DEBT AND TAXATION.

"On the Strength of Nations." By ANDREW BISSET, of Trinity College, Cambridge, M.A., and of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister at Law. Smith, Elder, and Go, PENT That “honesty is the best policy" is one of the earliest coples that is set to the school-boy; but it is the last lesson that ordinary politicians take as their standard. The substance of Mr. Bisset's book may be sald to be a summary of proof that honesty is the best policy of nations as well as of individuals; and that the uneasiness which now fills the general mind in England, as well as the taxation which the country now bears, are the direct and unquestionable consequences of a grons political fraud, and of the dishonest selfseeking of a clasă.

Mr. Bisset's name will be well known to a large circle of our readers, as having, at the request of Mr. Cobden, undertaken several important inquiries during the action of the AntiCorn-Law League; and to his own profession, at the author of valuable works on the Law of Partnership and Estates for Life,-the branches of law that touch, most closely, commercial rela-g tions and landed property. He is well qualified, therefore, to take a comprehensive view of question that embraces what concerns both these Interests.

The subject is so vast, as well as so important, that Mr. Bisset has, of course, not been able, în the 300 pages of this volume, to do more than condense some of the main points arising out of it; but it is wiser, at a moment like the present, thus to deal with it, in a way that will be attractive equally to the scholar and the true economist, than, by the length of an exhaustive Inquiry, to have been less sure of audience,odia br. bicara d

wide

Pointing out how closely a nation's real wealth must always be connected with Its Strength, though that connection has been too often for gotten by theoretical writers and mere talking statesmen, Mr. Blaset Inalata that "the fundamental element of a nation's Strength is the physical hardihood of its people, combined with that force and energy of character which the consequences of such hardihood; and the patriotism, or love of and pride in country, which is the consequence of some degree of good government.” This is illustrated by reler. ence to some of the most noted Instances in his tory, ancient and modern ; ' in' the course of, which Athens, Sparta, and Rome, the Spaniard and the Turk, ore summoned up to give evidence in the great cause now pending as to the rights and obligations of England in the face of all the world. Our author touches on what he quaintly, but suggestively, entitles "Civilization and Conquest-Hero-worship and Devil worship." For Conquerors, and those whom men have called the Great," he has neither sympathy nor mercy; unless, Indeed, for such an one as our own Alfred, who was called the Great" not because he sought selfish glory by the slaughter of unoffending thousands, but because he defended his country against foreign attack, and, having successfully done this,' lent his whole strength to the sound organization and action of the elvil and adomestle Institutions of his country. Having given a few pages, in connection with the

last named toplo, to the Normans, Mr. Bisset proceeds to what are the pith and marrow of the volume; which are contained in two chapters entitled, "The cheap defence of Nations: -The ancient English National Defences," and "The dear defence of Nations:-The modern English National Defences." The very titles of these chapters bespeak the great importance of the subjects treated of in them; and, though we ahall glance at some prominent points, which cannot be too clearly stated or too often Inslated on, we hope our readers will not rest satisfied without studying the volume itself, in order that they may thoroughly comprehend the actual circumstances of that great fraud, that monstrous dishonesty, to which England now owes it that the National Defences can become a matter of even any question, and that the country has become loaded with a debt of more than eight hundred millions sterling :

From the battle of Hastings, says Mr. Bisset, and the commencement of the Norman dynasty and the feudal system (a rictly so called) in England, to the restoration of Charles I, is a period of 594 years. During that time, England kept her national defences in sɔ complete a state that no foreign power dared to attempt invading her; and carried on, besides, a vast number of great wars, in the course of which she planted her flag on the walls of Aore, made one King of France prisoner and dethroned another, restored ■ King of Spain to bis throne, destroyed the Spanish Armada, and finally made the name of Englishmen as much respected over the world as that of Roman had been, And all this she did without contracting a farthing of debt.

From the restoration of Charles II, to the year 1815, is a period of 155 years. During that comparatively short time (very little more than a fourth of the former) England, in carrying on wars which should certainly not have cost her greater efforts than those above res ferred to; in making war for the Dutch; for the succession to the crown of Spain; in making war, first for and then against the house of Austria, in conquering Canade, In losing Amerion, in the wars of the French Revolution, ard, in the course of all this, in subsidizing more than half Europe; contracted a debt of upwards of eight hundred millions, while taxes to an enormous amount were levied on the labouring and commercial classes of the community.

