The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-08 00:00:00

MR. 'ERNEST JONES ON DIRECT
TAXATION.

The Manchester school has issued a .financial pro-

gramme in favour of direct taxation, much Of it,
like the corn-law repeal agitation, very good as far
as it goes, hut practically merely a decoy to draw
the people off the right political scent. For this
purpose the financialistspecches are highly spiced
with political allusions. We are told that we have
a class Parliament, that the rich impose taxes to
suit themselve, and spend them to subserve their
own interests. All very true. But if the asser-
tion proves anything, it is manifestly the necessity
of an alteration in the electoral law, and that a

financial reform agitation before a suffrage agita-
tion is simply putting the cart before the horse.
But we will suppose that by getting up a great
agitation under false pretences Messrs. Bright and
Cobden could force from Government a reform in
the system of taxation, of what benefit do the
working classes suppose this would be to them ? I
repeat that the result could be obtained only by
holding out false hopes to the people—hopes of
plenty of work,- high wages, and cheap food.
Would these, I ask, flew from direct taxation, or
even from Government ? Nothing of the kind, un-
less other and most radical reforms accompanied the
financial change. Labour, like everything else in
this country, up to the very soul of man (as witness
the sale of livings and patronage), is an article of
barter. If taxation decreases in amount. prices
fall in amount; and if prices fall in amount, wages
do not remain stationary—they fall in proportion.
Invariable experience has proved this. Nay, the
presumption from such experience is, that they fall
disproportionately. Of what avail to the working
classes is, then, low taxation and cheap Govern-
ment, unless the demand for labour be increased, or
the supply of labour diminished ? Not the slight-
est. I now come to another point.
There is not a greater bugbear in the world than
this said one of taxation. Suppose that a country
depended on and existed on its home trade entirely,
that it supplied all its own wants, it would not make
the least difference to the people as a whole, or to
the working classes in particular, whether taxation
were high or Low. A certain amount of purchasing
power implies the employment of a certain amount
of labour power, and whether that purchasing
power be in the hands of A or B makes no other
difference to C. who, I will assume, represents the
working man, than that lie would hare to supply
his labour to A instead of B, or to B instead of A,
according to the amount of taxation and the appli-
cation of its proceeds. It is only in as far as °fo-
releg' trade or competition with foreign countries
is :ffected by taxation that an influence for good
or evil can be exercised towards the working.
claSses. But how will a change to direct taxation
operate on the British working man ? It cannot
alter his condition in the least, unless accompanied
by a reduction in the amount of taxation to a very
serious degree ; and it will not benefit him oven
then, unless, as I have already said, other and very
great social changes • accompany the measure. If
cheap Government were to accompany direct taxa-
-1 tion, that is 'if, in other words, the amount of
taxation were to be reduced, the British manufac-
turer would, without a doubt, be able to compete
more easily with the foreign manufacturer. If, in
such a case, the British employer reduced the price
of his goods, the working man would gain nothing
(subject to a reservation I shall make below) ; for
with the reduced prices the employer would not be
in a better position to pay higher wages than at
present. If, on the other hand, the employer did
not reduce the price of his goods, his profits would
be increased, although his market would not be
extended, there would be no increased demand for
labour at home. The labour surplus would there-
fore remain the same, and it is the labour surplus,
not the master's profit, that regulates the price of
labour. But I will suppose that the employer
lowers the price of his goods. In that case he
would certainly either increase his market,
or, at least, prevent its decrease through
foreign competition as rapidly as would other-
wise 'occur. This brings me to the reserva-
tion I have alluded to above. The point. re-
served is, that, according to a superficial view, al-
though there might be no rise in wages, there
might yet be an increase of employment, or at least
a diminution of employinent might be prevented for
a time. This I readily admit is possible, but the
benefit would be of the most transitory kind, since
foreign competition would rapidly " overtake" the
advantage, if I may use such an expression, and the
increased development of machine power would
neutralise the demand for labour.
The benefit accruing to the working classes
would be therefore of the most infinitesimal kind
and of the most transitory nature. It is doubtful,
more than doubtful, whether any benefit would
accrue, because the employer would probably prefer
making large profits on his present amount of busi-
ness to extending his business by lowering his
prices ; in which case, although small capitalists
(or large ones as competition grew fiercer) would
certainly:proceed at last to reduce prices, that they
might undersell each other, yet some time would
elapse before this took place, and that time would
be filled by the increased development of machinery,
which would neutralise the direct benefit that
would accrue to the working man.
It will be seen from the above remarks that I
am decidedly in favour of direct taxation, but
I feel convinced, if the working classes expel)
any tangible benefit, any benefit worth an agi-
tation, any benefit equivalent to an abandon-
meet of suffrage-agitation, to result from Mr.
Bright's scheme, they are vastly mistaken. The en-
tire scheme is in the interest of the employing classes
only ; and this disadvantage would attend its suc-
cess, that they, having accomplished what they de-
sired for themselves, would say not another word
about the enfranchisement of the masses of the
people.
It may be said that in the above I admit that a
system of direct taxation will not injure the work-
ing man, and must benefit the manufacturing em-
ployer. Be it so; my object simply is, not to oppose
direct taxation, but to show the working classes that
Mr. Bright's taxation movement is not worth em-
barking in to the exclusion of that to them vastly
more important work, a reform in our electoral

