The Express.
London, England, 1852-03-09 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY; MARCH 9.

Tin statement of the Pattie. MINNTER, that, in
his present opieimi,eorn, when imported, ought to be
tared, and his farmer conduct when he helped
to levy an income-tax in order to lessen Customs du-
ties, are so much at variance with each other that wo
are driven to believe that his mind on the subject of
taxation is a mere chaos. Other stateamen, and
not a few public writers, arc equally at fault. Tax•
atiun is subject apparently to no rules: it may be
anything that a minister imagines will bring as
much money u he desires to waste under his control;
and, totally distinct from all the works of nature and
all the products of art, has no rules but the caprice
of statesmen. Hence our system of taxation is a
great jumble of direct and indirect taxation, and
sometimes the one branch is indignantly curtailed, as
by abolishing a window-tax, and at other times the
other branch his something lopped utf by abolishing
a wool duty.
In this chaos, however. there is one principle
which, kept steadily in view, will guide us correctly
through many difficulties. Whatever may be the
form of a building, if the principle of gravity be
carefully attended to in putting together all its
materials, it will last for ages; and what gravity is
to a building the principle that every tax should
take as small a sum as possible from the people be-
yond the suns it brings into the public treasury is to
taxation. Accordingly, if ono tax levies 1201. on
the people, and nets only NM to the Treasury, and
if another yields 100/. to the Treasury, and only takes
101!, from the people, we may be quite sure that the
latter is in all respects,—as freer from restriction and
corruption,—the preferable tax. There is no more
discord, in fact, in the principles of taxation than in
the principles of building, and a tax which costs
11l per cent. more than another is es injurious to a
state as a beam which, by its weight, helps as a
lever to tumble a building to the ground. The
whole of human existence would not suffice duly
to consider all the possible contingencies which the
imagineion can conjure up. and man would stand
uncertain and bewildered if he might not follow with
full reliance every path to its end which begins in
truth. righteousness, and justice.
Now, the direct taxation which Lord DEBBY helped
to establish in 1812, though it is not well organised,
is levied, according to the Finance Accounts for
18.10, class 1, No. 1, at the rate of 31. 3s. 33d. per cent.,
while the Customs duties, which Lord DERBY now
proposes to extend, cost 51. 15s. 80. per cent.
Stamps cost still less to collect than the assessed and
income taxes, according to the Treasury account only
ill. :6. 71d. per cent : but that does not express the
whole cost of levying stamp duties to the people;
while tho 3/. 3s. 3.1 d. does, or at least might,
express the whole cost of levying the E-
rect taxes. Every 1004 then, gathered by
the Customs costs the people 105/. IJs. Nil, ac-
cording to the statement of the Treasure, while
every 100/. collected by the income and. assessed
taxes costs only 1031. 3s. 31d. But the net Customs
duties amount to 20,442,1704 while the net amount
of the assessed and income taxes is only 9,743,215/.
Before the income-tax was imposed, when the
Customs duties were levied at a charge of 5/.134.5d.
per cent., it cost .d. 10s. 3d. per cent. to levy
4,800,0004 of assessed taxes. Though the amount
was more than doubled by the income-tax, the cost
of collection was only increased from 308,529/. to
321,4231. It is clear that double the present amount
of direct taxes, or even ten times the amount, could
be raised without any considerable increase of the
cost of collection. Wo must consider, therefore, that
the cost of collecting an amount of direct taxes
twice as great as at present would not exceed the
present cost, and the real difference in the cost at
which each 1001. of the cusbms and 100/. of the direct
taxes might be levied, supposing the sum levied by
both species of taxation were equal, is about 44 4s.
per cont.
Twenty millions of direct taxes levied at the pre-
sent cost of levying ten millions would be 11. 11x.
per cent., which deducted from .1/. las. leaves 4/. 4s.
as the difference. As the taxes are now imperfectly
organised, the people pay 21. 12s. Id. to collect 1004
by the Customs more than they pay to collect 1001.
by direct taxes. Taking, however, only the present
otBcial difference, which gives but a faint and feeble
image of tho reality, if the amount now levied by
Customs and Excise duties, 38,000,0004, were levied
by direct taxation, the public would save at least
990,0001. per annum. That sum would enable the
state, without in any degree lessening the efficienty
of its services, to abolish the paper duties or the
soap duties. What an immense advantage would
accrue from liberating either of these branches of
industry from the Excise we need not now stop to
state : but that immense advantage might be gained
by merely substituting direct for indirect taxation
without losing a sixpence of revenue.
In fact, however, the official statement gives a
very imperfect account of the national loss caused
by indirect taxation. We are indebted to the Liver-
pool Financial Reform Association for a complete
account of the cost of levying the tea duties, from
which we rosy infer the general cost of levying
Customs duties. The result of its calculations, which
will be found in a tract recently published by that
praiseworthy body, is that the tea duty, which
yields 5,273,8301. to the Exchequer, actually takes
from the public 7,521,7984; or it costs to collect
5.273,8304, no Ices than 2,247,9684, or upwards of
50 per cent. The tea duties arc levied as cheaply,
and cause as little embarrassment to trade, as
any Customs duties. We may therefore affirm of all
Customs duties that, like the tea duties, they
actually cost 50 per cent. to levy them, or take one-
third more out of the pockets of the people than they
yield to the Exchequer. Yet this wantonly wasteful
plan of taxation is to be extended by Lord DERRY,
if the enlightened public will permit him, and the
plan which he unwittingly supported in 1842, of sub-
stituting direct for indirect taxation, is to be over-
turned.

