Chapter 19 Chapter 4 About the Constitution-3

During the war of late 1780, I had intended to go to England, and had informed General Green of this intention, while he was on his way south through Philadelphia, while General Washington was too far away to be immediately contacted.I feel strongly that if I could get to England unnoticed, and as long as I could publish a book which empowered A and only benefited A by depriving B, the result would be became an unfair means. But charters and corporations aren't just about elections;They are a constant source of contention where they are located, and diminish the public rights of society across the country.

Under the manipulation of these charters and corporations, a common Englishman cannot be regarded as a proper Englishman.He cannot move freely in his own country as the French do in France and the Americans do in America.His rights were limited to the town in which he lived, and in some cases to the parish of his birth; all other districts, though in his own country, were to him nothing less than foreign countries.To live in these places, he must pay for local citizenship, otherwise he will be prohibited from moving in or deported.By keeping yourself safe before keeping this book, I can open the eyes of the British people to how crazy and stupid their government is.I saw that the various parties in the House of Parliament were already at loggerheads, and that no new influence could be exerted on each other.General Green was in complete agreement with me, but then, as happened with the Arnold and Andre incident, he changed his mind and wrote me a letter from Annapolis, Maryland, under the influence of a great fear for my safety. An earnest letter advised me to abandon the plan, and I reluctantly agreed.Shortly thereafter I accompanied Colonel Laurence, son of Mr. Laurence, who was then imprisoned in the Tower of London, to France on behalf of the Congress.We are in Lorient (a port on the west coast of France, facing the Atlantic Ocean - Translator

) landed, and while I remained there, while he was on his way, an incident occurred which made me intend to resume my original plan.A mail vessel carrying government papers from Falkis to New York was forced to land at Lorient.It was not uncommon for a mail ship to be impounded, but it was unbelievable that government papers were seized along with the mail ship, since the papers were always hung in a pocket in the cabin window, filled with shells, ready to sink to the bottom of the sea.However, what I say is absolutely true, because the documents fell into my hands and I saw them with my own eyes.It is said that this batch of documents was obtained by such a trick:

The captain of the "Lady" privateer can speak English. After catching up with the cruise ship, he pretended to be the captain of a British escort ship and invited the captain of the cruise ship to board the privateer. Go back and get the files.But whatever the circumstances of this seizure, the government documents I speak of are authentic.These papers were sent to Paris to the Comte de Virgenard, and when Colonel Lawrence and I returned to America we delivered the originals to the Congress. From these documents I see far more depths of stupidity in the British Cabinet than without them, and I intend to return to my original plan.But Colonel Laurence would not go back alone, and, among other reasons, especially since we were in charge of a sum of over two hundred thousand pounds, I was obliged to yield to him, and at last gave up my plan, but I could now Certainly, if I had carried out the plan then, it would not have been in vain. --author

Feudalism was designed to extend the power of corporations by bankrupting towns; the consequences were obvious. Most of the company towns are in a state of desolation and decay, and these towns are saved from further decline only because of some kind of geography, such as a navigable river, or rich suburbs.As population is one of the chief sources of wealth (for land itself is worthless without people), all measures to hinder the increase of population necessarily reduce the value of landed estates; , so they can only be harmful.If any policy were to be instituted to replace the general liberty for everyone to choose his place of residence, as practiced in France or the United States, it would be more reasonable to encourage new arrivals than to deter them by levy money ①.

Those who felt the greatest urgency for the abolition of corporations were the townspeople who established corporations.By way of comparison, the examples of Manchester, Palmingham, and Sheffield show the harm these medieval organizations did to industry and trade.A few examples may be found, such as London, which, owing to its natural and commercial advantages on the Thames, resisted the evil forces of corporate politics; but in almost all other cases the disaster was too obvious to be doubted or deny. Although the country as a whole is not as directly affected by the downturn in industry in the company towns as the inhabitants themselves are, it shares in some degree the consequences.The price of the industry fell, and the national trade volume also decreased.Everyone is a customer who buys goods according to his own purchasing power; since all parts of the country trade with each other, any impact in any one place will inevitably affect the whole country.

