<p>In Great Britain, from the time that we had first recourse to the ruinous
expedient of perpetual funding, the reduction of the public debt, in time
of peace, has never borne any proportion to its accumulation in time of
war. It was in the war which began in 1668, and was concluded by the
treaty of Ryswick, in 1697, that the foundation of the present enormous
debt of Great Britain was first laid.</p>
<p>On the 31st of December 1697, the public debts of Great Britain, funded
and unfunded, amounted to �21,515,742:13:8�. A great part of those debts
had been contracted upon short anticipations, and some part upon annuities
for lives; so that, before the 31st of December 1701, in less than four
years, there had partly been paid off; and partly reverted to the public,
the sum of �5,121,041:12:0�d; a greater reduction of the public debt than
has ever since been brought about in so short a period of time. The
remaining debt, therefore, amounted only to �16,394,701:1:7�d.</p>
<p>In the war which began in 1702, and which was concluded by the treaty of
Utrecht, the public debts were still more accumulated. On the 31st of
December 1714, they amounted to �53,681,076:5:6�. The subscription into
the South-sea fund, of the short and long annuities, increased the capital
of the public debt; so that, on the 31st of December 1722, it amounted to
�55,282,978:1:3 5/6. The reduction of the debt began in 1723, and went on
so slowly, that, on the 31st of December 1739, during seventeen years-of
profound peace, the whole sum paid off was no more than �8,328,554:17:11
3/12, the capital of the public debt, at that time, amounting to
�46,954,623:3:4 7/12.</p>
<p>The Spanish war, which began in 1739, and the French war which soon
followed it, occasioned a further increase of the debt, which, on the 31st
of December 1748, after the war had been concluded by the treaty of
Aix-la-Chapelle, amounted to �78,293,313:1:10�. The most profound peace,
of 17 years continuance, had taken no more than �8,328,354, 17:11� from
it. A war, of less than nine years continuance, added �31,338,689:18: 6
1/6 to it. {See James Postlethwaite's History of the Public Revenue.}</p>
<p>During the administration of Mr. Pelham, the interest of the public debt
was reduced, or at least measures were taken for reducing it, from four to
three per cent.; the sinking fund was increased, and some part of the
public debt was paid off. In 1755, before the breaking out of the late
war, the funded debt of Great Britain amounted to �72,289,675. On the 5th
of January 1763, at the conclusion of the peace, the funded debt amounted
debt to �122,603,336:8:2�. The unfunded debt has been stated at
�13,927,589:2:2. But the expense occasioned by the war did not end with
the conclusion of the peace; so that, though on the 5th of January 1764,
the funded debt was increased (partly by a new loan, and partly by funding
a part of the unfunded debt) to �129,586,789:10:1�, there still remained
(according to the very well informed author of Considerations on the Trade
and Finances of Great Britain) an unfunded debt, which was brought to
account in that and the following year, of �9,975,017: 12:2 15/44d. In
1764, therefore, the public debt of Great Britain, funded and unfunded
together, amounted, according to this author, to �139,561,807:2:4. The
annuities for lives, too, which had been granted as premiums to the
subscribers to the new loans in 1757, estimated at fourteen years
purchase, were valued at �472,500; and the annuities for long terms of
years, granted as premiums likewise, in 1761 and 1762, estimated at
twenty-seven and a-half years purchase, were valued at �6,826,875. During
a peace of about seven years continuance, the prudent and truly patriotic
administration of Mr. Pelham was not able to pay off an old debt of six
millions. During a war of nearly the same continuance, a new debt of more
than seventy-five millions was contracted.</p>
<p>On the 5th of January 1775, the funded debt of Great Britain amounted to
�124,996,086, 1:6�d. The unfunded, exclusive of a large civil-list debt,
to �4,150,236:3:11 7/8. Both together, to �129,146,322:5:6. According to
this account, the whole debt paid off, during eleven years of profound
peace, amounted only to �10,415,476:16:9 7/8. Even this small reduction of
debt, however, has not been all made from the savings out of the ordinary
revenue of the state. Several extraneous sums, altogether independent of
that ordinary revenue, have contributed towards it. Amongst these we may
reckon an additional shilling in the pound land tax, for three years; the
two millions received from the East-India company, as indemnification for
their territorial acquisitions; and the one hundred and ten thousand
pounds received from the bank for the renewal of their charter. To these
must be added several other sums, which, as they arose out of the late
war, ought perhaps to be considered as deductions from the expenses of it.
