for local taxation, including the maintenance of the

established churches, the poor and county rates, and all the other

necessary charges? It obviously cannot be done from capital, without

gradually, but surely, making capital disappear altogether. It must be

done from income; and income, as we have seen, is entirely dependent

upon the value of produce. Agricultural production, estimated at the

former prices, was calculated to amount to £250,000,000 annually.

That can no longer be calculated upon. £91,000,000, according to Mr

Villiers, was the amount of the depreciation in a single year; and

as the net rental of Great Britain and Ireland is under £59,000,000,

it is plain that, _supposing all rents were abolished_, the tenantry

must expect to draw £32,000,000 less than formerly, a depreciation

which evidently would leave no room for taxation whatever. We must,

however, upon the supposition above stated, that all customs duties

are abolished, (and we shall include also the excise,) deduct from

this latter sum the amount of the labourer's consumption of articles

formerly taxed. In order to avoid cavil, we shall estimate the number

of the agricultural labourers, with their families, at 10,000,000; and

as the customs and excise duties together amount to about £30,000,000,

we take off £11,500,000 as the labourer's proportion. This is greatly

above the mark; but it will serve for illustration. It reduces the

tenant's loss, after extinction of the rents, to £20,500,000 annually.

Next, let us see what manufactures would or could do for maintaining

our public establishments, and discharging our engagements to the

national creditor. It will, we think, be shortly conceded, if it is

not so already, that agricultural distress cannot possibly stimulate

the consumption of manufactures in the home market. That market,

indeed, depends entirely upon agriculture, because we have no other

very important branch of produce which can furnish it with customers.

Without agriculture the home trade must utterly decay; and as for the

foreign trade, it is enough to observe, that in the very best year we

have yet known (1845) we exported goods from this country to the value

of just £60,000,000, being only £5,000,000 more than the amount of our

yearly revenue, independent altogether of the large local taxation.

This is a simple sketch of Free Trade, worked out from ascertained and

unquestionable statistics. The reader may like it or not, according

to his preconceived political or economical impressions, but "to

this complexion it must inevitably come at last." What we are doing,

and have been doing for the last five or six years, is to reduce the

value of all kinds of British produce as much as possible, and that by

admitting foreign produce, which is in fact foreign labour, duty-free;

and still we expect to maintain our revenue--all derivable from British

produce--at the same money value as before! Such is the besotted state

of political opinion, that a Ministry holding these views, and daily

plunging the country deeper into ruin, can command a majority in

the House of Commons; and whenever an intelligent and clear-sighted

foreigner, like the American Minister, ventures to express an opinion,

however carefully and cautiously worded, in favour of agricultural

protection, the whole pack of the Ministerial press assails him

open-mouthed, yelling and yelping as though he had committed some

atrocious and inexpiable crime.

We have thus shown, we hope clearly enough, the dependence of revenue

upon produce; a very important point, but one which is apt to be

lost sight of in consequence of our complicated arrangements. People

used to talk magniloquently, and in high-sounding terms, about taxed

corn, and we have had ditties innumerable to the same effect, more or

less barbarous, from Ebenezer Elliott and his compeers; but neither

orator nor poetaster ever condescended to remark that the sole reason

why duties were levied on the importation of foreign grain, was

the existence of other duties to an enormous extent, directly and

indirectly levied by Government from the British grower. Relieve the

latter of these burdens, and he does not fear the competition of the

world. But so long as you tax him who is, on the one hand, your largest

producer, and, on the other, the best customer for your manufactures,

you cannot, in reason, wonder if he demands that an equivalent for

his taxation shall be imposed upon foreign produce; so that the

economical law, and not less the law of common sense, which provides

that the consumer shall pay all charges, may not be defeated--in

other words, that his trade may not be annihilated altogether. We

have seen articles, intended to be pungent and satirical, about the

farmers "whining for protection." The writers who use such language

evidently intend to insinuate that the British agriculturist is a poor

weak creature, unable to cope with foreign tillers of the soil--more

ignorant than the Dane, more idle than the German, less active than

the Polish serf, and not near so handy as the American squatter.