Since the majority of seats in one house of the British Parliament are drawn from these corporations; and since no clear water flows from a muddy spring, Parliament's crimes are but a continuation of its fountain of crimes.A man of moral honor and good political principles must not submit to the vile and shameless tactics employed in such elections.To be a successful candidate he could never have the qualities of an impartial legislator; and having been so disciplined in the manner of entering Parliament, one cannot be expected to be A little more noble than before being a member of parliament.

Mr. Burke, speaking of representation in England, raised as bold a challenge as the age of chivalry."Our representative system," he said, "is perfectly suited to all that a popular representative system can aspire to and conceive." He went on: "If those who are hostile to our Constitution can say otherwise, let them try." It is very surprising that such remarks come from a man who, throughout his political career - except for a year or two - has consistently opposed all measures of Parliament; and, comparing what he says with what he is At one point, it can only be shown that he acted contrary to his opinion as an MP, or as an author said something to the contrary.

But it is not only representative that is at fault, so next I shall speak of aristocracy. The so-called House of Peers was founded on a basis very much like the law against which in other cases it is difficult to account for the origin of charters and company towns, unless we suppose that they arose out of some defense or connection with Defense related.The era in which they were produced proves this idea to be correct.Most of these towns were once fortresses, with companies guarding the gates when there was no garrison. By denying or allowing outsiders to enter the city, they formed a practice of granting and buying and selling free access, which was more characteristic of garrison authorities than civil government.Soldiers are not subject to company or any zone of defense throughout the country, except for others.A soldier, with the consent of his superior, may take any job in any company town in the country. --author

stand up.It is tantamount to forming a party of people with common interests for self-interest.It is no less inexplicable why a legislature should be composed entirely of men who rent estates, than why it should be composed of those who employ brewers, bakers, or any other trade. Mr. Burke called the court "a strong base and pillar for securing land interests".Let us examine this idea. What more pillar is needed to secure the interests of the land than any other interest of the state?Or what right has it to have a representation distinct from the general interest of a nation?The only use of this power, and it is often used, is to evade the estate tax, and pass the burden on to the consumer goods which are themselves least affected.

Such has always been (and always will be) the result of basing government on faction and self-interest, as is clear from the history of taxation in England. While taxes on every common consumer item were raised and multiplied, the land tax, which had a special effect on this "pillar," was reduced. The land tax in 1778 was £1,950,000, £500,000 less than it was about a hundred years ago, although rents have doubled in many places since then. Before the arrival of the Hanoverians, the land tax was in an equal proportion to that of consumption goods, and rather the land tax was the largest; but since then the consumption goods have added nearly thirteen million pounds a year in new taxes; As the number and misery of their condition increased, so did the poor tax.Nor, however, was this tax borne in equal proportions by the nobility and the rest of society.The dwellings of the nobles, whether in town or in the country, were not to be mixed with those of the poor.They live far away from poverty and the need to spend money on charity.These burdens are heaviest in the industrial towns and laboring villages, where one group of poor gives to another. Many of the heaviest and most lucrative taxes are levied in order to preserve its own interest by exempting this pillar.A tax on beer brewed for sale did not affect the nobility, who paid no tax at all for brewing their own beer.The beer tax fell only on those who were inconvenient or unable to brew their own beer and had to buy it in small quantities.This tax alone--often exempted by