THE LIVERPOOL DEMONSTRATION.
The long-advertised meeting of the Liverpool Financial Reform Asso- ciation took place in the Philharmonic Hall on Thursday. Mr. Charles Robertson presided ; Mr. Cobden and a host of other conspicuous persons sent letters of apology. That from Mr. Cobden was read. He is kept at Paris, confined by a severe cold to his room ; but he sent his approval of the object of the Association—that of establishing direct in the place of indirect taxation. After this a long address from the Association to Mr. Bright, Mr. Cobden, and General Thompson was read, setting forth in detail the views of that body, who seem to be of opinion that they are taking up the unfulfilled mission of the Anti-Corn Law League. Duties levied for revenue obstruct free exchange, their abolition is desirable, and will be practicable when public opinion is matured. There were present five Members of Parliament—Mr. Bright, Mr. J. C. Ewart, Mr. Pollard Urquhart, Mr. Pilkington, and Mr. Hadfield. Mr. Bright, however, was the chief speaker.
After regretting the absence of Mr. Cobden and General Thompson, Mr. Bright defined the objects of the Association to be—" first, as much as possible to confine the Government to an economical expenditure of the public money ; and, secondly, to confine them to this simple prin- ciple of justice, that whatever may be the amount required to be levied, it shall be levied from the people in proportion to the property which every man possesses by reason of the security which the Government gives him." Mr. Bright's doctrine is that men should pay taxes in proportion to their property, and that this should be accomplished by some plan of direct taxation. He assailed those who differ from him, especially the newspapers, marking out the Times, Spectator, Economist, and Saturday Review, which he called the "Saturday reviler." The views he ad- vocates are ridiculed by some as the imagination of a lunatic, and scoffed at by others as democratic and revolutionary. But the time will come "when every sensible man will admit that the carrying out of these great principles has proved to be an additional step in the salvation of the poor, and to have conferred additional blessings on those who are fortunate enough to be rich." But now a man cannot write a letter to his con- stituents, or say anything for the poor, without having one knows not how many newspapers harking at his heels. After dealing with the Times, Mr. Bright said— But another paper of long-standing and great respectability, the Spec- tator, in an article certainly not in the least degree offensive to me, contains reasoning of much the same kind, and I only said to myself when I read it, What a declension from the time when Mr. Rintoul conducted the Spectator to the gentleman, whoever he may be, who now manages its economical de-
partment.' But the Spectator says, howsoever taxes are imposed they are borne in something like an equal percentage by the entire body of the tra- ducing and consuming classes, whatever their incomes may be. Well, just such stuff as that was talked twenty years ago about corn ; it was always urged in opposition to General Thompson's illustration that though the corn laws made bread dearer and scarcer, somehow everything else was dearer in proportion, and thus by a general shuffling of the cards, combined with the effect of the exchanges, nobody was injured, but was in fact a great deal better off in consequence."
Having disposed of the Economist to his own satisfaction, Mr. Bright attempted further to substantiate his views.
" It does appear that about a year ago the authorities of the Inland Revenue gave to the Chancellor of the Exchequer some calculations to show how much the upper, the middle, and the lower classes consumed of the ar- ticles of tea and sugar, and the result was this—that of sugar the upper classes consumed 22* per cent—that is, out of every 1001b. consumed in the country the upper classes consumed 2211b.' the middle classes 38 per cent, and the poorer classes 39/ ; of the article of tea, the upper classes consumed 17/ per cent, the middle classes 38 per cent, the working or poorer classes 44/ per cent. Well, we don't know at all how this calculation was made, or the principle on which it proceeded, and therefore I cannot exactly, say whether itis right or wrong ; but, taking their own figures, let us put them to this test :—The upper classes, according to this calculation, pay in the shape of tea duties, 922,0001. ; the middle classes, 2,002,0001. ; and the poorer classes, 2,3115,0001. ; the total amount being '5,200,000/. and up- wards. Of the sugar duties the proportions contributed are 1,345,000!. by the richer classes, 2,272,0001. by the middle classes, and 2,369,000/. by the poorer classes. Of the tobacco duties, the respective contributions are —from the richer classes, 956,0001.' the middle classes, 2,076,000/. ; and the poorer classes, 2,431,0001. Taking these three articles together, on this cal- culation, the rich pay 3,224,000/., the middle classes 6,351,000!., and the poorer classes 7,139,0001. Now, of the whole Customs and Excise, which amount to 42,000,0001. and upwards, the proportions, according to the same scale, are—for the upper classes, 7,350,0001.; middling classes, 15,960,0001. ; poorer classes, 18,960,0001. But you must bear in mind that whatever be the consumption of the richer classes, especially of what is called the upper classes, that far more than half of it is consumed, not by what is called the family,' but by the servants who minister to their wants, and I take it for granted that whatever is contributed