THE BRIBERY PROCEEDINGS AT

2 OP. TVICK

The Norwich town council, at a special meeting
held on Tuesday afternoon, well sustained the inte-
rest of the proceedings 'instituted with a view to
the repression of bribery in that city. The meeting
was convened by a requisition to the Mayor, signed
by three Liberal and three Conservative councillors.
Mr. Sims Reeve, a member of the Liberal party,
moved a resolution to .the effect that the peace and
welfare of the city would be best promoted by the
cessation of political strife, and that, with a view to
the attainment of that object, further legal proceed-
ings against Mr. Henry Croxford, Mr. Albert J.
Collins, and others, for conspiracy be stayed. Mr.
Reeve supported this motion in a speech of con-
siderable length, his two main arguments being—
first, that it would promote the peace and welfare
of the citizens generally to stop the inquiry com-
menced into the alleged attempts to corrupt Mr.
Joel Fox (which he denounced as a party prosecu-
tion got up by the Liberals against the Conserva-
tives) ; and secondly, that the funds at the disposal
of the council could not be applied to the support
of the proceedings. Mr. Reeve, referring' to the
refusal of Mr. Harvey, the banker, to answer the
questions addressed to him, said it arose from a be-
lief that it was his duty -as a commercial man not
to violate the confidence reposed in him by his
customers ; •so far from Mr. • Harvey being a
party man, he had scarcely ever Toted at all
in municipal or Parliamentary elections, • his
whole attention being devoted to commercial
pursuits. Mr. Field seconded the motion, and,i
while expressing an abhorrence of bribery, said he
must deprecate the prosecution of one particular
offence at the expense of the city. Lord Bury and
Mr. bchneider, he added, offered on the evening
before the sitting of the Committee of the House of
Commons by whom they were unseated to bribe Sir
Samuel Bignold, their Conservative opponent, with
the view of inducing him to withdraw his case.
This had been stated publicly in the papers, and
had not been denied by Lord Bury or Mr. Schnei-
der, but the Liberal party in the council had never
said a word about it. The council, he contended,
ought to ask themselves whether as•party ram they
could prosecute cases of bribery. with clean hands,
and he believed they had much better. apply them=
selves to The consideration of some plans to prevent
for the future the disgraceful state of things which
had prevailed. Mr. Gibson, in moving an amend-
ment to Mr. Reeve's resolution, to the effect that
the council belieVed that tire due administration of
justice was essential to the peace and welfare of
Norwich, and that the prosecution should, them
fore, be proceeded with, asked—was there uo
honour or regard for public virtue and morality
left in the council ? A great deal had been said
about the cessation of political sti ife ; but what was
he to understand by the phrase ? II id Samuel
Bignold Withdrawn his opposition as regards; the
coming election next spring? " Have you, Sir
• Samuel ?" said the speaker pointedly, amid much
laughter. Sir Samuel Bignold, amid renewed mer-
riment, replied, " Why, I had it over with you the
other day, and you concurred with me ;" to which
Mr. Gibson replied, " What you read to me as the,
basis of a proper understanding I assented to, but
you -told me the other day that it was not
entered into at aIL" Mr. Gibson resuming his
argument in support of the_amendment, said there
could be no pcnoe without purity, and therefore let