nobles--approaches the total of the land tax in 1788, which is now no less than £1,666,152, plus the tax on malt and hops Taxes are more than that, and if people knew this, how would they feel about the fairness of the tax system?It is perhaps unprecedented in taxation that such a tax levied mainly on commodities consumed by the working people is equal to the entire land tax of a country. This is one of the consequences of a legislature formed on the basis of a union of common interests; for, however different their tactics may be with respect to the various parties, they are united in this. Whether or not a combination raises the price of any commodity sold, or the rate of wages, or whether it transfers a tax from itself to another class of society, the principle and effect are the same; legal, it would be difficult to justify the existence of another tax. It is useless to say that the various taxes were first proposed by the House of Commons; for the other House, having a power of veto, can always protect its own interests; of.In addition, the House of Lords gained great influence through privileged city transactions, and had many collusions with the two factions of the House of Commons, so that, apart from having an absolute veto in this House, in the other House it had no control over all matters of common concern. also has an advantage. It is difficult to make out what is meant by the so-called land interest, if it does not mean that the noble landowners are in league with the peasants and all kinds of trades and industries for their own pecuniary interests.Indeed, see Sir John Sinclair: A History of Taxation.The land tax in 1646 was £2,473,499. --author Land is the only interest that requires no special protection.It is unanimously protected throughout the world.All men, high and low, are interested in crops; all men, women, and children of all ages and ranks would rather come out to help the farmer than let the crop rot in the field; as they would in any other industry. .This is the only common prayer that man makes, and the only prayer that can save him from want.This is an interest that involves human survival rather than policy. When this interest is over, people are also over. No other interest is so united in support in one nation.Commerce, manufactures, arts, sciences, and all others are only partially supported by comparison.Their rise and fall have no such general influence.During the harvest season in mountain villages, not only the farmers sing, but all living things are also happy.It is a spectacle of prosperity that excludes all envy; nothing else can match it. Why, then, does Mr. Burke speak of the House of Lords as the support of landed interests?If this pillar were sunk, the estate would still exist, and so would the plowing, sowing, and reaping.The aristocrats are not farmers who work in the fields and increase production, but only rely on land rent to live an exploitative life; compared with the vibrant world, they are a swarm of drones, neither collecting honey nor building nests, living only for pride A life of luxury and obscenity. Mr. Burke, in his first treatise, called the nobility "the Corinthian capital of high society."To complete the metaphor he now adds pillars; but the foundation is still lacking: as long as a nation decides to act not blindly but bravely, like Samson, the temple of Dagon will fall, and the nobles will fall. The lords and the philistines will also perish together. If one class of men constitutes a legislature for the protection of a particular interest, all other interests should likewise do the same.Taxation is unequal and heavy because only one party is allowed to do it and everyone is not allowed to do it.Had there been a college of farmers, there would be no rules of hunting: or a college of merchants and manufacturers, and taxes would not have been so unequal, nor so onerous.Taxes soared without restraint because the power of taxation was in the hands of those who could offload a large part of the tax from their shoulders. Small and medium property owners lose more from the tax increase on consumer goods than they gain from the exemption from the estate tax, for the following reasons: In the first place, in proportion to their property, these people consume more taxed goods than those who own a large estate. Secondly, they live chiefly in the towns, and their estates are largely housed; and the increase of the poor tax by taxes on consumer goods is much more proportionally