For this extraordinary difference, there must be a caure. That caure can be traced in the most distinct manner, and ought to be now thoroughly understood by all men, and to be particularly studied by all sincere Financial Reformers. We have heard, of late years, a great deal about the "burdens on land; but the fact and truth are, that the owners of land have contrived to throw from off themselves the obligations which formed the very condition of their actual holding of land, and to cast the whole of these on to those who are not holders of land. All the land in Eng. land was given by the State Into Individual holding, subject to the express condition, that its holders should, themselves, provide for the maintenance of all roads and bridges, and for the military defence of the country. These obligations used to be called the trinoda necessitasthe inseparable attendants on the holding of a" land. Everybody knows how landowners h

contrived gradually to ease themselves of most of the charges for the repairs of roads and bridges; though the public may not know that the last and most flagrant instance of this is to be found in an Act called, by way of satire, the "Local Government Act," which passed only in 1858, whereby towns are required to pay five times as much for highway rates as the farmers and others, whose carts and waggons are what chlefly use and out up the roads. But the case of milltary defence is much more flagrant, and needs more careful historical inquiry. Mr. Bisset ahows the obligation that attached, by the law of England, to the owners of land to give actual military service; and, by reference to some curious facts and records, first brought to light in the works of Mr. Toulmin Smith, he points out! that the personal military service thus due was e sixty days (that is, two full months) in each year from every man, and not forty days, as a has been heretofore commonly stated, on the authority of Blackstone and others. He further dwells, though this is, in fact, distirot point of national policy, upon the education which the law of England requires, that all the men of England should pass through so as to acquire a thorough knowledge of the use of arms, and refers to the many proofs and illustrations of this, which are given In the works of Mr. Toulmin Smith. These two provisions constituted the permanent assurance of a complete National Defence. The former of them provided men-at-arms, if these were wanted for any special occasion: the latter of them made every man and every spot in the land ready, at all times, to repel attack, and able to rest in self-conscious safety, Even in attack on Charles II.'s reign, the idea of

England by France was put aside by that Government, upon the express ground, as it still exists recorded in writing, that the whole land would arise to repel the invader.

Under such a system, there was no "Standing Army" in the modern sense. A Standing Army could grow up only upon the ruins of this system; and the states of nervous alarm and the periodical panica that have shown themselves of late years, and the professional opinions which are so often paraded before us as to the defenceless state of the country, are demonstrations that the system of a Standing Army is an utter failure as a means of National Defence.

But how came the change about; and in what manner was it carried out? The manner of it was this:-Those who held land subject to the obligations that have been named, wanted to get rid of their obligations, and yet to keep the land. By a fraud, than which no greater was ever perpetrated In any age or country, they accomplished this In the revolutionary year of Charles's & restoration. To meet the result, anding force of mercenaries was raised; and, the latter might be the only arm of strength under the in jn the land, and that it might be control of the wrong-doers themselves, the use of arms by the people was in every away discouraged. This revolution in the fundamental practice of the Constitution was accompanied by a further fraud. Had the Landowners compounded for

2

selfishness could not go further than this. The Resolution of the House of Commons for perpetrating this monstrous fraud only passed,-to the honour (so far) of English gentlemen be it sald, by a majority of 2;-the numbers on the 21st November, 1660, being 151 for the resolution, and 149 against it; and this majority wAS only obtained by means of threats and cajolery employed by the Court and its creatures, and after the most vehement protestations against the wicked scheme by many most eminent members of Parliament. They saw, clearly enough, and boldly said that it was an attempt to bestow a boon on the powerful few at the expense of the weaker many. "If this bill be carried," said one, "every man who earns his bread by the sweat of his brow must pay Exclss to excuse the Court of Wards; which would be a greater grievance upon all than the Court of Wards was to few." "It is not fit," said the learned and patriotic Prynne, "to make all housekeepers hold in capite, and to free the nobility.""If it is carried," said a third, they might expect that, one time or other, there would be some strange commotions by the common people about it." The speaker must have had prophetic visions of the Liverpool Financial Reform Association. It was stranuously urged that the only right course was, to "place the tax upon land, which ought to pay, and not to charge it upon the poor people by way of Exolae "

