**.
HJ Financial reform association,
4337 Liverpool. - -
. F49 (Tracts. 1881-82)
-...--~~~,
,---- --- *
wºr - " " * * *
* * rº- tº ºr -
|
| 3
- : *
*M. .'
& ..?


TWELVE REASONS
REVISION
OF THE
LAND TAX.
# LIVERPool:
THE FINANCIAL REFORM ASSOCIATION, 50, LORD STREET.
1881.
TwPLVE REASONS
REVISION OF THE LAND TAx.
IN view of the approaching agitation on the Land question and that of
the Land Tax, we deem it expedient at, this juncture to republish our
“Twelve Reasons” for the revision of the latter, which appeared in the
Financial Reformer for December, 1872. And we recommend them to
the careful consideration of all true lovers of their country, and its
constitution, whatever their political opinions may be. rºs
REASONS FOR A REVISION OF THE LAND TAX.
By Activ., William and Mary (1692), c. 1, s. 4, it was enacted, in very
stringent and precise terms, that there should be paid “unto their
Majesties” a tax of four shillings in the pound upon the full true yearly
value at a rack rent of Lands, Houses, Mines, Tenements and
... Hereditaments, as also of Mines of all kinds, Iron Works, Salt springs
and works, Parks, Chases, Warrens, Woods, Coppices, Fisheries, and, in
short, on all real property whatsoever, with a proviso that no.deduction
or abatement from the full rack rent “in respect to reparations, Taxes,
Parish duties, or any other charges” should be allowed. This tax of

four shillings in the pound, heavy as it may now appear, was a very
moderate, and indeed wholly inadequate compensation for the original
Feudal charges and duties to which the holders of all such property were
liable up to 1660, when the Convention Parliament abolished them
altogether, (so far as regarded tenants of the Crown, in capite, but
retained them with respect to their sub-tenants, alleging that to do away
with them “would be very prejudicial to the Lords of Manors”), and gave
to King Charles II, and his successors, in exchange, “Excise Duties
..º.
Thompson, “had taken a solemn oath that he had a personal pecuniary
for ever.” There is strong reason to believe that the Assessment made
in execution of this Act, was never very rigorous or impartial; but, such
as it was, a Parliament of landlords always contrived to avoid any
revision thereof until 1789, when by Act XXIX., George III., chap. 6,
the contribution was made permanent at the sum which it produced in
1692, a subsequent Act, the xxxviiith of George III., fixing the quota
to be paid by each Parish or Division, so that in no case should it exceed
Four Shillings in the pound on the valuation of 1692.
WE contend that this manifest evasion of the true intent of the law
of 1692. ought to be remedied, and that the Land Tax should be RE-
ENACTED and RE-AssissRD, and for the following reasons:—
I.
BECAUSE, with the exception of Crown or State reserves, the lands
of this country were parcelled out at the Conquest on Feudal conditions,
the grantees being bound to render Military service, both in person and
by their dependants, in numbers according to the extent of their fees,
and to provide them with arms, horses, and provisions; and also to
make heavy payments to the Crown' on occasions of births, marriages,
&c., &c. From these and other heavy burdens successive Parliaments of
landholders, every man of whom, according to the late General Perronett
•ºs

in º: in the question,” have gradually relieved themselves, not merely
without giving the publić any equivalent, but throwing their own proper'
burdens upon the shoulders of Industry, Trade, and the non-landholding
community. It is high time that this gross injustice should be redressed.
* * * * II,
BECAUSE Rent grows, and is, in fact, created by the public, viz.,
by the growth of Trade, Wealth and Population, and that which the
nation has created the nation has a right to share in by Taxation; at all
events, so far as the public necessities may require.
III.
BECAUSE Rent is the only kind of property which can be taxed
without interfering with the production of wealth. “Both ground rents
and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue (says Adam Smith,
book W. Chap. II) which the Owner, in many cases, enjoys without any
care or attention of his own. Though a part of this revenue should
be taken from him in order to defray the expenses of the State, no
discouragement will be given to any sort of industry.” Evidently it can
make no difference whatever to a tenant, whether he pays the landlord
or the taxgatherer. The less the taxation the more the rent, and
vice-versá; but the total will not be affected by the proportion paid for
each. . . . IV.
BECAUSE a tax upon rent is more easy to ascertain accurately,
more difficult to evade, and cheaper to collect, than any other. '
~ V.
BECAUSE it has been admitted by the Earl of Derby and other
land-holders, that the land of England does not produce more than one
half as much food as it ought to do; and the most efficient, if not the only
means, to compel the landholders generally to do their duty to their
estates and to the public, it is to, tax them soundly, that they may be
driven by necessity to cultivate and make the land yield more Produce,
and, therefore, more Rent. m
BECAUSE the receivers of rent usually live in idleness, upon the
fruits of other people's industry; and it is monstrous that Industry
should be burthened that, Idleness may go free. Those “whose
recognised function is that of handsomely consuming the 'rents of .