beneficial than the land tax.In Birmingham there is not less than seven shillings a poor tax on every pound.As has been said above, such tax aristocrats are mostly exempt. These are only some of the dangers of the House of Lords' dastardly tricks. As a union, it is always able to exempt itself from a considerable part of the dues; and as a hereditary house, accountable to no one, it is like a decaying borough with few inhabitants but equal suffrage, and the stakes are higher Seek its consent.There are few members of this House who do not share or embezzle the public money in one way or another.One member of the House of Lords could be a candle-bearer or courtier; another a royal chamberlain or servant, or whatever minor errand of note, paid out of public taxes, so that corruption would not be directly exposed.This practice is detrimental to human morality; where they bow their knees, there is no shame at all. ① Corinth is a famous slavery city in ancient Greece. - translator ②Samson, a character described in the Bible, is famous for his physical strength. - translator ③ Dagon, the national god of the ancient Philistines, is marked by a human head, a human body and a fish tail. - translator To all this, add innumerable patrons, a large number of juniors and distant relatives, who are also maintained at public expense; Relief is equal.The Duke of Richmond alone (and many like him) can support two thousand poor and old at the expense of the public money.Is it any wonder, under such a system of government, that taxes should be increased to the present extent? I say this with frank disinterestedness, not sentimentality but humanity.As for me, not only have I refused grants, which I considered undeserved, but also remunerations which I may have deserved, it is no wonder that baseness and deception arouse my aversion.My happiness consists in being independent, that I see things as they are, and disregard position and greatness; I regard the whole world as my homeland, and do good deeds as my religion. Mr. Burke, speaking of Primogeniture, said: "This is our standing law of land succession, of course, it has a tendency," he went on, "I think it is an important and far-reaching maintenance. a good disposition of character." Mr. Burke may call this law whatever he pleases, but humanity and the mind of justice call it a barbaric law of injustice.If, instead of being accustomed to this common practice, we hear of laws of this kind in some remote part of the world, we shall assert that the legislators of such a country have not yet reached the level of civilization. As for its preservation of "important and far-reaching" virtues, I think the opposite is true.It defiles human character; it is an act of plundering the property of kin.It may be important to diners, but it has little national importance, let alone worldwide.As for myself, my parents could not afford to give me a shilling more than my education; and they took pains to get me educated; Anyone on Mr. Clark's list of nobles is bigger. Having thus looked at some of the shortcomings of both Houses of Parliament, I want to say very briefly what is called the Throne. ①It means a nominal position with an income of a million pounds a year, the task of which is to take this money.It doesn't matter whether the person who takes the money is smart or stupid, normal or abnormal, native or foreign.Every cabinet has acted on the point that Mr. Burke has written, that monsters must be allowed to deceive the people, and keep them in a state of superstition and ignorance; for all purposes.As for the other two departments, let alone. In all countries the danger to the office is not what will happen to the man who sits in it, but what will happen to the nation, that is, the danger that the nation will begin to wake up. People are used to calling the king's power the executive power, and they continue to call it the executive power, although the reasons for doing so no longer exist. The royal power is called the executive power because the person it symbolizes has always played the role of judge who enforces or enforces the law.At that time, the court was part of the court.Hence, what is now called judicial power was then called executive power; as a result, one of the two terms is superfluous, as are the two offices. Symonds edition omits this and the next paragraph, and adds the following remark: "Here, on page 107 of the original edition, there are two subsequent paragraphs, in approximately