[115] Skelton's satire is accessible to the reader in the Rev.
Alexander Dyce's edition of the poet's works. Roy's poem was printed
abroad about 1525, and is of extreme rarity, as the cardinal spared
no labour and expense to purchase and destroy all the copies. A
second edition was printed at Wesel in 1546. Its author, who had
been a friar, was ultimately burned in Portugal for heresy.
[116] The palace of Wolsey, as Archbishop of York, which he had
furnished in the most sumptuous manner; after his disgrace it became
a royal residence under the name of Whitehall.--Note in Dyce's ed.
of Skelton's Works.
[117] _Point-device_, a term explained by Mr. Douce. He thinks that
it is borrowed from the labours of the needle, as we have
_point-lace_, so _point-device_, i.e., _point_, a stitch, and
_devise_, devised or invented; applied to describe anything
uncommonly exact, or worked with the nicety and precision of
_stitches made or devised by the needle_.--_Illustrations of
Shakspeare_, i. 93. But Mr. Gifford has since observed that the
origin of the expression is, perhaps, yet to be sought for: he
derives it from a mathematical phrase, _a point devise_, or _a given
point_, and hence exact, correct, &c.--_Ben Jonson_, vol. iv. 170.
See, for various examples, Mr. Nares's Glossary, art.
_Point-devise_.
[118] Lyson's "Environs," v. 58
[119] Burnet says, "Others called it _Holland House_, because he was
believed to be no friend to the war: so it was given out that he had
money from the Dutch."
[120] At the gateway of the Three Kings Inn, near Dover-street, in
Piccadilly, are two pilasters with Corinthian capitals, which
belonged to Clarendon House, and are perhaps the only remains of
that edifice.
[121] An old term for _contractors_. Evelyn tells us they were
"certain rich bankers and mechanics, who gave for it, and the ground
about it, 35,000_l_." They built streets and houses on the site to
their great profit, the ground comprising twenty-four acres of land.
"TAXATION NO TYRANNY!"
Such was the title of a famous political tract, which was issued at a
moment when a people, in a state of insurrection, put forth a
declaration that taxation was tyranny! It was not against an
insignificant tax they protested, but against taxation itself! and in
the temper of the moment this abstract proposition appeared an insolent
paradox. It was instantly run down by that everlasting party which, so
far back as in the laws of our Henry the First, are designated by the
odd descriptive term of _acephali, a people without heads!_[122] the
strange equality of levellers!
These political monsters in all times have had an association of ideas
of _taxation_ and _tyranny_, and with them one name instantly suggests
the other! This happened to one Gigli of Sienna, who published the first
part of a dictionary of the Tuscan language,[123] of which only 312
leaves amused the Florentines; these having had the honour of being
consigned to the flames by the hands of the hangman for certain popular
errors; such as, for instance, under the word _Gran Duca_ we find _Vedi
Gabelli!_ (see Taxes!) and the word _Gabella_ was explained by a
reference to _Gran Duca_! _Grand-duke_ and _taxes_ were synonymes,
according to this mordacious lexicographer! Such grievances, and the
modes of expressing them, are equally ancient. A Roman consul, by
levying a tax on _salt_ during the Punic war, was nicknamed _Salinator_,
and condemned by "the majesty" of the people! He had formerly done his
duty to the country, but the _salter_ was now his reward! He retired
from Rome, let his beard grow, and by his sordid dress and melancholy
air evinced his acute sensibility. The Romans at length wanted the
_salter_ to command the army--as an injured man, he refused--but he was
told that he should bear the caprice of the Roman people with the
tenderness of a son for the humours of a parent! He had lost his
reputation by a productive tax on salt, though this tax had provided an
army and obtained a victory!
Certain it is that Gigli and his numerous adherents are wrong: for were
they freed from all restraints as much as if they slept in forests and
not in houses; were they inhabitants of wilds and not of cities, so that
every man should be his own lawgiver, with a perpetual immunity from all
taxation, we could not necessarily infer their political happiness.
There are nations where taxation is hardly known, for the people exist
in such utter wretchedness, that they are too poor to be taxed; of which
the Chinese, among others, exhibit remarkable instances. When Nero would
have abolished all taxes, in his excessive passion for popularity, the
senate thanked him for his good will to the people, but assured him that
this was a certain means not of repairing, but of ruining the
commonwealth. Bodin, in his curious work "The Republic," has noticed a
class of politicians who are in too great favour with the people. "Many
seditious citizens, and desirous of innovations, did of late years
promise immunity of taxes and subsidies to our people; but neither could
they do it, or if they could have done it, they would not; or if it were
done, should we have any commonweal, being the ground and foundation of
one."[124]
The undisguised and naked term of "taxation" is, however, so odious to
the people, that it may be curious to observe the arts practised by
governments, and even by the people themselves, to veil it under some
mitigating term. In the first breaking out of the American troubles,
they probably would have yielded to the mother-country _the right of_
_taxation_, modified by the term _regulation_ (of their trade); this I
infer from a letter of Dr. Robertson, who observes, that "the
distinction between _taxation_ and _regulation_ is mere folly!" Even
despotic governments have condescended to disguise the contributions
forcibly levied, by some appellative which should partly conceal its
real nature. Terms have often influenced circumstances, as names do
things; and conquest or oppression, which we may allow to be synonymes,
apes benevolence whenever it claims as a gift what it exacts as a
tribute.