England, shooting the partridges of England, and as an agreeable
amusement (if purchase-monies and other conveniences serve)
dilletante-ing, in Parliament and Quarter Sessions for England,”
(Carlyle) must verily be made to pay their due share of the taxes
at least. . . . . - ..I - -**
k - VII. . -
BECAUSE, since Trade and Manufactures, or in other words, Profits,
are the mother of Rent and Wages, it is only necessary to allow them to
grow and develop freely to increase Rent and Wages also to an indefinite
extent. A Rent is a tree which must be pruned to make it fruitful, and
to shift the burthens naturally attaching to it upon Trade and lndustry
is simply killing the goose which has laid, all the golden eggs of the
VIII. 2.
landlords,
... BECAUSE, while everybody acknowledges the vast benefits derived
from the scanty measure of Free Trade enjoyed in these islands, perfeit
freedom, or any material approach thereto, can only be attained by the
total abolition of Customs and Excise Duties, and of such Stamps
and Assessed "Taxes as interfere with Employment, Production, or
Exchange; and this is only practicable, by imposing the main weight of
taxation upon realised property, in the first instance; all which, however,
the owners would speedily recover, through the increased wealth of the
nation, and the consequent rise in the value of their land. It may
safely be asserted that not one day's profitable work is done in this
United Kingdom which does not raise the value and the rent of land.
g * - , , gº . . . IX. . . . . . ' ' .
BECAUSE the House of Commons, still principally composed of .
land-holders, has long since abdicated its proper function of steward
of the nation's purse, and not only makes no attempt to check
extravagant expenditure and reduce taxation, but notoriously assists and
stimulates Ministerial and Departmental lavishness; and the only possible."
way to bring it back to vigilant economy, is to tax the rich heavily
enough to make honorable members feel that in voting away the public
money they are voting away their own. * . . . .
Af
" . BECAUSE it is plainly more just and reasonable, in any civilized
and Christian country, that the rich should be taxed to spare the poor, .
than the poor to excuse the rich, as is the case at present. “We that are :
strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please our-
selves,” says St. Paul; but landholders, in Parliament assembled, have
read the text backwards. i.
. • XI.
BECAUSE, to raise the bulk of our revenue from land and other
realised property is the old, approved, constitutional plan of this nation,
in reverting to which we are only standing upon the ancient ways, and
being guided by the wisdom of our ancestors like true Conservatives. .
BECAUSE taxes upon trade of every kind are the barbarous
oontrivance of a barbarous age; a sort of black mail, devised when honest
industry was a disgrace, and war and fighting the only honorable:
occupation; they are consequently a badge of degradation worn like a
Serf's collar by Commerce and Manufactures; they wage ceaseless and
bitter war against the free intercourse of nations; and therefore against
Peace and Civilization, and are thus a solecism and an anomaly in
an age of railways, steamers, and telegraphs. But the abolition of this
long standing disgrace to modern intelligence is only possible by the
taxation of real property. - . . . . . . .
FINANCIAL REFORM ASSOCIATION,
" ' " " 56,"LoRD STREET, LIVERPool. . . . . .
HOW THE LANDLORDS
. . " THREw THEIR ' ' ' ' '
BURDENs ON THE PEOPLE.
REPLY TO AN ADVERSE CRITIC.
Reprinted from the Fiskscrat REronuns.
MR. A. C. HoweRRErs-Owes," of Glansevern, Montgomeryshire, has felt it
incumbent upon himself to explain why it is “difficult, if not impossible; for
a dońsiderable: fiuñbet of reformers to accept the Financial Reform. Almanack
as an exponent of their views,” and has chosen the newly published volume of
£he Cobden Club” for the purpose. The head and front of our offeriding is to be
found in the following sentence’—“The landed intérest - * * * * * * *
find it convenient to ignore such facts as the following–That in the reign of
Charles II: their kncestors in Parliament invented Excism DUTIES, on the people
only, as substitutes'for their own rents, previously paid to the STATE; that the g
Land Tax of four shillings in the pound, devised as a remedy for that gross
legislative iniquity, has been frittered away to one of that amount on the value
as it stood in 1692.” As this question affects not only the Financial Reform
“Association, but the doctrine held and proclaimed by RICHARD CoBDRN, members
of the CoBDEN CLUB are as much interested as 'ourselves in vindicating that
doctrine from adverse. ' - . . . . . . . . * ,
Mr.' Owen first deals with the invention tif Excise duties, which he considers
to have been an invention of the Long Parliament. In this he is quite mistaken,
for Excise duties were known in Holland long before they were introduced here.