the same typeface as in this edition, totaling eleven lines. These two short paragraphs are included in the indictment as indictable material; Every part of the government should be open to full inspection and scrutiny; and where this is not the case, the country is not free; The whole detects and remedies errors, deceptions, and absurdities. If there is any part of the government over which the nation must insist on exercising this right, more than any other, that part is the one which costs the nation the most, and is called in England the Throne." - Original Editor One item doesn't work.Now when we speak of kings, it is meaningless; it signifies neither judges nor generals; moreover, it is the law, not the individual, who governs the state.The old titles have been retained to give veneer to empty forms; their sole effect is to increase expenditure. Before I begin to examine the ways in which governments may be made to promote the general welfare of mankind more than at present, it may be useful to consider the development of taxation in England. It is generally believed that once a tax is imposed, it can never be abolished.However true this has been in recent years, it has not always been the case in the past.Either, therefore, men in former times watched their governments more closely than they do now, or that their expenditures were less intemperate than they are now. Seven hundred years have elapsed since the Norman conquest and the establishment of this system called kingship.Taking every hundred years as a period and dividing this period into seven periods, then the total annual tax revenue in each period is as follows: William the Conqueror's tax year total (since 1066)...£400,000 Total annual taxation for one hundred years after the conquest (1166) ... £200.000 Total annual tax revenue for two hundred years after the conquest (1266) ... £150,000 Total annual taxation for three hundred years after the conquest (1366)... £130,000 Total annual taxation for four hundred years after the conquest (1466) ... £100,000 These and the following statements are quoted from Sir John Sinclair's History of Taxation; from which it can be seen that for four hundred years the tax revenue has been falling steadily, and at the end of the period it has been reduced by three quarters, from £400,000 to £100,000. pound.The modern Englishman has a traditional and historical notion that their ancestors were brave; but whatever their merits, they are certainly not easily deceived, if not in principle at least in taxation. With fear.Although they failed to eradicate the monarchical usurpation, they confined it to the tax economy of the republic. Let us now examine the tax situation for the remaining three hundred years. Total annual taxation five hundred years after the conquest (1566)... £500,000 Total annual taxation six hundred years after the conquest (1666)... £1,800,000 Current total tax revenue per annum (1791) ................................... £17,000,000 The difference between the first four centuries and the last three centuries is so great that it can be asserted that the national character of the English has changed.It is impossible to compel the British of the past to accept such heavy taxes as they are now; if it is considered that the salaries of the army, navy, and all tax collectors are now the same as they were more than a hundred years ago, and the taxes at that time were less than one-tenth of the present. , it seems impossible not to attribute this enormous expense to extravagance, corruption, and intrigue. ①Watt Taylor has been mentioned frequently in several court papers recently.It is not surprising that his name was viciously maligned by court sycophants and all those who live by embezzlement.However, he was the agent who stopped the rampant taxation and injustice of his time, and the people are so grateful for his heroic deeds.This period of history is roughly as follows: ——During the time of Richard II, a poll tax of one shilling was levied on each person over the age of fifteen, regardless of their status, rich or poor.If there is any partiality in the law, it is in favor of the rich rather than the poor, for the law states that, notwithstanding the size of a family, it shall not be taxed more than twenty shillings, including itself, family and servants, and the number of persons under twenty All other families in the family were taxed at one shilling each.Poll taxes have always been a nuisance, but this