Them is a surplus revenue, and Lord DEIST, not
requiring any additional funds, can only eentemplate
the extension of the duties as corn es a better means
than the present of levying the necessary revenue,
not as a means of increasing it. He must contemp-
late, therefore, abolishing some other taxes in lieu of
the new taxes he is to impose on food. Ile is to have
a new system of finance, let us try to sketch an outline
of its extent. The lowest rate of duty which would
satisfy the protectionists may be assumed to be 7a
per quarter for wheat, and in proportion
for oats and barley, and 4s. for peas, beans, Indian
corn, &c. Now, there were imported last year
5,0444,914 quarters of wheat and Boar, which
at 7s. per quarter would yield a revenue of
2,045,730/.; of barley, oats, and rye together,
2,070,500 qrs., which, at a duty of 6e, would yield
617,6401.; and 2,142,807 qrs. of peas, beans, Indian
coni, &c., which, at a duty of 4s.,would yield 428,661/.
Altogether, without including taxes on seeds, pota-
toes, cattle, &c., which must be imposed if the rela-
tive advantages of the different species of cultivation
are not to bo deranged, and the whole agriculture of
the nation thrown into confusion, the matter would
stand thus :

iiiiitataTsti Boar. ... 6,844,944 qrs. at 76. C 2,048,730
Barley aad oats .... 2,070,660 qn. at as. 617,640
Peas and beans .... 2,142,807 qn. at 40. 428,661

Total
Now, uwe may assume that the 480,000/. now
raised by the Is. duty on wheat, &c.. would be ba-
lanced by the duties on seeds, &c., we may conclude
that Lord DERBY would raise at least 3,000,0001.
annuallysby a new species of indirect taxation. Ile
might possibly contemplate, with such a sum in his.
possession, the abolition of the malt duties; but as
that tax, with duties on foreign corn, would then all
fall into the pockets of the landlords, such a scheme
would never be sanctioned by the intelligent public
to whom the noble lord is to defer. Of course, ho
would not abolish other Customs duties ; he would
therefore be obliged to fall back on some direct taxes,
and probably would gratify the opulent classes, not
by modifying, but by repealing, the property and
Immo tax. Thoa ha would aabstitete a tax 001.