If they do not mean this, they mean nothing. It is not worth while

replying directly to such paltry and contemptible libels, but we may

as well remind these gentlemen with whom the "whining" commenced. It

began with the manufacturers, who have been whining for heaven knows

how many years, that bread was too dear, and that they were forced

to pay high wages in consequence. The papermakers are "whining" at

this moment for a reduction of excise, and the nasal notes of a good

many newspaper editors and conductors of cheap and trashy periodicals

are adding power and pathos to the whine. No spaniel at the outside

of a street-door ever whined more piteously than Mr Cardwell is doing

at this hour about reduction of the tea duties. He is absolutely not

safe over a cup of ordinary hyson. There are whines about hops, whines

about sugar, whines about window taxes, whines about cotton, and all

Ireland is and has been in a state of perpetual whine. In short, if by

"whining" is meant a complaint against taxation, we apprehend it would

be difficult to find a single individual who, in the present anomalous

and jumbled state of finance, could not advance sufficient reasons for

uttering a cry. The only way to remedy this is to reconstruct the whole

system. Let this be done on principles clear and intelligible to all

men, and we are perfectly convinced that for the future there would

be few symptoms of complaint. It is not the amount of taxation which

causes such general dissatisfaction; it is the unequal distribution of

it, rendered still more glaring by the pernicious habit indulged in

by Ministers of arbitrarily remitting taxes for the benefit of some

exclusive class, and laying, on others--such as the Income-Tax--not

on the plea of absolute State necessity, but confessedly "to make

experiments." Of course, after such all announcement, everybody thinks

that he, in his own person, may profit by the experimentalising.

Without asking, nothing is to be had, especially from the Exchequer;

and accordingly there is hardly any duty whatever which is not

made the subject of petition, and against many there is a regular

organised agitation. This is a most unhappy state of things, for it

is inconsistent with the security of property. Values may be raised

or depressed in a day at the single will of a Minister. Those who

gain become clamorous for a further concession; those who lose become

disgusted with what seems to them a gross partiality. In short, we

devoutly trust that the days of experiment are over; and the Whigs may

be informed, once for all, by the general voice of the nation, that it

is now absolutely necessary for them to undertake the task of setting

the financial house in order. The best method of accomplishing this

desirable end, is by sternly refusing to permit the Income-Tax to be

reimposed for the fourth time upon any plea or pretext, whatever.

But we must further say a few words, bearing directly upon this tax.

Odious as it may be to the community, we cannot shut our eyes to

the fact that there is much danger of its being reimposed; because

Ministers possess a certain majority in the present House of Commons,

and are not likely to leave any means untried for effecting their

object. It is to them, indeed, of paramount importance; because, if

they can succeed in saddling us with this tax for a further period

of three years, they may easily excuse themselves for declining to

undertake the revision of our financial system. We therefore deem it

our duty to look a little more narrowly into the details of the former

acts than, would otherwise have been our wish or inclination.

Our readers will certainly recollect that in 1848, when the Income-Tax

was reimposed for the third time, the Whigs made a strenuous effort

both to extend its existence and to augment its burdens. What they

modestly proposed was this, that the Income-Tax should be extended over

a period of five instead of three years, and that during two of these

years the assessment should be raised from sevenpence to a shilling per

pound. The result--which it argues the uttermost degree of imbecility

in Ministers not to have foreseen--was a roar of disapprobation from

one end of the country to the other; and the scheme thus foolishly

broached was as pusillanimously withdrawn. Indeed, had it not been for

the peculiar circumstances of the time, which rendered it exceedingly

unadvisable that the stability of any Government, however weak and

incompetent, should be endangered, it is very questionable whether

Ministers could have succeeded in persuading the House of Commons to

submit to this tax even upon modified terms. But the contents of

the budget were hardly disclosed, before the roar of revolution was

heard in the streets of Paris, and the Throne of the Barricades was

overthrown by the self-same hands which had reared it. That evidently

was not a time for the lovers of order to persist in an opposition

which, if successful, might have resulted in confusion at home; so

that a new lease of the Income-Tax was granted upon the same terms as

before. On occasion of the first obnoxious proposition, we expressed

our opinions freely with regard to the whole constitution of the tax,

pointing out both its injustice and its impolicy, in an article to

which our readers may refer for the more general argument.[52] But

there are one or two points with which we must separately deal.