regulation, being equally harsh and unfair, must have caused general discontent among the poor and middle classes.The man known as Walter Taylor, originally named Walter, was a "bricklayer" and lived in Deptford. A poll-tax collector came to his house to collect taxes from one of his daughters, who Taylor said was not yet ten years old. At the age of five, the tax collector insisted on collecting taxes and inspected the girl with wanton frivolity. This behavior angered the father. He beat the tax collector with a hammer and knocked him to the ground. He died. After this happened, the people were furious. Residents in the neighborhood supported Taylor. According to some historians' records, more than 50,000 people joined Taylor's team within a few days, and Taylor was the leader. Taylor then led the team to London, demanding the abolition of the poll tax and Correction of other malpractices. The revolution in the first year of Richard, especially after the succession of the Hanoverian dynasty, brought about the pernicious practice of conspiracies and intrigues among the continental countries, and the prevalence of foreign wars and scrambles for foreign territories. This practice is incredible and costs countless money. One aspect alone cost millions of pounds. It is difficult to estimate how much taxation would have risen had the French Revolution not broken this practice and put a check on the pretexts. If the French Revolution were regarded as a relief to both nations the fortunate means of taxation (which the revolution ought to do), it is as important to England as it is to France; and, if a proper improvement is made of all the good which the revolution can and has brought, it is worthy of the same congratulations of both peoples. In discussing this question, I shall start with the first thing that comes before us, namely, to reduce the burden of taxation, and then propose matters and proposals that the current situation proves to be possible to involve Britain, France, and the United States.I refer to the Triple Alliance, the purpose of which will be dealt with in the appropriate chapter. What has happened may happen again.It can be seen from the above table of tax evolution that the tax was reduced to a quarter of its original value.Although the present situation does not permit a reduction to this extent, there have been such beginnings, and it may be possible to achieve this in a shorter period of time than was the case in the past. Therefore, he had no choice but to agree to talk with Taylor in Smithfield, and said many beautiful words, pretending that he would no longer oppress the people in the future.But when Richard and Taylor were negotiating these issues on horseback, the mayor of London Waltz and a guy at the court saw an opportunity to stab Taylor with a dagger like a cowardly assassin, and another Two or three men rushed at him, and in this way Taylor was sacrificed. Taylor is a selfless and fearless man.All the advice he made to Richard was far more fair and reasonable than that which the nobles and lords had made to Mr. John in the past, and despite the flattery of historians and attempts like Mr. Taylor's reputation will live on forever beyond their lies.If it is worth erecting a monument at Longley Medley for noble princes, it is also worth erecting a monument for Taylor at Smithfield. --author English Tyler (Taylor) is not only a surname, but also can be interpreted as a bricklayer. Later generations commemorated Walter who was a bricklayer, so he called him Wat Taylor, which has a pun. - translator Refers to John, the king of England, who reigned from 1199 to 1216. - translator British place name, on the banks of the River Thames in southwest London, where the Magna Carta was signed in June 1215. - translator The annual taxation up to Michelle, 1788, was as follows:— Land tax …………………………………… 1,950,000 pounds Tariff ………………………………………… 3,789,274 pounds Excise duty (incl. stale beer) ……………… £6,751,727 Stamp duty ………………………………… 1,278,214 pounds Other Miscellaneous Taxes and Additional Taxes ................................... £1,803,755 A total of £15,572,970. Since 1788 more than a million pounds of new taxes have been levied, in addition to lottery revenues, and as the taxes levied since then have generally been greater than previous revenues, the total has come to about a thousand Seven million pounds. NOTE - Collection fees and refunds of nearly £2 million have been deducted from the total and the above