The principal are,</p>
<p>The produce of French prizes.............. �690,449: 18: 9<br/>
Composition for French prisoners......... 670,000: 0: 0<br/>
<br/>
What has been received from the sale<br/>
of the ceded islands......................... 95,500: 0: 0<br/>
<br/>
Total, .....................................�1,455,949: 18: 9<br/></p>
<p>If we add to this sum the balance of the earl of Chatham's and Mr.
Calcraft's accounts, and other army savings of the same kind, together
with what has been received from the bank, the East-India company, and the
additional shilling in the pound land tax, the whole must be a good deal
more than five millions. The debt, therefore, which, since the peace, has
been paid out of the savings from the ordinary revenue of the state, has
not, one year with another, amounted to half a million a-year. The sinking
fund has, no doubt, been considerably augmented since the peace, by the
debt which had been paid off, by the reduction of the redeemable four per
cents to three per cents, and by the annuities for lives which have fallen
in; and, if peace were to continue, a million, perhaps, might now be
annually spared out of it towards the discharge of the debt. Another
million, accordingly, was paid in the course of last year; but at the same
time, a large civil-list debt was left unpaid, and we are now involved in
a new war, which, in its progress, may prove as expensive as any of our
former wars. {It has proved more expensive than any one of our former
wars, and has involved us in an additional debt of more than one hundred
millions. During a profound peace of eleven years, little more than ten
millions of debt was paid; during a war of seven years, more than one
hundred millions was contracted.} The new debt which will probably be
contracted before the end of the next campaign, may, perhaps, be nearly
equal to all the old debt which has been paid off from the savings out of
the ordinary revenue of the state. It would be altogether chimerical,
therefore, to expect that the public debt should ever be completely
discharged, by any savings which are likely to be made from that ordinary
revenue as it stands at present.</p>
<p>The public funds of the different indebted nations of Europe, particularly
those of England, have, by one author, been represented as the
accumulation of a great capital, superadded to the other capital of the
country, by means of which its trade is extended, its manufactures are
multiplied, and its lands cultivated and improved, much beyond what they
could have been by means of that other capital only. He does not consider
that the capital which the first creditors of the public advanced to
government, was, from the moment in which he advanced it, a certain
portion of the annual produce, turned away from serving in the function of
a capital, to serve in that of a revenue; from maintaining productive
labourers, to maintain unproductive ones, and to be spent and wasted,
generally in the course of the year, without even the hope of any future
reproduction. In return for the capital which they advanced, they
obtained, indeed, an annuity of the public funds, in most cases, of more
than equal value. This annuity, no doubt, replaced to them their capital,
and enabled them to carry on their trade and business to the same, or,
perhaps, to a greater extent than before; that is, they were enabled,
either to borrow of other people a new capital, upon the credit of this
annuity or, by selling it, to get from other people a new capital of their
own, equal, or superior, to that which they had advanced to government.