The Act presently in force provides that farmers shall be assessed, not

upon profits, but upon rental, to the extent of threepence-halfpenny

per pound, on farms for which they pay £300 per annum and upwards. The

gross amount of the sum so raised was in 1848 £309,890. Now, it is

perfectly well known to every person that not one farmer out of ten has

made a single penny of profit since the withdrawal of the duties on

foreign corn in the commencement of last year. In the great majority

of cases rent is at this moment paid out of capital, as the landlords

will find to their cost when the leases expire, if many of them are

not already perfectly cognisant of the fact. If this be the case, it

becomes plain that this mode of assessment cannot be continued. To

do so, would be for the State to use its power to commit an actual

robbery. So long as any profit exists, the State has a right to tax

it; unjustly it may be, and partially, but still the title is there.

But the State has no right whatever to deprive any man of his property

_under false pretences_. If a tax must be levied on income, so be it;

but income is not a thing to be presumed under any circumstances, still

less when the State, by its own deed, has made a violent change on

the relation and values of property. To force the farmers, of new, to

pay this tax under the old conditions, would be an act of intolerable

tyranny and oppression, for which the constitution of Great Britain

gives no warrant; and we hardly think that any Ministry will be insane

enough to adopt such a course.

There is, however, another feature in the Income-Tax upon which far

too little attention has been bestowed. In this country REPUDIATION

has always been looked upon with just horror. Something Pharisaical

there may be, no doubt, in this grand adulation of credit; for an

unprejudiced bystander might be puzzled to comprehend the precise

reasoning of those who are convulsed at the thought of a lessened

dividend from the Funds, whilst they can look quietly on at the ravages

which are made in property of another description. Still, the feeling

exists, and assuredly we have no wish that it should be otherwise.

But we are bound to say that, if other ideas are to be encouraged on

the subject of unimpaired credit, this Income-Tax seems to us most

eminently calculated to pave the way for their introduction.[53] Such

was our opinion in 1848, and such is our opinion now. Once establish

the principle of taxing the Funds, and there is no length to which it

may not be carried. It will not do to say that the Funds are taxed

in proportion with other property. That is not the case. This is an

exceptional Act, creating and enforcing distinctions, and it excepts

all incomes under a certain amount. It therefore virtually establishes

the principle that it is lawful to tax the possessors of one kind of

property (the Funds) for the benefit of the possessors of another

kind of property who are excepted. In 1848 it was proposed that the

assessment should be raised to one shilling in the pound. What would

the fundholders say if some future unscrupulous Minister were to raise

the assessment to five shillings or ten shillings per pound, and exempt

every one from the operation of the act except the holder of national

bonds? There can be no difficulty about a principle for doing so: it

has been already admitted. Nay, more: the provisions of the Income-Tax

are in direct violation of the most solemn engagements entered into by

Acts of Parliament. As an instance of this, take the following:--

The act 10 Geo. IV. cap 31, which has for its object the funding of

£3,000,000 of Exchequer Bills, contains the following clause: "And be

it enacted, That such subscribers duly depositing or paying in the

whole sum so subscribed at or before the respective times in this act

limited in that behalf, and their respective executors, administrators,

successors, and assigns, shall have, receive, and enjoy, and be

entitled by virtue of this act to have, receive, and enjoy the said

annuities by this act granted in respect of the sum so subscribed, and

shall have good and sure interests and estates therein according to the

several provisions in this act contained; _and the said annuities shall

be free from all Taxes, Charges, and Impositions whatsoever_." It needs

no lawyer to interpret the clause. By solemn Act of Parliament the

dividends were guaranteed free from all taxes whatsoever.