figures are net transfers to the treasury. The sum of 17 million pounds has two uses, one is to pay the interest on the national debt, and the other is to use it for the current year's expenses.Some £9 million was allocated to the former and nearly £8 million to the latter. The court is in a situation of isolation and powerlessness. - translator As for the million pounds, which is said to be used to reduce debts, it is like giving out and taking in, and it is not worth paying more attention to. Fortunately, France has state-owned territories to repay the national debt, so it can reduce taxes. However, Britain does not have state-owned territories. To reduce taxes, it can only reduce annual expenditure. According to the current situation, it can reduce four to five million pounds a year. See below Self-explanatory.If this were done, the great expense of the war against the United States would be more than offset, and this surplus would flow from the same source of evil. As to the national debt, however heavy the interest may be in terms of taxation, it may, by its efficiency, lighten itself a great part of the burden, as it helps to maintain a capital favorable to trade; The reason is that the appropriate proportion has not been maintained (should be 60 million pounds, but now it does not exceed 20 million pounds). Therefore, apart from being unfair, it is a bad idea to give up a capital that can make up for the defect.However, when it comes to library expenses, any savings, however small, are always a benefit.Excessive savings may make corruption flourish, but it is no more counterproductive to credit and trade than interest on national debt. The British government (and I don't mean British nationals) is now likely to be hostile to the French Revolution.Any measure which, by cutting taxes, would expose the intrigues of the court, and weaken its power, was not welcome to those who enriched themselves by dividing the spoils.The nation is gullible, frightened, and willing to pay its taxes, when there is so much clamor about French intrigues, tyranny, Catholicism, and clogs.Now, those days are over; the deceit may be over, and there is hope for good times for both countries and the world. If it is taken for granted that the alliance of England, France, and the United States for the purposes to be described below will reduce the national expenditures of France and England.There is no need for both countries to maintain the original navy and army, and each party can reduce the number of ships in a one-to-one ratio.However, to achieve these goals, the two governments must act in accordance with the same principle.Trust cannot be established if either party remains hostile, or if one party treats the other party's sincerity with ambiguity and secrecy. After confirming these claims, and in order to set a precedent, the expenditure of the state may be reduced to the level of the period when France and England were not enemies.This must have been before the succession of the Hanoverian dynasty, and before the Revolution of 1922.The first instance which appeared before these two periods was the period of extravagance of Charles II; England and France acted as allies.I have chosen a period of extreme extravagance, which can attest to the aggravation of modern extravagance; especially since the salaries of the navy, army, and tax-collectors have not increased since then. The usual establishment at that time was as follows (cf. John "Sir John Sinclair: History of Taxation"):— Navy………………………………………… 300,000 pounds is abominable—they tried to get rid of his uncle, the other murdered her father in order to gain power for themselves— —I am displeased, however, by the tendency of the English nation to take this (revolutionary) event seriously, since it ascribes all the credit for it to a man who profited by it, and who, besides gaining otherwise, And extorted £600,000 for the flotilla that brought him from Holland.George I was as stingy as William, and he bought the Duchy of Bremen with the money he got from England. The land cost 250,000 pounds, and it was not paid with the king's salary.He thus acquired the estate with British money, adding another to his Hanoverian estate for private gain.In fact, any country that cannot self-government will be ruled as a kind of self-serving thing.Britain has been in the bag since the Revolution. --author Since the above note was part of the indictment against Paine, Paine omitted it from the Symonds