A sort of philosophical history of taxation appears in the narrative of
Wood, in his "Inquiry on Homer." He tells us that "the presents (a term
of extensive signification in the East) which are distributed annually
by the bashaw of Damascus to the several Arab princes through whose
territory he conducts the caravan of pilgrims to Mecca, are, at
Constantinople, called a free gift, and considered as an act of the
sultan's generosity towards his indigent subjects; while, on the other
hand, the Arab Sheikhs deny even a right of passage through the
districts of their command, and exact those sums as a tax due for the
permission of going through their country. In the frequent bloody
contests which the adjustment of these fees produces, the Turks complain
of robbery, and the Arabs of invasion."[125]
Here we trace _taxation_ through all its shifting forms, accommodating
itself to the feelings of the different people; the same principle
regulated the alternate terms proposed by the buccaneers, when they
_asked_ what the weaker party was sure to _give_, or when they _levied_
what the others paid only as a common _toll_.
When Louis the Eleventh of France beheld his country exhausted by the
predatory wars of England, he bought a peace of our Edward the Fourth by
an annual sum of fifty thousand crowns, to be paid at London, and
likewise granted _pensions_ to the English ministers. Holinshed and all
our historians call this a yearly _tribute_; but Comines, the French
memoir-writer, with a national spirit, denies that these _gifts_ were
either _pensions_ or _tributes_. "Yet," says Bodin, a Frenchman also,
but affecting a more philosophical indifference, "it must be either the
one or the other; though I confess, that those who receive a pension to
obtain peace, commonly boast of it _as if it were a tribute_!"[126]
Such are the shades of our feelings in this history of taxation and
tribute. But there is another artifice of applying soft names to hard
things, by veiling a tyrannical act by a term which presents no
disagreeable idea to the imagination. When it was formerly thought
desirable, in the relaxation of morals which prevailed in Venice, to
institute the office of _censor_, three magistrates were elected bearing
this title; but it seemed so harsh and austere in that dissipated city,
that these reformers of manners were compelled to change their title;
when they were no longer called _censors_, but _I signori sopra il bon
vivere della citta_, all agreed on the propriety of the office under the
softened term. Father Joseph, the secret agent of Cardinal Richelieu,
was the inventor of _lettres de cachet_, disguising that instrument of
despotism by the amusing term of _a sealed letter_. Expatriation would
have been merciful compared with the result of that _billet-doux_, a
sealed letter from his majesty!
Burke reflects with profound truth--"Abstract liberty, like other mere
abstractions, is not to be found. Liberty inheres in some sensible
object; and every nation has formed to itself some favourite point,
which, by way of eminence, becomes the criterion of their happiness. It
happened that the great contests for freedom in this country were from
the earliest times chiefly upon the question of _taxing_. Most of the
contests in the ancient commonwealths turned primarily on the right of
election of magistrates, or on the balance among the several orders of
the state. The question of _money_ was not with them so immediate. But
in England it was otherwise. On this point of taxes the ablest pens and
most eloquent tongues have been exercised; the greatest spirits have
acted and suffered."[127]
One party clamorously asserts that taxation is their grievance, while
another demonstrates that the annihilation of taxes would be their ruin!
The interests of a great nation, among themselves, are often contrary to
each other, and each seems alternately to predominate and to decline.
"The sting of taxation," observes Mr. Hallam, "is wastefulness; but it
is difficult to name a limit beyond which taxes will not be borne
without impatience when _faithfully applied_." In plainer words, this
only signifies, we presume, that Mr. Hallam's party would tax us
without "wastefulness!" Ministerial or opposition, whatever be the
administration, it follows that "taxation is no tyranny;" Dr. Johnson
then was terribly abused in his day for a _vox et praeterea nihil_!