So thought Sir Robert Peel in 1831. When in that year a proposal was

made to levy a small tax from the transfer of stock in the public

Funds, he denounced the measure in the strongest terms, as a violation

of the contracts made with the public creditor, and as a proceeding

which must necessarily "tarnish the fair fame of the country." "He

(Sir Robert Peel) dreaded that an inference would be drawn from the

proposed violation of law and good faith, that a further violation

was not improper. If in these times of productive industry and steady

progressive improvement--if, in such times, in a period of general

peace, when there was no pressure on the energies and industry of

the country--_the Government contemplated the violation of an Act

of Parliament, and express contract entered into with the public

creditor_, what security could the public creditor have if the times of

1797 or 1798 returned?" Contrast this language with the propositions of

the same eminent statesman in 1842, when he introduced the Income-Tax

for the first time. "I propose that, _for a time to be limited_, the

income of this country should bear a charge not exceeding sevenpence in

the pound.... I propose, _for I see no ground for exemption_, that all

funded property, held by natives in this country or foreigners, should

be subject to the same charge as unfunded property."

No ground for exemption! Mark that, gentlemen who are interested in

the Funds. On no mean authority was it then announced that an Act of

Parliament, however solemn and stringent in its terms, is no fence at

all against the inroads of a Chancellor of the Exchequer. True, people

may have lent their money on the strength of that positive assurance;

true, it may have been made the basis of the most important family

arrangements: but all that matters nothing. Money is wanted to make

"experiments," for the purpose of stimulating manufactures; and what

is the maintenance of public faith and honour, compared with an object

so important? So, in order to stimulate manufactures, the principle of

repudiation was recognised.

After all, perhaps, British subjects might be content to submit

themselves to the loss, and be thankful that it was no worse. But

what shall we say to the forced taxation of property belonging to

foreigners, and invested in the British Funds? What interest or concern

had _they_ in experiments upon British manufactures? Just let any of

our readers suppose that he has invested the whole of his property

in Dutch bonds, and that, after receiving two or three dividends, he

is informed that, for the future, one half of his annuity will be

retained by the Dutch Government, because, in order to "stimulate" the

internal industry of Holland, it has been thought advisable to drain

the Zuyder Zee! Would Lord Palmerston, if such a case were brought

under his notice, sustain the plea of the Dutchman? We trow not--at

least we hope not; for such a claim for redress would certainly proceed

upon far better grounds than any which were urged by Don Pacifico. The

two cases are precisely similar. The Dutch Government would have as

much right to appropriate the dividends belonging to British subjects

for the purposes of stimulating the internal industry of Holland,

as the British Government has to retain any part of the dividends

belonging to foreigners, for the declared object of stimulating British

manufactures. If this free-and-easy mode of "conveyance" is to become

general, there is an end of public credit. Henceforward it will be but

decent for us to use a moderate tone while speaking of Pennsylvanian

defalcations. American swiftness may have outstripped us in the

repudiatory race; nevertheless, we have gone far enough to recognise

the principle, and to appropriate sevenpence in the pound.

We need not dwell on other evident objections which may be raised

to the continuance of the Income-Tax. These suggest themselves to

the minds of every one, and have been often pointed out and dwelt

on by public writers. The danger of maintaining a war tax in time

of peace--the eminently inquisitorial nature of the impost--and the

injustice of assessing professional men, authors, artists, &c.,

whose incomes depend solely on their health, at the same rate as

the possessors of accumulated property, are reasons sufficient to

condemn it. But the most monstrous injustice, to the already severely

burdened people of Great Britain, is the exemption of Ireland from its

operation. It is impossible to assign any valid reason for the policy

which dictated this odious partiality. Sir Robert Peel in 1842 could

not find any better excuse than the following: "When I am proposing a

tax, limited in duration, in the first instance, to a period of three

years, and when the amount of that tax does not exceed three per cent,

I must of course consider, with reference to public interests, whether

it be desirable to apply that tax to Ireland. I must bear in mind,

that it is a tax to which Ireland was not subject during the period of

the war; that it is a tax for the levy of which no machinery exists

in Ireland--_Ireland has no assessed taxes_--the machinery there is

wanting, and I should have to devise new machinery for a country to

which the tax has never been applied."