An attempt was made, says Mr. McCulloch, in his work on Taxation, to introduce
them into England in 1626, by a Commission under the Great Seal; but, Parlia-
ſmént having remonstrated, the Commission was cancelled. Our statement, how
ever, was that they were invented by the aristocracy as substitutes for their own
rehts previously paid to the State: r
As to the introduction of Excise duties, there can be no controversy. During
the contest with Charles I, the Parliament was several times in sore need of
"money to defray the expenses of the war, and had recourse to Excise duties as
the most likely.mdans of obtaining a revenue in the then-unsettled state of the
“country: The Royalists soon afterwards followed the example of the Parliament;
**śati ind ideasil Landlord.” Bythe Hon.G.cbiddick"caisnace, Lºndon.
2 sº zº
but the duties were extremely unpopular, and both parties took special care to
ascribe their introduction to necessity, and to pledge themselves to their abolition
at the close of the war. It is quite clear that there was no idea of substituting
excise for the feudal tenures at the time of their introduction. --- -
The feudal tenures were abolished by both Houses of Parliament in the year
1645, when a message was brought to the Lords from the Commons, “that in this
time of great distractions wherein the Lords and the Commons and the whole
kingdom have ventured their lives and fortunes for a recompense to the whole
kingdom they have a right to take away a great burden,” and they, therefore,
desired the Lords’ concurrence on a resolution abolishing all the feudal tenures,
and converting them into free and common socage. The Lords agreed mem. con.
Although the feudal tenures were abolished, “assessments” were made upon,
real as well as personal property throughout the whole period of the Long Par-
liament and the Commonwealth. The ordinance of 1656, which was made by
Cromwell and his Council without consulting a Parliament, was for a fixed sum
by a pound rate “on all lands, tenements, hereditaments, annuities, rents, profits,
parks, warrens, goods, chattels, stock (farm), merchandise, offices, or any other
real or personal estate whatsoever, according to the value thereof; that is to say,
so much upon every twenty shillings rent or yearly value of land, and real estate,
and so much upon money, stock, and other personal estate, by an equal rate,
wherein every twenty pounds in money, stock, or other personal estate, shall bear
the like charge as shall be laid on every twenty shillings yearly rent, or yearly
value of land, as will raise the monthly sum or sums charged on the respective
counties, cities, towns, and places aforesaid.” . The last of these assessments was
passed by the Convention Parliament immediately. before the Restoration of
Charles II.; it was for three months, and was continued for three months longer;
the preamble of the bill granting the renewal stating that the assessment was
granted in consequence of “ your Majesty's urgent occasions, whilst your
- Majesty's revenue stands unsettled, and your just rights and prerogatives in
point of tenures, and the use of the court of wards are forborne.” These words
can have but one meaning, that it was the intention of the Parliament to re-
establish the monarchy with all its feudal incidents. -
Up to the period of the Restoration there are three facts to record in connection
with the question: the introduction of the Excise, the abolition of the feudal
tenures, and the levy of “assessments" upon real and personal property. Each
of these steps was independent of each other, but the time had now arrived for
the consideration of the whole question in a duly constituted Parliament of King,
Lords, and Commons. The statutes and ordinances passed after the death of
Charles I. were regarded as null and void, and one of the first enactments of the
Convention Parliament was the renewal of the Excise, first to the 20th August
and, subsequently, to the 25th December, 1660. Then came the consideration of
the feudal tenures, which also revived at the close of the Commonwealth, and
“it was resolved (in a committee of the whole House) that the sum of one hun-
dred thousand pounds a year, to be settled on the King's Majesty, his heirs and
#

i
e?32, -a-, -º-; 22- ...
*~<!”, y
3
successors, in lieu of taking away the courts of wards and liveries, and tenures
* capite, and by knight service, be generally charged on all lands.” This was
very much below the real value, but even this moderate charge upon their estates
did not suit the restored landholders; they would pay nothing, although about
to be relieved from a much heavier obligation, and determined to throw the whole
burden upon the people in the shape of the Excise. They were bent upon the
restoration of their privileges, but successfully resisted the restoration of their
obligations, - - - - f
The job was not, however, effected without considerable resistance; the debate
lasted three nights, and many members spoke strongly against the Excise, and in
favour of a tax on land, which they said ought to pay, and not to charge it upon
the poor people by way of Excise. At last the division was taken, when it was
resolved, by 151 against 149, “That the moiety of the Excise of beer, ale, cider,
Perry, and strong waters, at the rate it was now levied, shall be settled on the
King's Majesty, his heirs and successors, in full recompense and satisfaction for
all tenures in capite, and by knight service; and of the court of wards and
liveries; and all emoluments thereby accruing, and in full satisfaction of all
purveyance.” -
Our critic reasons very much after the fashion of the author, who having to
write on “Chinese:Metaphysics,” looked out the articles on “China” and on
* Metaphysics” in the Cyclopedia, and read them both. He says, “the idea that the
Excise was substituted for the profits of the feudal tenures in the way suggested
is shown to be erroneous from the fact that these duties were levied as early as
1643, while the feudal tenures were not abolished until 1645-6.” We do not
know that any “way” has been suggested other than the Act 12, Charles II.,
c. 24; that Act, and the debates upon it, show clearly that the question then was
whether the land or the Excise should bear the burden; and the landlord Parlia-
ment of that day threw off their obligations and transferred them to the nation.