་་

What made the matter far worse was, that the device of Excise (which was borrowed from Holland) had already been over and over again expressly condemned by Parliament, and by men of all parties, when it had been suggested to Ins troduce it even as a mere temporary ald, and even for helping in the "defence and safety" of the realm. In 1628, a conference was held be tween both Houses of Parliament, upon a proposition for an Excise; and it was unanimously resolved by both Houses, that the attempt was

against law and the petition of right, and fit to be eternally damned." Parliamentary language was strong and clear in those days. Such a resolution would be deemed impolitic in these days, Belter tax the vulgar than use "strong language." On the 8th October, 1642, the House of Commons resolved that, aspersions having been cast by malignant persons on the House," pretending that they had an intention to levy Excise, they did, "for their vindication therein, declare, that those rumours are faise and scandalous, and tend much to the disservice of the Parliament, Qae of the most learned and able of the constitutional writers and members of Parliament of the time, who suffered deeply for his strenuous, maintenance of the liberties of his country, alike against the oppressions of Parliament and King, and who himself resisted an illegal attempt to levy su Excise, calls the new device an is illegal grievance and Dutch devil," Forty years later, when it was sought by the Whigs to carry the scheme further, a distinguished member of the House of Commons declared, In his place in the House :—“I am not for saving our lands, to enslave our persons by Exolse." The sense of all good men was, that while the few great landholders get, by this most dishonest transaction, a great benefit, on the mass of the people there was cast a heavy burthen; a burthen not only in the shape of extracting certain moneys wrong

no

fully from the pockets of the people, but greatly added to by doing this in a manner that necessarlly endangers the Hberties of every man, and acts as a continual hindrance in the way ofdenterprise and the developement of many branches of Industry. "By the common law of England," as has been rightly said by a great lawyer, toll is due for any vendible commodity, till it be sold by the owner." But Excises step in and obtrude themselves at every step of the manufacture itself. Their harrassing vexatiousness is felt by every manufacture that comes within their grasp. The surprising relief given when the hold of the exciseman is loosened, has been well seen in the case of the glass manufacture. The true friends of free trade are, then, no leas bound than are true financial reformers to look thoroughly into the history and bearings of a subject, which, while it has sprung from and involves a fatal weakening of the true Strength of the Nation, affects, no less immediately, the development of the Wealth of the Nation.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE “STAR,” SIR,-More silent contempt of a traducer is often the wisest course. But it is not always well. A mạn may

sit quite easy under the vulgarest personal abuse; but he is not justified in letting statements of pretended » facts go unanswered, which, if they be true, will form sound premises upon which to raise arguments contrary to what he knows to be the truth. The recklessness of statement found in the Saturday Review has been exposed, before, in your columns. But an instance of this is found in its number of last Saturday, which is probably unsurpassed, in a public witer, for the exhibition which it gives, of either gross ignorance or deliberate mis-statement. In charity, I am bound to presume it ignorance. writers in the Saturday Beview have clearly never availed themselves of any of the "schools of history or jurisprudence," which the learned Regius Professor at Oxford urges all generous youth to seek.

The

The Saturday Reviewer is under the influence of a phobia of the most virulent description. He is startled in his walks by day, and wakened in his dreams by night, with horrible visions of Mr. Bright, H. rushes about distracted, knowing neither rhyme nor reason, and knocks** into every post he meets, under the delusion that he is planting a settler into Mr. Bright's breadbasket. If I were inolined to doggrel, I would say :—

He's fearful scared at Mr. Bright;
He doesn't know much History;

To him the Law's a mystery;

So he can do naught but twist awry

The truth, and ticket “black” what's white,

In hope to blacken Mr. Bright,

To make the latest instânce of this phobia and its symptoms understood, I must ask you to reprint, below, part of an article in the Saturday Review of last week, entitled "Financial Reform." This article has evidently been called forth by the one which appeared in the Morning Star of the 7th Inst., entitled "Debt and Taxation," The Morning Post was alarmed at the last-named article. and came down, on the 14th, with its thunder,—pro« pounding the universal panacea óf “ a healthy, free-work

ing[popular intelligence;" ■ panacea for the advocacy of which all the world knows that the Morning Post has been ever ready to suffer martyrdom. Another of your contemporaries took up the cudgels the next day, on the opposite side; but it was reserved for the Saturday Review to come down, two days later, amid this war of heroes, and filing into the fray the fiercest strokes that bold untruth could wield.