Most rare and convincing logic! Because Ireland on a former occasion

was not taxed, she is not to be taxed now; because she pays no assessed

taxes, her income also is to be exempted from contribution! Why, these

were, of all others the very strongest arguments for laying it on; and

most contemptible indeed was the pusillanimity of the representatives

of English and Scottish constituencies, who did not on that occasion

peremptorily demand the enforcement of equal burdens. What a premium to

agitation is here held out! The Irishman with a yearly revenue of £150

a-year, pays no assessed taxes--is cleared from some excise duties--and

enjoys an immunity from Income-Tax. The people of England and Scotland

are kind enough to save him all these charges, in grateful recognition,

doubtless, of his exceeding docility, and proverbial attachment to the

Constitution. As to the allegation of want of ready-made machinery, the

answer was plain--Make it. Nine years have gone by, and yet it is not

made, and there is no proposal for making it; and it remains to be seen

whether the fourth attempt at imposition will be as grossly partial

is the others. If this tax is again renewed, there can be henceforth

no escape from it. It matters not whether the term of the new lease

be seven, or five, or three years--the tax itself will be immortal,

and surely we shall not be insulted this time with a plea of deficient

machinery.

For all these reasons, then, we counsel a determined opposition to

any attempt which may be made to renew the Income-Tax, even for the

shortest period. Ministers have no right to claim it as part of the

ordinary revenue. It was levied originally for a specific purpose, on a

distinct assurance that it was not to be permanent: that purpose, it

matters not whether the results have been satisfactory or the reverse,

has been accomplished, and we now demand the fulfilment of the other

part of the agreement. Moreover, if the Income-Tax is renewed, we must

relinquish for the present, and it may be for a long time, all hopes

of that most desirable object, a complete revision of the national

taxation. It is desirable for all of us, whatever may be our political

or economical bias: because we take it for granted that no man can

wish to impose upon his neighbour any portion of a burden which it is

his own duty to bear; or to exalt the class to which he belongs by the

undue depression of another. The present complicated and entangled mode

of taxation prevents us from seeing clearly who is liable and who is

not. It is like a great net, twisted at one place, torn at a second,

and clumsily patched at a third; and it is no wonder, therefore, if

large fishes sometimes escape, while the fry is swept to destruction.

What we wish to see is the recognition of a plain principle. There

is a school of political economists existing in this country, who

confound two distinct and separate things--principle and method. They

profess themselves to be the advocates of direct, in opposition to

indirect taxation; and they think that, in propounding this, they are

enunciating some great principle. This is a most absurd delusion. In

reality, it matters nothing in what way taxes are levied, provided they

are levied justly--whether they are drawn from produce before it leaves

the hands of the producer, as in the case of the excise, or charged

on foreign goods at the ports from the merchant--or directly taken

from the consumer in the altered form of assessed taxes. All that has

reference merely to the method and machinery of taxation. Undoubtedly

there are most important questions involved in the choice of a proper

machinery. Hitherto the leaning of statesmen has been in favour of

indirect taxation, as by far the least costly method, and as the only

practicable one with regard to many branches of the revenue. In that

opinion we entirely concur, never having yet seen any scheme for the

merging of indirect into direct taxation which had even the merit of

plausibility; nor do we suppose that, by any stretch of ingenuity,

a method to this effect could be devised, not open to the gravest

political objections in this or in any other old community. But these

considerations do not affect the principle at all. Men cannot be taxed

simply as men by poll-tax, for their means are notoriously unequal;

property cannot be taxed solely as property, because that would cause

all immediate transference of capital to other countries; incomes

cannot be made the sole subject of taxation, partly from the same

reason, and partly on account of the injustice of such an arrangement.