edition, and ① foreign conspiracies, foreign wars, and the possession of foreign territories were the main origin countries that caused the deficit. --author ②I happened to be in England at the time of the centenary of the revolution of 1688, and what I have always thought of William and Mary would be replaced by the following passages: "On page 116 of the original edition of this book there is a footnote offering criticisms of William and Mary's personalities—one against his uncle, the other against her own father—as have been made by other authors. Dr. Johnson, even when he was an employee of the present dynasty, used stronger words of discontent than I have. Why, then, should there be a change in practice, which was allowed and apparently encouraged, and now prosecuted? Only an insider can explain it. In the same note it is also mentioned that William extorted £600,000 for the Dutch fleet which he sent from Holland, and that Jochat I bought it with £250,000 which he raised from England. The duchies of Bremen and Widden were thus enlarged for his private use by the duchies of Bremen and Widden. Notes containing these are included in the indictment; but for what purpose I do not know. "According to Dr. John Sinclair's History of Taxation (Part III, p. 40), the bill for the Dutch fleet was £686,500, which was reduced by Parliament to sixty万镑。从年下院通过的一项决议来看，威廉在花费英国的金钱方面是不大审慎或小心的。该决议如下：——'众所周知，数以百万计的钱付给了国王陛下（指威廉）作为公用，但用途迄未说明。'（参见英《议会议事录》）“至于乔治一世用从英国获得的钱购买不来梅和维当领地一事，《议会议事录》可以证明，此事在议会中遭到的反对表明各个派系普遍对它所持的看法。 ”——作者 陆军………………………………………………212，000镑 军用品……………………………………………40，000镑 王室开支……………………………………………462，115镑 共计1，014.115镑 可是，议会将当时全年的平时编制定为一百二十万镑①。如果我们退回到伊丽莎白女王时代，那时全部税收额只有五十万镑，可是英国国民却看不出在那个时期有哪一点可以斥之为没有成果。 如果把法国革命、英法两国趋于协调与互利，双方官廷不再搞阴谋，以及管理科学的知识的进步等等因素综合起来，全年的开支也许可以减少到一百五十万镑，即：——海军………………………………………………500，000镑陆军………………………………………………500，000镑政府开支…………………………………………500，000镑共计1，500，000镑即使此数也比美国政府的开支多六倍，然而英国的民政（我指的是由地区法庭、陪审团和巡泅审判所行使的民政，这其实几乎全部是由国民行使的）需要国家的开支，要比美国同样性质和规模的民政所需要的来得少。 现在是各国国民应当懂道理，不让人骑在自己头上，象牲畜一样受摆弄的时候了。谁要是读一遍帝王史，都会把政府视同猎鹿，各国国民每年要付给猎人一百万镑。人们应当有足够的自尊或耻辱心理，对于这样受欺侮感到惭愧，而等他意识到自己应有的人格时，他是会感到羞愧的。对于所有这类性质的问题，他脑子里经常会掠过一些他还不习惯于加以鼓励和表达的念头。由于小心谨慎心理的约束，他对自己和对别人都扮演了伪君子的角色。 ①查理与他的前任和继承者一样，发现打仗财政府大有好处，于是同荷兰打了一仗，这次战争把当年的开支增加到一百八十万镑（1666年结账），而平时的编制只有一百二十万镑。 --author . 然而，看到这种着迷状态能消失得多么快，也真叫人希奇。一句大胆地想出来和说出来的诸常会使整整一批人心理恢复正常；全体国民也同样受到影响。 至于用什么名义去称呼那些组成文官政府的职位，那倒无关紧要。上面讲过，在例行公事中，一个人无论称为总统、国王、皇帝、议员或别的什么，他所作的贡献的价值决不可能超过每年从国家领取一万镑；而且正如不应付给任何人以超过他的贡献的报酬，每一个正直的人也不愿接受过多的酬金。 应当以最审慎的道德心来动用公款。公款不仅是财富的产物，而且是劳动和贫困的血汗收入。它甚至是从匾乏凄惨的苦难生活中获得的。一个乞丐在街上走过，或倒毙街头，他身上仅有的一个铜板都会投入公款。 倘若美国国会玩忽职守，置选民利益于不顾，竟然付给美国总统华盛顿将军一年一百万美元，华盛顿是不会也不能接受的。他另有一种荣誉感。英国几乎已经花费了七千万镑来供养一个从国外引进的家族，其才能远远不及千千万万老百姓；而且几乎没有一年不提出一些新的金钱要求。即使医疗费也要公家支付。这就无怪乎狱中人满为患，赋税与济贫税有增无减。在这种制度下，除了已发生的事情外，别无指望；至于改革，不管何时进行，必然只能来自国民，而不能来自政府。 为了表明五十万镑之数支付除海陆军之外的全部政府开支绰绰有余，我替任何一个其幅员与英国相同的国家作出以下预算。 首先，三百名公平选出的代表足以胜任立法机关的一切任务，而且只有比人数多来得好。这些代表可以分为两、三个院，或者象法国那样在一个院开会，或者按宪法规定的任何方式议事。 由于在自由国家中，代表是所有身份中最光荣的，发给的津贴仅仅用来支付代表履行职责所需要的费用，而不是作为一个官职发给的。 如果每个代表每年发给五百镑津贴（缺席扣除），每年有六个月全体代表出席，则费用总数为……75，000镑 官方各部门连同薪俸在内，按理不得超过以下数目： ——三个官职，每个以一万镑计算，共………………30，000镑 十个官职，每个以五千镑计算，共………………50，000镑 二十个官职，每个以两千镑计算，共……………40，000镑 四十个官职，每个以一千镑计算，共……………40…00镑 二百个官职，每个以五百镑计算，共……………100，000镑 三百个官职，每个以二百镑计算，共…………… 60，000镑 五百个官职，每个以一百镑计算，共…………… 50，000镑 七百个官职，每个以七十五镑计算，共……………52，500镑 共497，500镑 如果一国国民愿意的话，可从所有官职减去百分之四，这样每年就可节省两万镑。 所有税务员的薪金从他们征集的税款中支付，因此不包括在这个预算之内。 上述预算并不是作为各官职的精确划分，而只不过表明五十万镑所能维持的级别和薪俸数；而且根据经验，要找到充分的职务来证明这笔开支合理也是办不到的。至于现在的办公方式，有些部门如邮政和财政等部门的首脑，一年除了三、四次签个名什么也不干；全部公务都是下级职员办理的。 因此，假定足以应付政府一切正当用途的平时编制为一百五十万镑，此数比查理二世极度奢侈浪费时期（虽然前面已讲到过，陆、海军和税务员的薪金仍然同那个时期的相同）的平时编制还多三十万镑，那么，当前的日常经费还可以剩余六百多万镑。于是，问题是如何处理这笔余款？ 凡注意到贸易与税收混在一起的情形的人，一定会感到硬要把它们分开是不可能的。 首先，因为现有的货物已经纳了税；所以现有存货不能减税。 其次，因为所有这些货物都是大批抽税的，如按一桶、一大桶、一百一十二磅或二千二百四十磅计算，免去的税不能分得那么细，以减轻消费者的负担，因为消费者是按品脱或磅来购买的。最近一次对浓啤酒和淡啤酒征收的税为每桶三先令，如果取消此税，每品脱只能减价半个法寻①，因此无补于实际。 大部分的赋税情况既是如此，就有必要想别的办法来摆脱这种障碍，以收到直接和明显地减轻负担的效果，并且能够立即推行。 那么，首先，济贫税是每个户主都感受到的一种直接税，他对他付出的每一个小钱都知道得很清楚。虽然全国济贫税的总数不能确切知道，但是可以查到。约翰·辛克莱爵士在《税收史》中说是二百一十万零五百八十七镑。 其中相当一部分用在诉讼上，穷人在这方面不但得不到救济，反而受到损失。 然而，诉讼的费用对教区是一样的，不管它起因何在。 在伯明翰，济贫税一年为一万四千镑。这个数目虽大，但同人口相比还是适中的。据说伯明翰有七万人，按七万对一万四千济贫税的比例，如英国人口为七百万，则全国济贫税总数仅为一百四十万镑。因此，对伯明翰人口很可能是估计过高了。济贫税全国总额既为二百万，则一万四千镑乃是对五万人所征之数。 然而，不论如何，这总之是赋税过重的结果，因为，在赋税很轻的时期，穷人是能够养活自己的，当时并没有济贫税①。今天，一个有妻子和两、三个儿女的男劳工，每年纳税不下七、八镑。他并不意识到这一点，因为这种税是包藏在他所买的货物中的，把他瞒过去了，他只觉得东西太贵；但是，由于捐税至少拿走了他一年收入的四分之一，结果他就养不活一家人，特别是他自己或家中任何人生了病的话。 因此，实际救济的第一步就是要彻底废除济贫税，而代之以对穷人免税，免除的数额为目前济贫税的一倍，即每年四百万镑，从剩余税款中调拨，通过这一措施，穷人可得益二百万，户主也得益二百万。单是这一项就等于减少一亿二千万的国债，结果等于对美战争的全部费用。 现在要考虑的是，如何最有效地来分配这四百万豁免了的税。