It is quite unnecessary to notice, now, the argument raised in Mr. Bisset's book on "The Strength of Nations" but it is curious to observe, that even this book itself cannot be alluded to by the Saturday Review, without direct mic-satement. Instead of it having been “pub. lished for the express purpose of proving the hereditary liability of real property to the expense of protecting ships and factories," that book happens itself to use the following words :—“ The English constitution intrusted the defence of England to those who held the land of England. The commercial and manufacturing elementa of the population may supply means for maintaining the?: colonies and dependencies." These, of course, include shipping, &c.

The admissions made by the Saturday Reviewer are fatal to the stigma which he wants to fasten on Mr. Bright, of trying “to quote black-letter authorities for Iniquitous innovations." He admits that personal services had been "commuted for various payments, which formed the most oppressive portion of the claims of the Crown,” But these were burthens on the landowners, not on the people. If, then, the personal service due was commuted for money payments, which were then made by the landowners only, what was it but an "iniquitous innovation" for the landowners to get rid both of the personal services, and of the commutations which they had before paid, and to throw the whole of the latter on to classes which had never been liable to the personal services? This is what has been done by the landowners of England, The Saturday Reviewer says, that this “Innovation” was made with "universal assent." It is d difficult to conceive the hardihood that could dare to put in print an assertion so utterly untrue. In an other article of the same number, the Saturday Review speaks of "the formidable minority who voted for the second reading of Lord Derby's Reform Bill." But, according to the Saturday Review Itself, that minority, instead of having been "formidable," must have been considerably less than nothing; for its number was 39 less than the number of the majo rity: while, as was Mhown in your artiole on "Debt and Taxation," the minority who voted against the "innovation " in question was only two less than the majority, the numbers being 149 to 151." This is decidedly a new version of “univer sal assent." The quotations you made in that article showed, moreover, how clear and loud were the protes tations and warnings against the measure at the time,

Nor is the "universal assent" untrue only in regard to the vote of the moment. Before and since, the most eminent lawyers showed how much they dissented from the "Innovation." The smart young men who wilte in the Saturday Review have, of course, never heard how should they?-of such a man as Lord Coke, who was a Lord of the Treasury, Speaker of the House of Commons, Lord Chief Justice of Eagland, and, more than all, author of the "Petition of Right." This man wrote some books, which,

on diligent inquiry at the British Museum, the Saturday Reviewers may obtain a sight of. In one of these he says:-"These tenures were created for the defence of the realm.... Prudent antiquity ever provided, by reservation of tenure, for the defence of the realm against the invasion of enemies," And spank. ing, in the same Book, of a proposal made, in the time of James the First, to commute this tenure,' that is, the ability of the landowners, into an assured annual charge upon the land,-which would have been very nearly equal to half the entire revenne of the State, he expressos his "hope that so good a motion will, some time or other, take effect and be es tablished." The "assurance" of this annual charge,→ that is, of half the national taxation belag secured by a permanent charge upon the land,-was, however, with him, the essential condition of the motion. Instead of this, the charge was, after his death, thrown altogether off from the landowners on to the people.

When the Saturday Reviewer has passed his "little go," he may, if he is steady, come across a writer named Blackstone; a man who, though at present our friend is ignorant of the name, he will find has been held in some repute by a good many men. This writer,—whom the Saturday Reviewer will, of course, immediately brand as a writer of Mr. Bright's school,”—alludes to the "anuual fee-farm rent that was to have been settled" as a charge upon the land, under the plan proposed in James the First's reign; and then he speaks of this as "an expedient seemingly much better than the hereditary exelse, which was afterwards made the principal equivalent for these concessions;" the result of which concessions was, he ;adas, " a greater acquisition to the civil property [that fs, to the ownership of land] of this kingdom than even Magna Charta itself."

So much for "universal assent." The allusion to ship-money further illustrates the ignorance of the writer. Some of the chief grounds taken in opposition to the ship-money were exactly the reverse of what is thus suggested. They were, that this ship-money was not needed for defence, because the defence of the realm was an obligation, the charge for which was attached to certain tenures. But it is instructive to find, in the Saturday Review, the patriotic suggestion of John Hampden's "ignorant impatience of taxation.”