The only true principle, and that which we wish to see recognised, is

this--that the annual produce of the country alone must bear the weight

of taxation. If that principle could be steadily kept in view, much of

the haze and mist which modern political economy has spread, would be

dispelled. Men would perceive that there is not, and cannot possibly

be, in this great country, any such thing as the rival interests of

classes; but that what we have hitherto termed rival interests, is

neither more nor less than the desire of certain parties to thrive and

accumulate wealth at the expense of the rest of the community. They

would also see that this selfish and nefarious intention must in the

end defeat its own aim, for it is as impossible for a tradesman to

thrive by the poverty of his customers, as it is for any class whatever

to extract permanent prosperity from the depression and downfall of

another. They would clearly understand that cheapness, when effected by

the introduction of the products of foreign untaxed labour into this

country, must be and is obtained at the cost of the British workman;

that it consequently is no blessing to the country, but the reverse;

and that each such introduction, either by displacing industry, or by

beating down its wages, or by lowering the value of home products,

augments the burden of taxation, and reduces all incomes, except,

indeed, those which are derived directly _from_ taxation--as, for

instance, fixed salaries, government annuities, and the incomes of

Ministers, officials, and the like. A dim perception of the truth of

this seems to have dawned upon the minds of some of our legislators,

and to have led to the appointment of that committee which deliberated

last session on the subject of official salaries. The question has

often been asked, why, since almost every article which money can

command is cheapened, the servants of the public should still receive

the same allowances as before? There are good grounds for putting that

question; and some still more formidable ones, we anticipate, will be

asked ere long, if we choose to persevere in our present commercial

policy.

The amount of taxation to which this country is subject, and from which

it cannot free itself without the sacrifice of the national honour,

has the necessary effect of enhancing the cost of every commodity

which is produced in it. England is, and must remain, a dearer country

than any of the Continental states, because her burdens are heavier,

and these must be necessarily paid from produce. The professed object

of the late "experiments" was to counteract this; a scheme quite as

feasible as that of making water run up-hill. But the depth of public

credulity is not easily fathomed. People may be duped in a hundred ways

besides being taken in by railway boards of direction. So, for the

benefit of the rich, taxes were repealed or lowered on wine, silks,

velvets, mahogany, stained papers, and fancy glass, and an Income-Tax

substituted instead. The Colonies were broken down, and an impetus was

given to the slave trade in order to procure cheap sugar. The labourers

got a cheaper loaf, and were desired to consider that as an equivalent

for lower wages. And now we find ourselves in this position, that, but

for the Income-Tax, there would be an annual deficit in the revenue of

from four to five millions; the farmers are absolutely ruined; and the

manufacturers, by their own confession, making little or no profit.

The reason of this is quite obvious. We are striving to accomplish what

is, in fact, an absolute impossibility. We wish to reconcile cheapness

of commodities with a high rate of taxation, and at the same time to

promote the general prosperity of the nation. But cheapness and high

taxation cannot possibly co-exist _within the same limits_, nor can any

exertion of industry or skill make them compatible with each other.

On this point we believe there was little difference of opinion. But

it occurred to certain interested parties, whose trade lay _without

the limits_ of Britain, that there might be a way of solving the

difficulty, or, at all events, of persuading the public that they had

solved it. So they devised that system which we erroneously denominate

Free Trade, opening the ports for the introduction not only of

cotton-wool duty-free, but of a great many articles which were either

grown or manufactured in Britain, by far the most important of which

were corn and agricultural produce. And this had, undoubtedly, the

effect of producing cheapness, and may have for some time to come. But

that cheapness is not natural. It has been brought about by converting

a profitable into a losing trade, and by depressing all kinds of wages

and incomes throughout the country. The introduction of foreign untaxed

commodities has lowered prices in our market, not because they were

too high before in relation to the amount of taxation, but because

they could not stand against the weight of so heavy a competition.