The temporary Excise of the Commonwealth was made permanent at the
Restoration, and for the first time Excise duties, on the people only, were sub-
stituted by Act of Parliament for the obligations, or rents, previously due to the
State. The proceedings of the Long Parliament and of the Commonwealth
were no justification:whatever for the action of the Convention Parliament of
Charles II. The chief blame attaches not to those who first introduced Excise
duties as a temporary expedient, at a period of great disturbance, when in want
of money to pay their troops, but to those who, after peace and order had been
restored, and they had come into undisturbed possession of their estates, made
the Excise perpetual in order to relieve themselves from the obligations which
for centuries had been attached to their lands, and the fulfilment of which was
the condition upon which they held those estates. The proceedings of the Com-
monwealth are no defence for the gross injustice of the Restoration, and we hold
that our description of that injustice is fully warranted by the facts. We must
deter our remarks upon the second portion of Mr. Owen's criticism, which deals
with the Land Tax, until next month,
* - , ' " ... PARP, II. . . . . . . . .
we have traced the history, thus far, of the introduction of the Excise into this
country, and of its substitution for the feudal tenures, and shown clearly that
the unjust transfer of the landlords' burdens to the shoulders of the people was
the work of the aristocracy at the Restoration. Another tax was also imposed
about the same time with the same avowed object, viz., a hearth tax; but that
impost was abolished soon after the Revolution of 1688. We now propose to
deal with the further allegation that our statements as to the Land Tax “are
titterly misleading.”" . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. First, it will'be well to see what our statements are, for our hostile critic does
hot quote them in full; they are “that the Land Tax of four shillings in the
pound; devised as a remedy for that gross legislative iniquity, has been frittered
away to brie of that amount on the value as it stood in 1692, i.e., in many instances
to one of fractions of a farthing on the present value; and that for upwards of
70 years they were exempted from anything in the shape of legacy, probate, and
administration duties, and are now extraordinarily favoured with respect to that
ow successions.” That the liberation of landholders from their burdens at the
expense of the general public, burdens which were the condition upon which they
took and held their estates, was a “gross legislative iniquity” is, in our judgment,
hot open to question; we also hold that no lapse of time can convert wrong into
right. The words in the extract from our Almanack for 1880, printed in italics,
are carefully omitted from Mr. Owen's quotation, but they nevertheless eonstitute
a great aggravation of the original injustice, “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "
“We did not need to be informed-that the Land, Tax, as originally framed,
imposed a tax upon personal property, as well as upon real estate; the “landed
interest,” which had already substituted half the Excise for the feudal tenures,
would certainly have no scruple about attempting to throw some share of the
burden upon personalty when the transfer of the Excise “to other public uses.”
as explained in King William's speech to both Houses on the 25th of November,
1690, rendered another arrangement necessary. It is equally clear that the
question of land versus Excise was discussed in the same year, for during a debate
upon supply, on the 2nd of April, 1690, Sir Richard. Birch.declared himself as
*against all home Excises;” and Mr. Swynfin said, “as to the arguments against
Land Tax, I have been here the best part of twenty years, and, all the projects,
would never do. The way of our ancestors has always been upon land, and they
abhorted Excise and sil other projects. Iwish we prove wiser than they....We
had a war with the Dutch, as now we have with the French, and it was carried
on in no other way but by Land Tax… I am not for saving our lands to enslave
our persons by Excise.”...Notwithstanding the protests of the wisgr members of
the House of Commons, a resolution was agreed to in the Landlord. Parliament.
the the supply be not raised upon land. + - . . . . . . .
5
, Mr. Owen says, the “so-called Land Tax was not, nor were the earlier forms
of taxation from which it was evolved, solely charged on land. On the contrary,
they were universal charges on land and personalty; and it may be remarked
that it taxed a variety of the latter moveable chattels (not used for purposes
of commerce), which now-a-days only pay through the probate and legacy duties.” .