This new capital, however, which they in this manner either bought or
borrowed of other people, must have existed in the country before, and
must have been employed, as all capitals are, in maintaining productive
labour. When it came into the hands of those who had advanced their money
to government, though it was, in some respects, a new capital to them, it
was not so to the country, but was only a capital withdrawn from certain
employments, in order to be turned towards others. Though it replaced to
them what they had advanced to government, it did not replace it to the
country. Had they not advanced this capital to government, there would
have been in the country two capitals, two portions of the annual produce,
instead of one, employed in maintaining productive labour.</p>
<p>When, for defraying the expense of government, a revenue is raised within
the year, from the produce of free or unmortgaged taxes, a certain portion
of the revenue of private people is only turned away from maintaining one
species of unproductive labour, towards maintaining another. Some part of
what they pay in those taxes, might, no doubt, have been accumulated into
capital, and consequently employed in maintaining productive labour; but
the greater part would probably have been spent, and consequently employed
in maintaining unproductive labour. The public expense, however, when
defrayed in this manner, no doubt hinders, more or less, the further
accumulation of new capital; but it does not necessarily occasion the
destruction of any actually-existing capital.</p>
<p>When the public expense is defrayed by funding, it is defrayed by the
annual destruction of some capital which had before existed in the
country; by the perversion of some portion of the annual produce which had
before been destined for the maintenance of productive labour, towards
that of unproductive labour. As in this case, however, the taxes are
lighter than they would have been, had a revenue sufficient for defraying
the same expense been raised within the year; the private revenue of
individuals is necessarily less burdened, and consequently their ability
to save and accumulate some part of that revenue into capital, is a good
deal less impaired. If the method of funding destroys more old capital,
it, at the same time, hinders less the accumulation or acquisition of new
capital, than that of defraying the public expense by a revenue raised
within the year. Under the system of funding, the frugality and industry
of private people can more easily repair the breaches which the waste and
extravagance of government may occasionally make in the general capital of
the society.</p>
<p>It is only during the continuance of war, however, that the system of
funding has this advantage over the other system. Were the expense of war
to be defrayed always by a revenue raised within the year, the taxes from
which that extraordinary revenue was drawn would last no longer than the
war. The ability of private people to accumulate, though less during the
war, would have been greater during the peace, than under the system of
funding. War would not necessarily have occasioned the destruction of any
old capitals, and peace would have occasioned the accumulation of many
more new. Wars would, in general, be more speedily concluded, and less
wantonly undertaken. The people feeling, during continuance of war, the
complete burden of it, would soon grow weary of it; and government, in
order to humour them, would not be under the necessity of carrying it on
longer than it was necessary to do so. The foresight of the heavy and
unavoidable burdens of war would hinder the people from wantonly calling
for it when there was no real or solid interest to fight for. The seasons
during which the ability of private people to accumulate was somewhat
impaired, would occur more rarely, and be of shorter continuance. Those,
on the contrary, during which that ability was in the highest vigour would
be of much longer duration than they can well be under the system of
funding.</p>
<p>When funding, besides, has made a certain progress, the multiplication of
taxes which it brings along with it, sometimes impairs as much the ability
of private people to accumulate, even in time of peace, as the other
system would in time of war. The peace revenue of Great Britain amounts at
present to more than ten millions a-year. If free and unmortgaged, it
might be sufficient, with proper management, and without contracting a
shilling of new debt, to carry on the most vigorous war. The private
revenue of the inhabitants of Great Britain is at present as much
incumbered in time of peace, their ability to accumulate is as much
impaired, as it would have been in the time of the most expensive war, had
the pernicious system of funding never been adopted.</p>
<p>In the payment of the interest of the public debt, it has been said, it is
the right hand which pays the left. The money does not go out of the
country. It is only a part of the revenue of one set of the inhabitants
which is transferred to another; and the nation is not a farthing the
poorer. This apology is founded altogether in the sophistry of the
mercantile system; and, after the long examination which I have already
bestowed upon that system, it may, perhaps, be unnecessary to say anything
further about it. It supposes, besides, that the whole public debt is
owing to the inhabitants of the country, which happens not to be true; the
Dutch, as well as several other foreign nations, having a very
considerable share in our public funds. But though the whole debt were
owing to the inhabitants of the country, it would not, upon that account,
be less pernicious.</p>
<p>Land and capital stock are the two original sources of all revenue, both
private and public. Capital stock pays the wages of productive labour,
whether employed in agriculture, manufactures, or commerce. The management
of those two original sources of revenue belongs to two different sets of
people; the proprietors of land, and the owners or employers of capital
stock.</p>
<p>The proprietor of land is interested, for the sake of his own revenue, to
keep his estate in as good condition as he can, by building and repairing
his tenants houses, by making and maintaining the necessary drains and
inclosures, and all those other expensive improvements which it properly
belongs to the landlord to make and maintain. But, by different land
taxes, the revenue of the landlord may be so much diminished, and, by
different duties upon the necessaries and conveniencies of life, that
diminished revenue may be rendered of so little real value, that he may
find himself altogether unable to make or maintain those expensive
improvements. When the landlord, however, ceases to do his part, it is
altogether impossible that the tenant should continue to do his. As the
distress of the landlord increases, the agriculture of the country must
necessarily decline.</p>
<p>When, by different taxes upon the necessaries and conveniencies of life,
the owners and employers of capital stock find, that whatever revenue they
derive from it, will not, in a particular country, purchase the same
quantity of those necessaries and conveniencies which an equal revenue
would in almost any other, they will be disposed to remove to some other.