to their maintenance in their housea represents wages. This maintenance must be reckoned as wages for services, and my Lord This or Mr. Somebody who may have twenty or thirty servants in his household is not to put down to his family expenditure all the taxes paid upon articles consumed by those whose services he pays for partly in food and lodging, and partly in money wages. And if it were possible by any calculation to with- draw these large items from what the rich are said to consume, it would show, no doubt, that upon this calculation my statement as to the proportion of taxation paid by the working classes of this country would be fully substantiated in every figure." But these figures, he contends, are not correct, and he ascribes a larger share of payments to the poor, and argued that, as there are 24,000,000 people who live in houses under a 10/. rental, they must pay more taxes than the 6,000,000 who live in houses of a dearer kind. " Is it not fitting, I ask, that we, the more for- tunate middle and upper classes, should say to our rulers that we arc willing to contribute to the necessary expenses of the State, but that henceforth we shall never consent to any law which shall impose restric- tions upon the freedom of trade, and allow the tax-gatherer to lessen the little comforts which a working man can by his industry secure for hie family ? . . . . What is the change we propose ? I am not about to recom- mend that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should immediately advertise all the Custom-houses to be let, and that the last Custom-house officer, the last Coastguardsman, and the last smuggler should be preserved as curiosi- ties in the British Museum ; but I am going to mention what I think would be a great and practicable step in the right direction, and what might ultimately lead to the accomplishment of the complete object which your Association has in view Suppose, then, you were to pass a law that every 100/. of property, excluding the property of those who do not possess 1001., should pay annually the sum of 88. to the State ; that tax would procure about 24 millions per annum, or more than four times as much as the Income-tax last year. It would be imposed over many more persons, it would be collected at an inconsiderable expense, and if district committees were appointed, partly by the Govern- ment and partly by tax-payers, it would be more cheerfully paid and pro- duce less of heartburning and complaint than the present Income-tax. What would be the pressure ? The possessor of 100/. would pay 83. a year, but tea, sugar, and a heap of other things would be much cheaper to him, and his trade, in all probability, would receive a stimulus such as it never obtained before. The owner of 10001. would pay 4/. a year ; the owner of 10,000/., 401. ; the owner of 100,0001., 400/. ; and the owner of 1,000,000/., 4000/. Is there anything unreasonable in that ? Is that revolutionary doctrine ? What would be the result? In the first place, trade would be extended to an enormous degree. See what you would repeal; the present Income-tax would go, and the duties upon 439 articles in the tariff, duties to which your Association has sworn eternal hostility would also go. . . . Let me suppose that you do retain two taxes, which some people bare a no- tion, though I think an erroneous one, ought to be maintained for moral considerations,—the taxes upon spirits and tobacco. Those taxes produce a large sum, they are paid mainly by the working classes, and I ask you whether it would not be fair and reasonable to call upon the upper and middle classes to sustain all other burdens which might be required for the purposes of the State ? " Mr. Bright objected to the taxes on marine insurances, on receipts and cheques, on fire insurances, and endeavoured to show that landed property is impudently exempted from taxation. " The poor are taxed oppressively to spare the rich, and trade is taxed oppressively to spare landed property; nor is the explanation difficult to find ; our Parliament is essentially a Par- liament of the rich ; I have shown you that 24,000,000 of people living in houses under the value of 10/. are excluded from the representation, which is confined to 6,000,000, composing the upper and middle classes ; but our Parliament, besides being a Parliament of the rich, is especially a Parlia- ment of the landed gentry. More than 200 members of the House of Com- mons are the nominees of some dozen of the chief proprietors of land in the respective counties from which they come." The remedy is reform of Par- liament and extension of the suffrage. "Aristocracy entrenched within the citadel of power, and resting upon generations of unchallenged rule—mo- narchy. itself, venerable with the willing homage of a thousand years— authority of every kind must be shaken, and will pass away, unless it be based upon the true interests and commend itself to the conscience of the people. (Cheers.) I ask that Parliament should be made a real represen- tation of the property,. the industry, and the intelligence of the nation ; that we may be delivered, if possible, from chaotic legislation, from reckless ex- penditure, and from a taxation oppressive, unequal, and unjust. (Cheers.) ex- penditure, monopolists of power reject that demand with scorn. The day may come when it will be made in a louder voice than mine, when this question will be grasped in a rnderhand than mine, and, when it is so made, as was
the same in 1832, -that will be surrendered with fear and humiliation for which reason and justice now pleads in vain." (loud cheers.)
Previous page