As respects the Land Tax imposed in 1692, it is very doubtful whether it was
ever actually levied upon personal property; one thing, however, is quite certain,
that the attempt to do so was very soon abandoned. The question was referred
to in 1886 before a select committee on agricultural distress, when Mr. John
Wood, the chairman of the Board of Stamps and Taxes, gave evidence that he
could find no record of the mode in which the contribution on personal property
was originally levied, and he arrived at the conclusion" that practical difficulties
arose, and the commissioners were very soon satisfied with laying a rate of the
more tangible property—the land.” The tax then became what it ought to have
been from the first, a tax levied solely upon the land, a reservation, in fact, of
the old feudal rights of the Crown, commuted into a money payment far less
onerous than the original tenures. An evidence that this was the case is afforded
by the first Land Tax of the reign of Anne, for it levied no tax on personal
property. .
•. Whatever else may be in dispute there can be no question that the successive
Land Tax Acts passed annually, from 1692 to 1696, declare as plainly and
unequivocally as words can be made to declare, that the valuation upon which
the rate of 4s. in the pound of yearly rent should be levied, should be the full
true yearly value at the time of making the assessment, and as the Acts were
passed annually the assessment must have been made annually. The plain
intention of the original Land Tax Acts was, however, subsequently defeated by
the practice of fixing annually a specified sum to be collected by means of the -
tax, and care was taken that the specified sum did not exceed the original
amount, or very slightly so. This went on until 1798, when the amount was
made perpetual, with power of redemption. The earlier Acts were perfectly
clear; but in 1697 the new practice of voting the fixed sum was introduced,
which the author of the valuable pamphlet issued by the Anti-Corn Law League,
on the “Constitutional Right to a Revision of the Land Tax,” accurately
describes as “skilfully framed for the purpose of protecting the land and other
real property from paying a tax in proportion to the growing prºfits thereof, and
to transfer the principal part of the burden to personal property.” “The landlords
were defeated in their intention of assessing personal property, and there is every
reason to believe that the cause of their acquiescence in their defeat was the fact
that they did not care to call public attention to their own defiance of the plain
meaning of the Land Tax Act, and to the other fact that they were putting into
their own pockets revenue which was the property of the State.
They succeeded, however, in accomplishing their object by other methods.
The feudal tenures had been abolished and the Land Tax reduced to a minimum,
and the enormous expenditure of the long, bloody, and extravagant wars, into
f
6
which the aristocracy plunged the country, was defrayed at the cost of the people,
not of the landlords, as would have been the case in former days. While care.
fully excluding their own property from its natural and hereditary liability, they
had no scruple whatever about taxing heavily everybody else. Customs and
Excise duties were multiplied, taxes were imposed upon every species of trade,
manufactures, and industry, and personal property was made subject to imposts
which were not placed upon real estate. The corrupt borough-mongers' Par-
liament passed the bill imposing probate, legacy, and administration duties on
personal property, but the bill imposing the succession duty on real property Wºº
withdrawn on account of the inveterate hostility of the great “landed interest.”
In perfect harmony with the great fraud of Charles the Second's Convention
Parliament, heavy taxes were placed upon the necessaries of the poor, in order to
defray the cost of wars which ought to have been provided for out of the land
revenues of the nation. Heavy taxes were imposed on the poor by means of
Excise duties on salt, leather, soap, candles, bricks, tiles, glass, printed cottons,
linens and stuffs, paper-hangings, starch, paper, vinegar, malt, hops and spirits,
while Customs duties were universalºcepting in the case of salmon and lobsters
for the tables of the rich, and of beefºrmutton, and such other articles of food as
were prohibited to the poor, in the interés of the landlords. Almost everything
was taxed except the land, the rentalvi which was augmented by the famine
prices which the wars created. But even worse remained; at the close of the
French war it was resolved that the people should not reap the fruits of peace in
abundance of cheap food; war rents, must be maintained, and, therefore, a
law was passed, at the point of the bayonet, to prevent the people from having
foreign corn unless the price of home-grown wheat was 80s. per quarter. Verily
the tender mercies of the landlords were cruel; but it appears that their mercies
were exhibited towards themselves, while their fiscal cruelties were reserved for
the poor, the ignorant, and the unrepresented. Our space is now exhausted, but
we think we have said engagh not only to justify our declarations in the Financial
Reform Almanack respecting the feudal tenures and the Land Tax, but also the
more emphatic declaration of Richard Cobden, when he warned the landlords
and the aristocracy not to “force the middle and industrious classes to under-
stand how they have been cheated, robbed, and bamboozled upon the subject of
We propose next to consider Mr. Owen's condemnation of the alleged “whole.
contention of the Almanack” respecting the revision of the Land Tax, an argu-
ment which he declares to be “one which ought not to enterinto practical politics.”
but to which we nevertheless firmly adhere. - 4. -
PART III.