And when, in order to raise those taxes, all or the greater part of
merchants and manufacturers, that is, all or the greater part of the
employers of great capitals, come to be continually exposed to the
mortifying and vexatious visits of the tax-gatherers, this disposition to
remove will soon be changed into an actual removing. The industry of the
country will necessarily fall with the removal of the capital which
supported it, and the ruin of trade and manufactures will follow the
declension of agriculture.</p>
<p>To transfer from the owners of those two great sources of revenue, land,
and capital stock, from the persons immediately interested in the good
condition of every particular portion of land, and in the good management
of every particular portion of capital stock, to another set of persons
(the creditors of the public, who have no such particular interest ), the
greater part of the revenue arising from either, must, in the long-run,
occasion both the neglect of land, and the waste or removal of capital
stock. A creditor of the public has, no doubt, a general interest in the
prosperity of the agriculture, manufactures, and commerce of the country;
and consequently in the good condition of its land, and in the good
management of its capital stock. Should there be any general failure or
declension in any of these things, the produce of the different taxes
might no longer be sufficient to pay him the annuity or interest which is
due to him. But a creditor of the public, considered merely as such, has
no interest in the good condition of any particular portion of land, or in
the good management of any particular portion of capital stock. As a
creditor of the public, he has no knowledge of any such particular
portion. He has no inspection of it. He can have no care about it. Its
ruin may in some cases be unknown to him, and cannot directly affect him.</p>
<p>The practice of funding has gradually enfeebled every state which has
adopted it. The Italian republics seem to have begun it. Genoa and Venice,
the only two remaining which can pretend to an independent existence, have
both been enfeebled by it. Spain seems to have learned the practice from
the Italian republics, and (its taxes being probably less judicious than
theirs) it has, in proportion to its natural strength, been-still more
enfeebled. The debts of Spain are of very old standing. It was deeply in
debt before the end of the sixteenth century, about a hundred years before
England owed a shilling. France, notwithstanding all its natural
resources, languishes under an oppressive load of the same kind. The
republic of the United Provinces is as much enfeebled by its debts as
either Genoa or Venice. Is it likely that, in Great Britain alone, a
practice, which has brought either weakness or dissolution into every
other country, should prove altogether innocent?</p>
<p>The system of taxation established in those different countries, it may be
said, is inferior to that of England. I believe it is so. But it ought to
be remembered, that when the wisest government has exhausted all the
proper subjects of taxation, it must, in cases of urgent necessity, have
recourse to improper ones. The wise republic of Holland has, upon some
occasions, been obliged to have recourse to taxes as inconvenient as the
greater part of those of Spain. Another war, begun before any considerable
liberation of the public revenue had been brought about, and growing in
its progress as expensive as the last war, may, from irresistible
necessity, render the British system of taxation as oppressive as that of
Holland, or even as that of Spain. To the honour of our present system of
taxation, indeed, it has hitherto given so little embarrassment to
industry, that, during the course even of the most expensive wars, the
frugality and good conduct of individuals seem to have been able, by
saving and accumulation, to repair all the breaches which the waste and
extravagance of government had made in the general capital of the society.