As to the Norman and Plantaganet kings "taxing,” they did not attempt to tax without the express consent of the tax-payers; and the jealous watchfulness of Par llament over the pretences set up for taxation, was far greater than it now is,

The statements, that "the villeins of the middle ages were subject to far heavier burdens than those which the landed aristocracy have since escaped," and that "if the fiscal system of the middle ages is revived, copyholders wilt find themselves bound like serfs to the land,”—are simplə untruths, and benay the hopeless ignorance of the writer on all the most Important points of English history. The "villeins" formerly took their part in the representative Institutions of England. They were robbed of their rights by the landowners. Of course the Reviewer may call the reign of Charles the Second the middle ages,” If he likes. But In no times have copyholders in England been "bound life serfs ---to the land," On the contrary, their rights were always recognised as unable to be meddled with by the lords. Their position was far better than that of modern leaseholders. The very

LA

blackest part, Indeed, of the iniquity that marks the transaction by which the landowners freed themselves from their own rightful burthené In 1660, is, that whereas the copyholders hid borne some burdens, in order, and only in order, to enable the landowners the better to meet the'r own liabilities, when the latter liabilities were thrown off by the landowners, these took care not to remove the burthens which lay upon the copyholders, but kept them in full force, for their own personal benefit ;--and It is only now, after two hundred years more, that we hear of copyhold enfranchisement, and then only on terms very hard on the copyholders, and which are, as before, exclusively for the benefit of the landlord. Thus was and is this monstrous fraud doubled in its dishonesty.

It is well for the defenders of the "revolutionists" of 1660 to talk now of "Innovation.” The landowners * were the Innovators, That former “Innovation” has brought on this 'country mischiefs and taxation which nothing can now compensate for. While that innovation is let remain, the same misohlefs will go on and porease. It will, then, be well that an «• Innovation” so fruitful of fll, should be brought to an end by another "innovation” of a very different character; the latter i being the substitution of right for wrong, instead of, ás as the former was, of wrong for right.

Every sentence of the paragraphs-referred to might be dissected, and the ignorance or wilful mis-statements of the writer exposed. But I have done enough for the present; and am content to submoribe myself, what it was once shown in your paper that the writers and managers of the Saturday Review cannot do,—

THE PROGRESS OF BUREAUCRACY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR." SIR,-As time presses, in respect to the bill named in the enclosed letter, will you allow me to request the insertion of it in your paper of to-morrow. Of course no reply has yet reached me; but the emergency (which is not my fault) prevents my waiting for this. An article in your columns last week, and some that have preceded it on the Highways Bill, lead me to think that you will recognise the importance of the subject, and lend help to stop a piece of jobbery.

The Poor Law Board dreads discussion; and, strangely enough, no Member has asked why the bill that must be brought in for its continuauce, is being delayed till so late that discussion on it shall be smothered. In the meantime, every effort seems making, to reduce all our local affairs under subjection to that rapidly increasing system of well-paid and irresponsible functionaries, which has already made the Civil Service estimates to grow, since 1839, from two-and-ahalf millions sterling to the enormous amount of more than eight-and-a-half millions sterling per annum.

It will be seen that no time must be lost, by those who would bestir themselves to stop this latest illustration of the unceasing hostility of the bureaucratic system to the intelligent management of their own affairs by free men. I am, yours, &c.,

TOULMIN SMITH.

Highgate, 7th May, 1860.

"Highgate, 5th May, 1860. "SIR,-A bill was brought in on Thursday night, and has been to-day delivered, on the back of which appears your name, but of which it is probable that you know nothing. I allude to the "Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention Bill.”

"The sole object of this bill is, to annihilate local authorities, and to put an end to the good work of sanatory activity that is now going on in all parts of England.

"The Nuisances Removal Act of 1855, was adopted by Parliament after very careful sifting by a select committee. It recognises the local action of every parish, as the only sure means of local improvement. It has worked admirably, and very actively. Its wholesome action cannot be impugned; and it is daily doing more and more of good.

"The present bill is without pretext. It was brought in without a word at a late hour on Thursday last it is set down for a late hour on Monday next (7th inst.) Will her Majesty's Government thus be parties to a tampering with most usefully active instititutions, and with that certainty of system on which public confidence must always rest? Though not without some minor flaws, it is unquestionable that no sounder or more useful mea sure has been passed for many years than the Nuisances Removal Act of 1855, which the bill I have named in effect repeals. Is the unconstitutional and inexcusable attempt made by the 'Highways Bill' to be followed up by a series of revolutionary attacks on every institution and opportunity that now exists, for making men know and fulfil the duties and responsibilities of citizenship?