We have now to deal with that portion of our critic's censure in which he says,
“The whole contention of the Almanack (p. 26) that landowners of the present
day, even if they have acquired their property by purchase, may be charged with
the same, or the like obligations as (it is alleged) were borne by their predecessors
centuries ago, is one which ought not to enter into practical politics.” In other
words, we presume, the injustice we condemn has existed so long, has about it the
consecration of nearly two centuries, and it would, therefore, now be unjust to do
justice. The so-called “contention” of the Almanack was a plain statement of
historical facts, from which our critic draws the only possible inference, viz.,
that a revision of the Land Tax is imperatively needed, although he says it
should not enter into practical politics. Jet us examine his reasons.
First, he says, “For more than 230 years, land in England has been bought,
sold, mortgaged, settled, and dealt with in every possible way, on the faith that it
shall bear certain burdens of rates, &c., variable in their amount, but applicable
only to fixed objects, and that beyond those, all taxes which the exigencies of the
State require shall be borne by all the property of the country as equally as may
be.” The former portion of this sentence we take to mean that land bears the
burden of local rates, an oft repeated and still cherished delusion, the fallacy of
which we have so frequently exposed in these columns. There is no single rate
in England and Wales, except the sewers rate, that is not paid by the tenant; it
is only in its ultimate incidence that it affects the landlord; the great bulk of the
local taxation falls, moreover, upon the inhabitants of the towns, who are not only
taxed to improve file property of their landlords, but have also to pay increased
rental in consequence of such improvements. In the rural districts also many
of these alleged burdens upon land are the means by which it is made productive
to its owners. The highway rates are much complained of; but what, we should
like to know, would be the value of an estate without highways;
It is, however, with Imperial taxation that we are now more immediately con-
cerned, and we, therefore, propose to enquire how far Mr. Owen's alleged under-
standing that, beyond local rates, “all taxes which the exigencies of the State
require'shall be borne by all the property of the country as equally as maybe"
has been carried out. First, stands the damning fact that the bulk of our Im-
perial taxes are not borne by property at all, but are exacted from the wages of
labour, two-thirds of the revenue raised by customs, excise, stamps and taxes,
being obtained by duties upon commodities falling most heavily upon labour in
relief of property. Then, as respects the remaining taxes, they are not borne by
the property of the country “as equally as may be ;” here again the landed
interest has contrived to get the best of the bargain. The probate duty levied on
personal property has no counterpart in respect to real property; the succession
duty, imposed in 1853 to redress a gross injustice, is assessed upon real property
3 f
at a much lewer rate than upon personal property; real property held by cor-
porations in mortmain contributes nothing to succession duty, although enjoying
the same advantages of State protection as other real property and as personalty;
and the temporary and precarious incomes of the trader, professional man, and
clerk are assessed at the same rate as the permanent incomes of the landlords, the
last in very many cases constantly increasing in value, through the industry of
the community, without any effort on the part of its owners. In every gon-
ceivable and possible way land has been favoured in the matter of taxation in
defiancé of the 236 years' understanding, alleged by our critic, that taxes “shall
be borne by áll the property of the country as equally as may be.”" The great
land tax fraud has been worthily supplemented by a system of Imperial taxation,
by means of which property has thrown the major portion of its just and legitimate
burdens upon poverty. ' ... " - -
But we are told that “to impose a special tax on land at the present day would
disturb that sense of security upon which all property depends for its value.”
why should this be the case, if the special tax, be just 'Surely, this “sense of
security” does not depend upon injustice. The argument would be appropriate
in the mouth of a Tory opposed to any and every reform, but it comes with a very
bad grace from a work issued by the Cobden Club. It was the great argument
used against the disestablishment of the Irish Church; it was employed to defeat
the Commons Preservation Act of the Gladstone Government; it is also employed
to buttress up our iniquitous laid system. We are not aware that anybody pro-.
poses to disregard “vested interests” that have grown up under the"present
system; they will, doubtless, be dealt with tenderly as upéri all previous occa-
sions; but hfe interests being respected, we utterly deny that any sense of security
for property would be destroyed by the resumption by the State of its ancient
and inalienable right in the soil of the kingdom. Replying to a like argument
respecting settlement, Mr. Brodrick asks, “who would suffer by the substitution of
ownership, for life tenancy?” and replies, among others,” not the eldest son, who
must have come into the world, or, at least, emerged from childhood, after the
alteration in the law, and would have been educated in the full-knowledge that
his birthright, if any, was at the disposal of his father.” In like manner there
can be no injustice in a revision of the land tax, which should restore to the State
its ancient revenues, while strictly respecting existing interests; on the contrary,
the perpetuation of injustice, such as the present exemption of land from its just
burdens, is the surest way to impair the sense of security in the value of property.