At the conclusion of the late war, the most expensive that Great Britain
ever waged, her agriculture was as flourishing, her manufacturers as
numerous and as fully employed, and her commerce as extensive, as they had
ever been before. The capital, therefore, which supported all those
different branches of industry, must have been equal to what it had ever
been before. Since the peace, agriculture has been still further improved;
the rents of houses have risen in every town and village of the country, a
proof of the increasing wealth and revenue of the people; and the annual
amount of the greater part of the old taxes, of the principal branches of
the excise and customs, in particular, has been continually increasing, an
equally clear proof of an increasing consumption, and consequently of an
increasing produce, which could alone support that consumption. Great
Britain seems to support with ease, a burden which, half a century ago,
nobody believed her capable of supporting, Let us not, however, upon this
account, rashly conclude that she is capable of supporting any burden; nor
even be too confident that she could support, without great distress, a
burden a little greater than what has already been laid upon her.</p>
<p>When national debts have once been accumulated to a certain degree, there
is scarce, I believe, a single instance of their having been fairly and
completely paid. The liberation of the public revenue, if it has ever been
brought about at all, has always been brought about by a bankruptcy;
sometimes by an avowed one, though frequently by a pretended payment.</p>
<p>The raising of the denomination of the coin has been the most usual
expedient by which a real public bankruptcy has been disguised under the
appearance of a pretended payment. If a sixpence, for example, should,
either by act of parliament or royal proclamation, be raised to the
denomination of a shilling, and twenty sixpences to that of a pound
sterling; the person who, under the old denomination, had borrowed twenty
shillings, or near four ounces of silver, would, under the new, pay with
twenty sixpences, or with something less than two ounces. A national debt
of about a hundred and twenty-eight millions, near the capital of the
funded and unfunded debt of Great Britain, might, in this manner, be paid
with about sixty-four millions of our present money. It would, indeed, be
a pretended payment only, and the creditors of the public would really be
defrauded of ten shillings in the pound of what was due to them. The
calamity, too, would extend much further than to the creditors of the
public, and those of every private person would suffer a proportionable
loss; and this without any advantage, but in most cases with a great
additional loss, to the creditors of the public. If the creditors of the
public, indeed, were generally much in debt to other people, they might in
some measure compensate their loss by paying their creditors in the same
coin in which the public had paid them. But in most countries, the
creditors of the public are, the greater part of them, wealthy people, who
stand more in the relation of creditors than in that of debtors, towards
the rest of their fellow citizens. A pretended payment of this kind,
therefore, instead of alleviating, aggravates, in most cases, the loss of
the creditors of the public; and, without any advantage to the public,
extends the calamity to a great number of other innocent people. It
occasions a general and most pernicious subversion of the fortunes of
private people; enriching, in most cases, the idle and profuse debtor, at
the expense of the industrious and frugal creditor; and transporting a
great part of the national capital from the hands which were likely to
increase and improve it, to those who are likely to dissipate and destroy
it. When it becomes necessary for a state to declare itself bankrupt, in
the same manner as when it becomes necessary for an individual to do so, a
fair, open, and avowed bankruptcy, is always the measure which is both
least dishonourable to the debtor, and least hurtful to the creditor. The
honour of a state is surely very poorly provided for, when, in order to
cover the disgrace of a real bankruptcy, it has recourse to a juggling
trick of this kind, so easily seen through, and at the same time so
extremely pernicious.</p>
<p>Almost all states, however, ancient as well as modern, when reduced to
this necessity, have, upon some occasions, played this very juggling
trick. The Romans, at the end of the first Punic war, reduced the As, the
coin or denomination by which they computed the value of all their other
coins, from containing twelve ounces of copper, to contain only two
ounces; that is, they raised two ounces of copper to a denomination which
had always before expressed the value of twelve ounces. The republic was,