Still shall the innocent word be hateful, and the people will turn even
on their best friend, who in administration inflicts a new impost; as we
have shown by the fate of the Roman _Salinator_! Among ourselves, our
government, in its constitution, if not always in its practice, long had
a consideration towards the feelings of the people, and often contrived
to hide the nature of its exactions by a name of blandishment. An
enormous grievance was long the office of purveyance. A purveyor was an
officer who was to furnish every sort of provision for the royal house,
and sometimes for great lords, during their progresses or journeys. His
oppressive office, by arbitrarily fixing the market prices, and
compelling the countrymen to bring their articles to market, would enter
into the history of the arts of grinding the labouring class of society;
a remnant of feudal tyranny! The very title of this officer became
odious; and by a statute of Edward III. the hateful name of _purveyor_
was ordered to be changed into _acheteur_ or buyer![128] A change of
name, it was imagined, would conceal its nature! The term often devised,
strangely contrasted with the thing itself. Levies of money were long
raised under the pathetic appeal of _benevolences_. When Edward IV. was
passing over to France, he obtained, under this gentle demand, money
towards "the great journey," and afterwards having "rode about the more
part of the lands, and used the people in such fair manner, that they
were liberal in their gifts;" old Fabian adds, "the which way of the
levying of this money was after-named a benevolence." Edward IV. was
courteous in this newly-invented style, and was besides the handsomest
tax-gatherer in his kingdom! His royal presence was very dangerous to
the purses of his loyal subjects, particularly to those of the females.
In his progress, having kissed a widow for having contributed a larger
sum than was expected from her estate, she was so overjoyed at the
singular honour and delight, that she doubled her _benevolence_, and a
second kiss had ruined her! In the succeeding reign of Richard III. the
term had already lost the freshness of its innocence. In the speech
which the Duke of Buckingham delivered from the hustings in Guildhall,
he explained the term to the satisfaction of his auditors, who even then
were as cross-humoured as the livery of this day, in their notions of
what now we gently call "supplies." "Under the plausible name of
_benevolence_, as it was held in the time of Edward IV., your goods were
taken from you much against your will, as if by that name was understood
that every man should pay, not what he pleased, but what the king would
have him;" or, as a marginal note in Buck's Life of Richard III. more
pointedly has it, that "the name of _benevolence_ signified that every
man should pay, not what he of his own good will list, but what the king
of his good will list to take."[129] Richard III., whose business, like
that of all usurpers, was to be popular, in a statute even condemns this
"benevolence" as "a new imposition," and enacts that "none shall be
charged with it in future; many families having been ruined under these
pretended gifts." His successor, however, found means to levy "a
benevolence;" but when Henry VIII. demanded one, the citizens of London
appealed to the act of Richard III. Cardinal Wolsey insisted that the
law of a murderous usurper should not be enforced. One of the common
council courageously replied, that "King Richard, conjointly with
parliament, had enacted many good statutes." Even then the citizen seems
to have comprehended the spirit of our constitution--that taxes should
not be raised without the consent of parliament!
Charles the First, amidst his urgent wants, at first had hoped, by the
pathetic appeal to _benevolences_, that he should have touched the
hearts of his unfriendly commoners; but the term of _benevolence_ proved
unlucky. The resisters of _taxation_ took full advantage of a
significant meaning, which had long been lost in the custom: asserting
by this very term that all levies of money were not compulsory, but the
voluntary gifts of the people. In that political crisis, when in the
fulness of time all the national grievances which had hitherto been kept
down started up with one voice, the courteous term strangely contrasted
with the rough demand. Lord Digby said "the granting of _subsidies_,
under so preposterous a name as of a _benevolence_, was a
_malevolence_." And Mr. Grimstone observed, that "they have granted a
benevolence, but the nature of the _thing_ agrees not with the _name_."
The nature indeed had so entirely changed from the name, that when James
I. had tried to warm the hearts of his "benevolent" people, he got
"little money, and lost a great deal of love." "Subsidies," that is
grants made by parliament, observes Arthur Wilson, a dispassionate
historian, "get more of the people's money, but exactions enslave the
mind."
When _benevolences_ had become a grievance, to diminish the odium they
invented more inviting phrases. The subject was cautiously informed that
the sums demanded were only _loans_; or he was honoured by a letter
under the _Privy Seal_; a bond which the king engaged to repay at a
definite period; but privy seals at length got to be hawked about to
persons coming out of church. "Privy Seals," says a manuscript letter,
"are flying thick and threefold in sight of all the world, which might
surely have been better performed in delivering them to every man
privately at home." The _general loan_, which in fact was a forced loan,
was one of the most crying grievances under Charles I. Ingenious in the
destruction of his own popularity, the king contrived a new mode of
"_secret instructions to commissioners_."[130] They were to find out
persons who could bear the largest rates. How the commissioners were to
acquire this secret and inquisitorial knowledge appears in the bungling
contrivance. It is one of their orders that after a number of inquiries
have been put to a person, concerning others who had spoken against
loan-money, and what arguments they had used, this person was to be
charged in his majesty's name, and upon his allegiance, not to disclose
to any other the answer he had given. A striking instance of that
fatuity of the human mind, when a weak government is trying to do what
it knows not how to perform: it was seeking to obtain a secret purpose
by the most open and general means: a self-destroying principle!
Our ancestors were children in finance; their simplicity has been too
often described as tyranny! but from my soul do I believe, on this
obscure subject of taxation, that old Burleigh's advice to Elizabeth
includes more than all the squabbling pamphlets of our political
economists,--"WIN HEARTS, AND YOU HAVE THEIR HANDS AND PURSES!"