It is hardly necessary to deal with the economic arguments which have been so
often repeated in our columns. If landlords think they gain in the long run by
shifting the payment of taxes from themselves to trade and industry, they labour
under a most extraordinary delusion. To tax labour heavily is to tax the creation
of wealth, to retard the progress of the nation, and to diminish their own
revenues; Upon economic grounds they should be among the 'indst earnest
advocates of a revision of the Land Tax, for the liberation of industry from
undue fiscal burdens would be the surest way to increase the value of their pro-
perty. So far from the revision of the Land Tax being out of the sphere of
practical politics, it is a question to which landlords may very well direct their
attention, not merely from a sensé of justice towards the community, but from
w ºn an enlightened regard to their own self-interest. “ . . . . . . . . . . . .
February, 1882.
Printed for the Financial Reforw’ Association, so, Lord Street, Liverpool, " '
by M, Hºss, Printer; ag, Thomas Street, Liverpool. ' * . . .

How T.H.E.
PUBLIC MONEY CAME.
AND WENT,



From November, 1688, to April 1880;
HOW IT IS COMING
AND GOING,

From March, 1881, to April 1882.
LIVERPOOL.
THE g|NANCIAL REFORM Association, so, LoRD STREET.
1881.
How THE MONEY CAME AND went.
HOW IT IS COMING AND GOING."
FROM Blue Books recently published, and from other Official Returns
to Parliament, it appears:– -
1st.—That, the Ordinary NET REVENUE, i. e., with Cost of
Collection deducted, for GREAT BRITAIN and IRRLAND in 112 years,
from the REvolution of 1688, down to the UNION in 1800, was
£1,091,830,738, to which CUSTOMs and Excise DUTIES, viz., Taxes on
everything that man could eat, drink, wear, or use, between the
cradle and the grave, or be used for him in or over the grave,
contributed £741,018,390, being £85,919,949 more than THREE-
FIFTHs of the whole amount. w
2nd.—That, within the same period, there was raised by
creation of Debt, the further sum of £978,028,175, making the Total,
Income, ordinary and extraordinary, £2,069,858,915, or upwards of
Two THousAND MILLIONs sterling. -
3rd.—That, during this period of 112 years, the NET ORDINARY
ExPENDITURE, i.e., exclusive of Cost of Collection, was £1,454,270,829,
being £362,440,091, in excess of Ordinary Income; and that, of the
former sum £1,289,788,558, being £43,270,708, more than Six
SEVENTHS of the whole amount, went for ARMY, NAvy, and INTEREST
of DEBT. * *
4th.—That, in the Seventy-nine years from January 5th, 1801,
to March 31st, 1880, the GRoss ORDINARY Income of the UNITED
KINGDom, i. e., without deduction of Cost of Collection, was
£5,078,109,157, to which sum Customs and Excise DUTIEs, though
many have been repealed, and others reduced since 1841, contributed
£3,271,746,481, or £224,880,988, more than THREE-FIFTHs of the
whole amount.
5th-That, during these seventy-nine years, that fiscal monster,
the National Debt has swallowed upwards of Two Thousand millions
sterling, making the total Income, ordinary and extraordinary, con-
siderably more than Eight Thousand millions. The total amount of
that Debt, funded and unfunded, had risen from £502,186,182, in
March 1801, to £778,193,935 in March 1880, in spite of old and new
sinking funds, terminable annuities expiring, spasmodic economies,
and sevKNTY-Four YEARs of peace (exclusive, of course, of “little
wars).” -
. ) 6th.-That, during this period the total Ordinary ExPENDITURE,
i.e., Cost of Collection included, was £5,258,127,398, of which
£4,297,752,859, or £84,029,972, or less than FIVE sixTHs, went for
ARMY, NAVY, and DEBT. -
' ' '7th.—That, taking the two periods together, the total Ordinary
Income from 1688 to 1880, was £6,169,939,895, to which CUSTOMs and
Excise DUTIEs, contributed £4,012,764,871; the total OR prwary
ExPENDITURE, £6,712,398,227, of which £5,587,541,417 went for
ARMY, NAVY, and DEBT. -
7 4.4.2% |
4.….~~ A'. &
%. 24 tº 4/
The details of these stupendous figures, arranged under
separate headings, and in decennial periods, will be found in the
Financial Reform Almanack for 1881.
According to the budget arrangements, for the current financial
year, 1881-2 the INooms is estimated at £85,990,000, to which Customs
and Excise Duties, which press mainly on Trade, and the masses
of the community, are expected to contribute £46,440,000, Stamps
£11,900,000, Income Tax £11,000,000, Land Tax and House Duty
#2,760,000, and Post Office, Telegraph Service, Crown Lands and
Miscellaneous receipts, which are not taxes, £13,890,000. Deducting
this latter sum, the income to be raised by taxes is £72,100,000 of .
which sum £3,180,000 more than THREE-FIFTHs, are to be levied by
Duties of CUSTOMs and Exois R. On the other hand, of the total
Estimated ExPENDITURE, viz. £84,705,000, no less a sum than
£56,274,919, i.e., £3,334,294 more than Frvº-EIGHTHs of the whole
amount, is to be devoted to ARMY, NAVY and DEBT.
