Dec. 15. 1855.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



467 



Upon tbis the translator remarks, in a note, that 

 "The statement appears to be quite erroneous, — 

 for even if all the twelve years of her reign had 

 been years of war, the expenditure ought to have 

 been less than fifty-three millions." llis calcula- 

 tion shows tiiat he did not reflect that, when the 

 cost of war and the cost of a year of peace are so 

 stated, no notice is taken of the cost of past wars, or, 

 in'other words, of the amount of revenue annually 

 swallowed up by the interest of the national debt, 

 which was above a milli(m and a quarter at the 

 beginning of her reign (according to the same au- 

 thority), and two millions at its close ; nor had he 

 observed that all the three great items of ex- 

 penditure must be added together, to obtain the 

 whole average expenditure of a year in the time 

 of war. 



The translator's note proceeds to say, that as 

 the revenue received in the course of her reign 

 amounted to sixty-two millions, there should have 

 been a surplus of ten millions at its close. We 

 have here three writers in succession, each of 

 whom has failed to detect a clerical error of con- 

 siderable importance, inasmuch as each unit repre- 

 sents a million sterling. 



Colquhoun, ch. v., " on public revenues and 

 expenditure," states the whole produce of the 

 customs in 



" The course of Queen Anne's reign, as £15,1 13,811 



Of the excise, as .... 20,859,311 



Of the land-tax, as .... 12,285,909 



On the post and stamps, &c. . . 5,261,346 



And he subjoins that the amount of 

 money borrowed " may be stated at 



£02,520,377 " 

 59,863,154 



Total . £122,373,531" 

 He was about to state the whole amount of sums 

 issued from her exchequer (p. 182 ) as 122,373,531^. 

 And when he said the sums borrowed might be 

 stated as above, he evidently governed his calcu- 

 lation by the principle, that what issued must be 

 made up of what was received as revenue, and 

 what was brought in as lent ; and had not per- 

 ceived that his statement of the revenue made it 

 amount to but fifty-three instead of sixty-two 

 millions. 



In the translation of Raumer, Colquhoun's 

 statement appears, with the omission of the sums 

 under a million, as follows : 



"The customs .... £15,000,000 



Raised excise .... 20,000,000 



Land-tax 12,000,000 



Post, stamps, &c 6,000,000 



Temporary loans . 



£62,00{>,000 

 59,000,000 



Total . £122,000,000" 

 So that, mnch simpler as the sums to be added 

 are, the translator has failed to perceive that he 

 No. 320.] 



was copying two arithmetical errors. But he is a 

 bold man ; for he next says, in the same note, that 

 " there must be a mistake in p. 286. of Raumer ; 

 because it is quite impossible that the diminution 

 of the unfunded debt by fifteen millions should 

 effect a reduction of two millions and a half in 

 the interest." He should have perceived that 

 though Raumer states the diminution of the un- 

 funded debt, and of its interest, between 1816 

 and 1835, as amounting respectively to what his 

 translator thus comments upon, he has not as- 

 cribed the diminution of the interest exclusively 

 to the diminution of its capital ; but has taken 

 especial notice of the governments lowering the 

 interest upon exchequer bills from 51. 6s. 5}^d. to 

 21 5s. Id. 



Having described these errors, a Query is 

 naturally suggested. Is there any misprinted 

 item in Colquhoun's list of the receipts of Queen 

 Anne's exchequer, the correction of which would 

 justify his total ? He has appended no list of 

 errata ; but it is not improbable that his table was 

 formed from Sir J. Sinclair's iy/sfcr^ of the Public 

 Revenue. And what can have led Colquhoun to 

 believe the statement in his p. 179. ? where he 

 gravely asserts, that in Queen Anne's reign " Re- 

 solutions were actually passed in the House of 

 Commons, that a duty of fifty per cent, should be 

 imposed on the value of all stock-in-trade, and 

 twenty-five per cent, on all money at interest," 

 which would have been a property-tax far ex- 

 ceeding the possible amount of any income-tax, 

 consuming all the lender's interest, and a great 

 deal more. 



Every one knows that the land-tax was a heavy 

 income-tax on the landed proprietors. But 

 Colquhoun stating that a poll-tax was granted to 

 Will. III., has not mentioned, and therefore Rau- 

 mer seems unaware, that the act 1 W. and M., 

 " for raising money by poll and otherwise" did in 

 fact impose also a very heavy income-tax on law- 

 yers and medical practitioners ; and with them on 

 the humble class of poor household servants, who 

 were to pay the king Is. In the pound out of their 

 wages If exceeding Zl. a year, and Qd. if 3/. a year. 

 The professional gentlemen were to pay 3s. in 

 the pound, or fifteen per cent. As to the poll-tax, 

 properly so termed, which perversely increased 

 the demand upon the subject's purse in the exact 

 proportion to his inability to meet such demands, 

 this act showed some regard to the different ability 

 of paying presumable from different ranks In so- 

 ciety, and on a different scale from what Raumer 

 found In Colquhoun, who makes It only vary from 

 Is. to 1/. 5s. (Raumer, p. 272. ; Colquhoun, p. 1 74.). 

 The day labourer was to pay Is. a head for every 

 member of his family, except children under the 

 age of sixteen ; whilst a duke was to pay 501. a 

 year for himself, for his eldest son 35/., and 251. 

 for each of the younger. A gentleman having an 