Hence arises in the country agricultural distress, which no

palliatives whatever can remove--a distress which, commencing with the

agriculturists, is spreading through all who are dependent on them for

custom and livelihood, and finally must reach, if it has not already

reached, the principal seats of manufacture. Hence the suffering,

complaint, and wretchedness among the artisans of the towns, who find

themselves undersold on all hands by the venders of foreign wares, and

who are now cursing competition, without a distinct understanding of

its cause. The Free-traders attempt to cajole them by pointing to the

cheap loaf; but they do not add, as in candour they ought to do, that

they have not removed, or attempted to remove, one jot of the taxes

which weigh heaviest upon the industry of the working classes. The poor

man, though he may escape direct taxation, nevertheless contributes as

heavily, or even more heavily, to the national revenue than the rich,

in proportion to his means. Bread and water he may have untaxed, but

not beer nor tobacco, sugar nor spirits, tea nor coffee, spices nor

soap. Free trade does not touch those things. They do not come within

its cognisance; and yet, as we have said already, more than one-half of

the national revenue is derived from duties levied on such articles.

There could be no difficulty whatever in raising an adequate revenue,

if Ministers had the courage to adopt a sound constitutional policy.

They ought, in the first place, to reimpose the taxes upon all articles

of luxury consumed exclusively by the rich, and on all articles of

foreign manufacture which are brought into this country to compete with

the productions of our own artisans. In no other way is it possible

to keep the balance even between taxation and produce. The working

men have a right to expect this, and doubtless they will demand it

ere long. Nor ought the Legislature to permit the importation to this

country of any commodity whatever, raw or manufactured, which is a

staple of our own produce, without imposing upon it a tax, equal in

amount to all the taxes, direct or indirect, which are charged on the

growers or manufacturers of the said commodity in Britain, and which

do actually enter into the cost of its production. The strict justice

of these propositions cannot be doubted; and it is only because our

statesmen have accustomed themselves, for a long time, to deal with

taxation as if it were capable of regulation on no sort of principle,

that the false views and impracticable theories of the Free-trade party

have unfortunately been allowed to prevail.

But we shall not pursue this subject further at the present time. If,

in the course of these remarks, we shall have succeeded in drawing

attention to a subject but too little understood--the relation of

the public revenue to the internal produce of the kingdom--we may

confidently leave the rest to the good sense and intelligence of the

reader. We shall not deny that we have a double purpose in setting

forth these considerations just now. In the first place, we wish to

prepare the public for the attempt, which we confidently anticipate,

on the part of Ministers, for the reimposition of the Income-Tax.