The following statement of the proportions borne by sources
of Revenue and Expenditure in each pound of both will afford a
clearer idea of how the money came, and how it went, than any that
can be formed from contemplation of figures which baffle the
imagination :-
3
ORDINARY RECEIPTS FROM ORDINARY ExPENDITUBE Fort
ſt
2- —— → *- —
Cust. & Excise All oth. Bources. War & Debt All oth. purposes.
1st Period, from 1688 to 1801...... 13s. # 6s. 5%d.......17s. 8%d. 2s. 3}d.
2nd , , , § 2, #......}} ſº is ºl......jºs. 133. 3s. 10}d.
3rd sy. » 1871 , , 1881...... 12s. 10%d 7s. 1; d....... 16s, 1}d. 3s. 10+d.
There thus appears to have been some reductions in the relative
proportions ; , but, as to Income, it is to be borne in mind that, besides
Oustoms and Excise Duties, there are many other imposts pressing
hardly upon Trade, Industry and Employment. But the facts that to
overy Pound of Income during the last ten years, from all sources,
including Post Office, Telegraphs and Miscellaneous Receipts, Customs
and Excise Duties contributed 12s., 10%d.,--whilst of every pound
spent, 16s. 1; d. went for ARMY, NAVY and DEBT, are sufficiently
significant of the necessity of fiscal reform. -
From the Norman Conquest, when the country was parcelled
aut between the Crown and the Barons, on feudal conditions, down to
the accession of King Charles II., England paid her way in Peace and
War without contracting a farthing of Debt, because the legislating
&lasses were those who had to fight, and chiefly to pay. But
by the first Parliament of that Monarch all these feudal obligations
were done away with, LANDHoLDERS converting themselves into Land-
owners, and granting the King, “in recompense and satisfaction” for
what were really their own RENTs, Excise Duties on the people for
9Wör.
. . Under this new system, there was contracted by Charles II. a ºr
“King's Debt,” which at the accession of William III., amounted to
H
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
iſſil ',
– - . . a sº-º. 1
39015 O7787.9339 -
3:664,263, and was then converted into a NATIONAL DEBT. By the
introduction of the funding or mortgaging system, then invented and
still continued, this Debt grew rapidly, and amounted on the 31st of
March, 1880, to £778,193,935, although, since 1688, there has been
aid for Principal, Interest, and Management nearly THREE THousAND
§: HUNDRED MILLIONS STERLING.
In the year 1692 there was imposed a tax of four Shillings in
the Pound on the full annual value of all Land and Real Property,
which continues nominally to this day. During the whole reign of
William III. from 1688 to 1702, including four years before the
imposition of this tax, the entire Public Revenue from Taxes and
Loans amounted to £72,047,359; and to this sum the Land Tax
contributed £19,174,054, or considerably more than a FourTH part.
Ry subsequent legislation, as honest as that of 1660, it has been
frittered away into meaning only four shilling on the value as it stood
in 1692, so that in some parts of the country the four shillings are now
represented by fractions of a farthing; and, in the financial year
ending March 31st, 1880, its whole produce was £1,047,076, being
less than a SEVENTY-SEVENTH part of the whole Revenue for that
year, instead of much more than a FourTH, as in the reign of
William and Mary.
Contemplating such facts as these, who will doubt that Richard
Cobden had abundant reason for saying, as he did at Covent Garden
Theatre in 1845, “I warn the Aristocracy not to force the people to
look into the subject of Taxation—not to force them to see how they
have been robbed, plundered and bamboozled for ages by them.”
Who will question that it is high time for the people to look into this
matter, seeing that notwithstanding their infamous Land Tax Juggle,
their exemption from anything in the shape of Legacy or Probate
1)uty for the best part of a century,+their frittering away of the
Succession Duty imposed by Mr. Gladstone in 1854,-and their.
continued exemption from the Administration and Probate Duties
imposed on Personal Property—the landed and aristocratic interests
never lose an opportunity of getting still more of their own proper
purdens thrown on the shoulders of the people? Is it not high time
we repeat, that they should be compelled to bear their due share of
the national expenses 2
To Tax Trade and Industry, and exempt themselves, has been
the uniform persistent policy of the landed aristocracy, whenever they
Have been in power; and that not only before the passing of the
Teform Bill in 1832, when they possessed what was virtually a
monopoly of political influence in the State, but equally so, and quite
as offensively, ever since. It may be that even after all the experience
the nation has had, it requires a little 'more general education in the
principles of a sound political economy, and a little sharper twinge
and touch of the imperial bit and spur, to rouse it to a full sense of
its rights and wrongs, in this all important matter of finance. But
most assuredly people's eyes will not remain much longer closed.