in this manner, enabled to pay the great debts which it had contracted
with the sixth part of what it really owed. So sudden and so great a
bankruptcy, we should in the present times be apt to imagine, must have
occasioned a very violent popular clamour. It does not appear to have
occasioned any. The law which enacted it was, like all other laws relating
to the coin, introduced and carried through the assembly of the people by
a tribune, and was probably a very popular law. In Rome, as in all other
ancient republics, the poor people were constantly in debt to the rich and
the great, who, in order to secure their votes at the annual elections,
used to lend them money at exorbitant interest, which, being never paid,
soon accumulated into a sum too great either for the debtor to pay, or for
any body else to pay for him. The debtor, for fear of a very severe
execution, was obliged, without any further gratuity, to vote for the
candidate whom the creditor recommended. In spite of all the laws against
bribery and corruption, the bounty of the candidates, together with the
occasional distributions of coin which were ordered by the senate, were
the principal funds from which, during the latter times of the Roman
republic, the poorer citizens derived their subsistence. To deliver
themselves from this subjection to their creditors, the poorer citizens
were continually calling out, either for an entire abolition of debts, or
for what they called new tables; that is, for a law which should entitle
them to a complete acquittance, upon paying only a certain proportion of
their accumulated debts. The law which reduced the coin of all
denominations to a sixth part of its former value, as it enabled them to
pay their debts with a sixth part of what they really owed, was equivalent
to the most advantageous new tables. In order to satisfy the people, the
rich and the great were, upon several different occasions, obliged to
consent to laws, both for abolishing debts, and for introducing new
tables; and they probably were induced to consent to this law, partly for
the same reason, and partly that, by liberating the public revenue, they
might restore vigour to that government, of which they themselves had the
principal direction. An operation of this kind would at once reduce a debt
of �128,000,000 to �21,333,333:6:8. In the course of the second Punic war,
the As was still further reduced, first, from two ounces of copper to one
ounce, and afterwards from one ounce to half an ounce; that is, to the
twenty-fourth part of its original value. By combining the three Roman
operations into one, a debt of a hundred and twenty-eight millions of our
present money, might in this manner be reduced all at once to a debt of
�5,333,333:6:8. Even the enormous debt of Great Britain might in this
manner soon be paid.</p>
<p>By means of such expedients, the coin of, I believe, all nations, has been
gradually reduced more and more below its original value, and the same
nominal sum has been gradually brought to contain a smaller and a smaller
quantity of silver.</p>
<p>Nations have sometimes, for the same purpose, adulterated the standard of
their coin; that is, have mixed a greater quantity of alloy in it. If in
the pound weight of our silver coin, for example, instead of eighteen
penny-weight, according to the present standard, there were mixed eight
ounces of alloy; a pound sterling, or twenty shillings of such coin, would
be worth little more than six shillings and eightpence of our present
money. The quantity of silver contained in six shillings and eightpence of
our present money, would thus be raised very nearly to the denomination of
a pound sterling. The adulteration of the standard has exactly the same
effect with what the French call an augmentation, or a direct raising of
the denomination of the coin.</p>
<p>An augmentation, or a direct raising of the denomination of the coin,
always is, and from its nature must be, an open and avowed operation. By
means of it, pieces of a smaller weight and bulk are called by the same
name, which had before been given to pieces of a greater weight and bulk.
The adulteration of the standard, on the contrary, has generally been a
concealed operation. By means of it, pieces are issued from the mint, of
the same denomination, and, as nearly as could be contrived, of the same
weight, bulk, and appearance, with pieces which had been current before of
much greater value. When king John of France, {See Du Cange Glossary, voce
Moneta; the Benedictine Edition.} in order to pay his debts, adulterated
his coin, all the officers of his mint were sworn to secrecy. Both
operations are unjust. But a simple augmentation is an injustice of open
violence; whereas an adulteration is an injustice of treacherous fraud.
