1826. ] Rich and Poor. 247 
country to the honour of the cost. They haye had the dexterity to 
make the country believe, that all, in proportion to property, contribute 
equally to the expense of the state; and that, though they indeed are 
the legislature,—so equitable are they, the general interests are solely 
contemplated ; that they themselves take no exclusive advantages, but 
contribute fairly and equally with the rest,—and surely nobody can 
desire more of them. 
Very pretty talk. Under the old Bourbon government of France, the 
noblesse were exempted from contributing to the expenses of the state. 
This was so intolerable, and the injustice so gross, that the nation, by a 
resolute effort, shook off the oppression. Well, but we have no such 
oppression to shake off. Yes, we see, we have. Why there are no 
“ privileged orders” with us—none exempt from the payment of taxes. 
No, but we have orders, for whose especial and exclusive benefit the 
country is taxed. Those orders are relieved from no tax, it is true, to 
the state; but they have themselves made a law to levy a tax in their 
own favour, which comes, we presume, to the same thing. They have 
an advantage which others have not. They pay what others pay; but 
they have aids which others have not,—nay, those others are the very 
persons who are compelled to give those aids. The corn-laws grant a 
monopoly—that is indisputable—the price of an article consumed by 
_every body is advanced by that monopoly ; and the advance comes into 
the pockets of the landlords. 
But it is not the corn-bill alone of which we complain. That indeed 
is a scandalous abuse of legislative rights—a perversion of powers en- 
trusted—if indeed they be entrusted—for the protection of the interests 
of the whole country ;—but it is not the only abuse of such power—it is 
not the only grievance under which the people labour and struggle,—the 
whole system of taxation is, as we said, levelled against consumption. 
Well, but still consumption measures property. No such thing. It is 
about the worst and most unsteady criterion that could well be selected. 
Some spend more than they have, and others less. But when we say 
taxation is levelled at consumption, we mean, of course, the consumption 
of articles of necessity. Taxation upon articles of superfluity fall of 
course upon themselves alone. These, however, we shall find to be very 
few.—Now ‘ exciseable’ articles are not consumed by rich and poor in 
proportion to their property. The proportion expended by the poor is 
vastly beyond that expended by the rich. Where the fourth of a poor 
man’s income is spent on exciseable articles, not perhaps a fortieth is so 
spent by the rich man. How then do these taxes fall equally? Does ~ 
the great man—the legislator—the landlord—does he pay the same pro- 
portion of his larger income to the expenses of the state that the poor 
man does of his small one? We say no,—nor any thing like it. — 
Nay, if he did, where would still be the humanity, or the equity of the 
legislator? Is not five pounds of more importance to the man of fifty, 
than fifty to the man of five hundred, or five hundred to the man 
of five thousand? Surely it is:—but what have we seen? Why, the 
property-tax, the only attempt,—and that we see far from an equitable 
one, for there were no gradations—which was made through the war at 
equality of taxation, was the first to be withdrawn, on the return of 
peace. The next—quite as becoming the legislators—a part of the 
_ assessed-taxes ; and we have still ‘patriots’ bellowing for the repeal of 