Believing, as we do, that if the attempt should prove successful,

this very odious and partial impost (oppressive in its operation,

and dangerous to the State, it being essentially a war-tax, and yet

levied in the time of peace) will become a permanent charge on the

community, we cannot do otherwise than recommend the most determined

opposition. In the second place, we are desirous of hinting to certain

political capons who have lately been attempting to crow over what

they call "the grave of Protection," that they may save themselves

the trouble, for some time at least, of repeating their contemptible

cry. Nothing can be more purely ludicrous than the pains which those

gentlemen have taken, for the last two or three months, to persuade

the public that all agitation on the subject of protection to British

industry has died away--that everybody is contented and happy under

the new regime--and that the farmers themselves are convinced at last

that they are making money in consequence of free trade in corn! If

there is a meeting of an agricultural society--it signifies not what

or where--at which, out of deference to the chairman, or in respect of

a standing resolution, politics are specially avoided, we are sure,

in the course of a day or so, to be favoured with a leading article,

announcing that in such-and-such a district, all idea of returning

to the Protective system is finally abandoned. Does any notable

supporter of Protection happen to make an after-dinner speech, no

matter what be its immediate subject--the presentation of a piece of

plate to some well-deserving neighbour, or an oration at the opening

of a mechanics' institution--without alluding in any way to the

present price of wheat or the future prospects of agriculture?--we

are immediately stunned with the announcement that he has become a

virulent Free-trader. It is not safe at present to declare publicly

that you prefer turnips to mangold-wurzel. If you venture to do so,

you are instantly claimed as a Cobdenite, because it is said that you

are exciting the farmers to further exertions in spite of prophecies

of ruin. Under those circumstances, it becomes really difficult for

an honest man, who entertains strong convictions upon the subject,

to determine what course he should pursue. If he holds his tongue,

as he surely may do for a month or so in the shooting season, he is

held confessed. Silence constitutes a Free-trader--which, by the way,

is a decided improvement on the older system. If he speaks at all,

eschewing politics and agriculture, he is held to be as clear a convert

as though he had lunched with Cardinal Wiseman. If he utters a word

about improvements in agriculture, he is a lost man for ever to the

farmers. These may be very ingenious tactics, but those who invented

them may rest assured that they have not imposed upon a single human

being. It would be better, for their own credit and character, if they

dropped them at once. Since the publication of the last quarter's

revenue returns, we have had a perfect roar of affected jubilee from

the members of the Free-trading press. A grand shout and a long one was

doubtless necessary to drown the announcement of an almost unparalleled

decrease in the account, exhibiting a falling off in nearly every

regular item, and a rapid absorption of capital, as indicated by

the returns of the Property-tax. But it certainly was rather a bold

experiment to fix upon Lord Stanley as a Free-trader. For more than a

fortnight we were regaled with leaders in the _Times_ and _Chronicle_,

announcing that his lordship had publicly repudiated the principles of

Protection at Bury; and yet, singularly enough, not containing that

meed of compliment which might have been expected on the accession of

so eminent a convert. This was a decided mistake. Their cue distinctly

was to have extolled Lord Stanley to the skies, as a man utterly beyond

the reach of prejudice, open to conviction, docile to the voice of

reason, and persuaded of the error of his ways. Had they done so with

sufficient adroitness, it is not beyond the verge of possibility that

here and there some benighted people might have been induced to swallow

the fable, and to conceive that because one statesman--whom we name

not now--proved false to all his former professions and protestations,

such changes are mere matter of course, sanctified and approved by

custom. But the fraud was clumsily executed. The little children

of apostasy--who are now left to their own devices, without any

superintending guardian, and who, following their natural instincts,

can do little else than undertake the fabrication of dirt-pies--have

bedaubed themselves in a most woful manner. Anything more humiliating

than the position of the _Morning Chronicle_ it is impossible to

conceive. For, when met in the teeth with a direct refutation of

their slanders, the writers are absolutely idiotical enough to assert

that they drew their conclusions, not so much from what was said, as

from what remained unsaid--not so much from words, as from tones and

significant gestures! It is a sad pity that the idea is not original.

It strikes us that there is something of the sort in the _Critic_,

where Puff undertakes to make the audience acquainted with the whole,

tenor of Lord Burleigh's cogitations, through a simple shake of the

head. Puff is by no means a defunct character. He has merely changed

his vocation, and at present is eating in his own words and professions

as fast as ever mountebank swallowed tape on a stage at Bartholomew

fair.

Let those gentleman be perfectly easy. There is plenty of work yet in

store for them. Though during the autumnal months it may be difficult

to find proper subjects for leaders, without diverging from the fields

of fact into the unlimited wastes of fiction, they may rest assured

that ere long they will be summoned to a more serious encounter. The

days of experiment are gone by, but the results still remain, to be

tested according to their merit by the intelligence of the British

people.

* * * * *

_Printed by William Blackwood & Sons, Edinburgh._

FOOTNOTES:

[51] The exceptions to this rule are so few, that they need hardly

be stated. Incomes from investments in foreign funds are perhaps the

principal exception, but the amount of these is not large, and cannot

affect the general principle above laid down, which lies, or ought to

lie, at the foundation of every system of POLITICAL ECONOMY.

[52] _Vide_ the Magazine for March 1848. No. CCCLXXXIX. Article, "THE

BUDGET."

[53] See on this subject a remarkable pamphlet, entitled "_Past and

Present Delusions on Political Economy_," by ALEXANDER GIBBON, Esq.

The author has the merit of having pointed out at least one direct

infringement of an Act of Parliament, to which we have referred in

the text; and we must also bear our testimony to the soundness and

precision of many of the views which he has stated on the intricate

subject of taxation.

Transcriber's Notes:

Pp. 516, 545, 573, and 592 added missing footnote anchors.

P. 614 corrected total from £14,320,013 to £14,360,043

Simple spelling, grammar, and typographical errors were corrected.

Punctuation normalized.

Anachronistic and non-standard spellings retained as printed.

Italics markup is enclosed in _underscores_.