This latter operation, therefore, as soon as it has been discovered, and
it could never be concealed very long, has always excited much greater
indignation than the former. The coin, after any considerable
augmentation, has very seldom been brought back to its former weight; but
after the greatest adulterations, it has almost always been brought back
to its former fineness. It has scarce ever happened, that the fury and
indignation of the people could otherwise be appeased.</p>
<p>In the end of the reign of Henry VIII., and in the beginning of that of
Edward VI., the English coin was not only raised in its denomination, but
adulterated in its standard. The like frauds were practised in Scotland
during the minority of James VI. They have occasionally been practised in
most other countries.</p>
<p>That the public revenue of Great Britain can never be completely
liberated, or even that any considerable progress can ever be made towards
that liberation, while the surplus of that revenue, or what is over and
above defraying the annual expense of the peace establishment, is so very
small, it seems altogether in vain to expect. That liberation, it is
evident, can never be brought about, without either some very considerable
augmentation of the public revenue, or some equally considerable reduction
of the public expense.</p>
<p>A more equal land tax, a more equal tax upon the rent of houses, and such
alterations in the present system of customs and excise as those which
have been mentioned in the foregoing chapter, might, perhaps, without
increasing the burden of the greater part of the people, but only
distributing the weight of it more equally upon the whole, produce a
considerable augmentation of revenue. The most sanguine projector,
however, could scarce flatter himself, that any augmentation of this kind
would be such as could give any reasonable hopes, either of liberating the
public revenue altogether, or even of making such progress towards that
liberation in time of peace, as either to prevent or to compensate the
further accumulation of the public debt in the next war.</p>
<p>By extending the British system of taxation to all the different provinces
of the empire, inhabited by people either of British or European
extraction, a much greater augmentation of revenue might be expected.
This, however, could scarce, perhaps, be done, consistently with the
principles of the British constitution, without admitting into the British
parliament, or, if you will, into the states-general of the British
empire, a fair and equal representation of all those different provinces;
that of each province bearing the same proportion to the produce of its
taxes, as the representation of Great Britain might bear to the produce of
the taxes levied upon Great Britain. The private interest of many powerful
individuals, the confirmed prejudices of great bodies of people, seem,
indeed, at present, to oppose to so great a change, such obstacles as it
may be very difficult, perhaps altogether impossible, to surmount.
Without, however, pretending to determine whether such a union be
practicable or impracticable, it may not, perhaps, be improper, in a
speculative work of this kind, to consider how far the British system of
taxation might be applicable to all the different provinces of the empire;
what revenue might be expected from it, if so applied; and in what manner
a general union of this kind might be likely to affect the happiness and
prosperity of the differrent provinces comprehended within it. Such a
speculation, can, at worst, be regarded but as a new Utopia, less amusing,
certainly, but no more useless and chimerical than the old one.</p>
<p>The land-tax, the stamp duties, and the different duties of customs and
excise, constitute the four principal branches of the British taxes.</p>
<p>Ireland is certainly as able, and our American and West India plantations
more able, to pay a land tax, than Great Britain. Where the landlord is
subject neither to tythe nor poor's rate, he must certainly be more able
to pay such a tax, than where he is subject to both those other burdens.
The tythe, where there is no modus, and where it is levied in kind,
diminishes more what would otherwise be the rent of the landlord, than a
land tax which really amounted to five shillings in the pound. Such a
tythe will be found, in most cases, to amount to more than a fourth part
of the real rent of the land, or of what remains after replacing
completely the capital of the farmer, together with his reasonable profit.
If all moduses and all impropriations were taken away, the complete church
tythe of Great Britain and Ireland could not well be estimated at less
than six or seven millions. If there was no tythe either in Great Britain
or Ireland, the landlords could afford to pay six or seven millions
additional land tax, without being more burdened than a very great part of
them are at present. America pays no tythe, and could, therefore, very
well afford to pay a land tax. The lands in America and the West Indies,
indeed, are, in general, not tenanted nor leased out to farmers. They
could not, therefore, be assessed according to any rent roll. But neither
were the lands of Great Britain, in the 4th of William and Mary, assessed
according to any rent roll, but according to a very loose and inaccurate
estimation. The lands in America might be assessed either in the same
manner, or according to an equitable valuation, in consequence of an
accurate survey, like that which was lately made in the Milanese, and in
the dominions of Austria, Prussia, and Sardinia.</p>
<p>Stamp duties, it is evident, might be levied without any variation, in all
countries where the forms of law process, and the deeds by which property,
both real and personal, is transferred, are the same, or nearly the same.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />