The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-04-05 00:00:00

Eibtrpoof .-!Dtattbarb,

TUESDAY MORNING, APRIL 5, 1853.

DIRECT TAXATION.

THEME is an unmitigated selfishness and positive
dishonesty in the advocacy, by the organs of Libe-
ralism% of a system of direct taxation, as the means of
.raising the National Revenue. :If it were really de-
-signed to impose on everyman anamount of taxation
proportionate to his means, such a system would
still be open to grave objections,..and none would
be •more violently opposed to it than those who are
mow the most clamorous for its adoption. This is,
however, not the intention of the present agitators.
By direct taxation they mean a system which shall
press- upon all the upper classes, and leave untaxed
the great bulk of those who constitute the majority
of theßerough electors. This favoured class is to
receiveallt he benefit:from the remission of Customs
and Excise duties, and yet pay none of •the equiva-
lent which is so eagerly advocated to be-iubstituted
for it. By the system of exemptions, almost in-
separable €r©m any system of direct taxation, the
possessors .of incomes below £l5O claim freedom
from that portion of the public burdens,; and though
it is a favourite axiom of the Liberalisers that
taxation and representation should go together, we
had a proof of their honesty when the late CHAN..
CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER'S proposition to levy
the house tax down to £lO a-year was rejected.
This was a proposition to which we strongly ob-
jected, from very different motives ; but it was
positive dishonesty in those who advocated the
application of the system to other classes. The
men belonging to the latter class obtained a large
share of political power by the Reform Act, and
the use they make of it is to free themselves at
the expense of those above them. We cannot be-
lieve that any system of direct taxation would be
so equitable as that of indirect, which levies upon
each consumer an amount proportionate to his ex-
tent of consumption; but, supposing that it should
be adopted, whether by way of Income-tax or House-
duty, it would be the height of injustice to exempt
any man who claims to enjoy the privilege of the
franchise. In that case, however, it would be a
species of political suicide, for the effect would be
to throw the whole of the burden on a portion of
our own countrymen; whereas, by a judicious
system of Customs duties upon imported goods, a
part of the burden is borne by the foreign producer.
It has been found, in numerous instances, that a
reduction or abolition of duty on importation has
enhanced the price of the commodity to the profit
of the foreigner, and consequently the injury of our
own people.—lf French brandy, with a duty of 15s.
a gallon, can now enter into competition with
British made spirit§ paying about half that amount,
what would be the prospect for the latter, if both
were upon an equality ? Even in some of the Excise
duties the public are benefited, as in the instance
of the Malt duty, which is now paid without com-
plaint by beer drinkers, while its abolition would
render necessary a doubling of the present Income-
tax. So long as indirect taxation can be made
available for national requirements, without crippling
the springs of industry, or:unnecessarily depriving
the public of the means of enjoying those luxuries
of foreign growth which custom has made necessaries,
it is impossible to devise a system which will press
with more equality and prove less burdensome. Direct
taxation should only be resorted to under an emer-
gency such as we trust we may long be spaieo from;