take out and keep out of the pockets of the people more than what it

brought into the treasury of the State. The taille in France before the
Revolution, was a tax of this description; those lands only were taxed,

which were held by an ignoble tenure, the price of raw produce rose in
portion" target="_blank" title="n.比率 vt.使成比例">proportion to the tax, and therefore they whose lands were not taxed,

were benefited by the increase of their rent. Taxes on raw produce, as
well as tithes, are free from this objection: they raise the price of raw

produce, but they take from each quality of land a contribution in
portion" target="_blank" title="n.比率 vt.使成比例">proportion to its actual produce, and not in portion" target="_blank" title="n.比率 vt.使成比例">proportion to the produce of

that which is the least productive.
From the peculiar view which Adam Smith took of rent, from his not

having observed that much capital is expended in every country, on the
land for which no rent is paid, he concluded that all taxes on the land,

whether they were laid on the land itself in the form of land-tax or tithes,
or on the produce of the land, or were taken from the profits of the

farmer, were all invariably paid by the landlord, and that he was in all
cases the real contributor, although the tax was, in general, nominally

advanced by the tenant. 'Taxes upon the produce of the land,' he says,
'are in reality taxes upon the rent; and though they may be originally

advanced by the farmer, are finally paid by the landlord. When a
certain portion of the produce is to be paid away for a tax, the farmer

computes as well as he can, what the value of this portion is, one year
with another, likely to amount to, and he makes a portion" target="_blank" title="n.比率 vt.使成比例">proportionable

abatement in the rent which he agrees to pay to the landlord. There is no
farmer who does not computebeforehand what the church-tithe, which

is a land-tax of this kind is, one year with another, likely to amount to.'
It is undoubtedly true, that the farmer does calculate his probable

outgoings of all descriptions, when agreeing with his landlord for the
rent of his farm; and if for the tithe paid to the church, or for the tax on

the produce of the land, he were not compensated by a rise in the relative
value of the produce of his farm, he would naturally endeavour to

deduct them from his rent. But this is precisely the question in dispute:
whether he will eventuallydeduct them from his rent, or be

compensated by a higher price of produce. For the reasons which have
been already given, I cannot have the least doubt but that they would

raise the price of produce, and consequently that Adam Smith has taken
an incorrect view of this important question.

Dr Smith's view of this subject is probably the reason why he has
described 'the tithe, and every other land-tax of this kind, under the

appearance of perfect equality, as very unequal taxes; a certain portion
of the produce being, in different situations, equivalent to a very

different portion of the rent.' I have endeavoured to shew that such taxes
do not fall with unequal weight on the different classes of farmers or

landlords, as they are both compensated by the rise of raw produce, and
only contribute to the tax in portion" target="_blank" title="n.比率 vt.使成比例">proportion as they are consumer" target="_blank" title="n.消费者；用户">consumers of raw

produce. Inasmuch indeed as wages, and through wages, the rate of
profits are affected" target="_blank" title="a.做作的；假装的">affected, landlords, instead of contributing their full share to

such a tax, are the class peculiarly exempted. It is the profits of stock,
from which that portion of the tax is derived which falls on those

labourers, who, from the insufficiency of their funds, are incapable of
paying taxes; this portion is exclusively" target="_blank" title="ad.独有地；排外地">exclusively borne by all those whose income

is derived from the employment of stock, and therefore it in no degree
affects landlords.

It is not to be inferred from this view of tithes, and taxes on the land
and its produce, that they do not discouragecultivation. Every thing

which raises the exchangeable value of commodities of any kind, which
are in very general demand, tends to discourage both cultivation and

production; but this is an evil inseparable from all taxation, and is not
confined to the particular taxes of which we are now speaking.

This may be considered, indeed, as the unavoidable disadvantage
attending all taxes received and expended by the State. Every new tax

becomes a new charge on production, and raises natural price. A portion
of the labour of the country which was before at the disposal of the

contributor to the tax, is placed at the disposal of the State, and cannot
therefore be employed productively. This portion may become so large,

that sufficient surplus may not be left to stimulate the exertions of those
who usually augment by their savings the capital of the State. Taxation

has happily never yet in any free country been carried so far as instantly
from year to year to diminish its capital. Such a state of taxation could

not be long endured; or if endured, it would be constantly absorbing so
much of the annual produce of the country as to occasion the most

extensive scene of misery, famine, and depopulation.
'A land-tax,' says Adam Smith, 'which, like that of Great Britain, is

assessed upon each district according to a certain invariable canon,
though it should be equal at the time of its first establishment,

necessarily becomes unequal in process of time, according to the
unequal degrees of improvement or neglect in the cultivation of the

different parts of the country. In England the valuation according to
which the different counties and parishes were assessed to the land-tax

by the 4th, William and Mary, was very unequal, even at its first
establishment. This tax, therefore, so far offends against the first of the

four maxims above mentioned. It is perfectlyagreeable to the other
three. It is perfectly certain. The time of payment for the tax being the

same as that for the rent, is as convenient as it can be to the contributor.
Though the landlord is in all cases the real contributor, the tax is

commonly advanced by the tenant, to whom the landlord is obliged to
allow it in the payment of the rent.'

If the tax be shifted by the tenant not on the landlord but on the
consumer" target="_blank" title="n.消费者；用户">consumer, then if it be not unequal at first, it can never become so; for

the price of produce has been at once raised in portion" target="_blank" title="n.比率 vt.使成比例">proportion to the tax, and
will afterwards vary no more on that account. It may offend, if unequal,

as I have attempted to shew that it will, against the fourth maxim above
mentioned, but it will not offend against the first. It may take more out

of the pockets of the people than it brings into the public treasury of the
State, but it will not fall unequally on any particular class of

contributors. M. Say appears to me to have mistaken the nature and
effects of the English land-tax, when he says, 'Many persons attribute to

this fixed valuation, the great prosperity of English agriculture. That it
has very much contributed to it there can be no doubt. But what should

we say to a Government, which, addressing itself to a small trader,
should hold this language: "With a small capital you are carrying on a

limited trade, and your direct contribution is in consequence very small.
Borrow and accumulate capital; extend your trade, so that it may

procure you immense profits; yet you shall never pay a greater
contribution. Moreover, when your successors shall inherit your profits,

and shall have further increased them, they shall not be valued higher to
them than they are to you; and your successors shall not bear a greater

portion of the public burdens."
'Without doubt this would be a great encouragement" target="_blank" title="n.鼓励；赞助；引诱">encouragement given to

manufactures and trade; but would it be just? Could not their
advancement be obtained at any other price? In England itself, has not

manufacturing and commercial industry made even greater progress,
since the same period, without being distinguished with so much

partiality? A landlord by his assiduity, economy, and skill, increases
his annualrevenue by 5,000 francs. If the State claim of him the fifth

part of his augmented income, will there not remain 4,000 francs of
increase to stimulate his further exertions?'

M. Say supposes, 'A landlord by his assiduity, economy and skill, to
increase his annualrevenue by 5,000 francs;, but a landlord has no

means of employing his assiduity, economy and skill on his land, unless
he farms it himself. and then it is in quality of capitalist and farmer that

he makes the improvement, and not in quality of landlord. It is not
conceivable that he could so augment the produce of his farm by any

peculiar skill on his part, without first increasing the quantity of capital
employed upon it. If he increased the capital, his larger revenue might

bear the same portion" target="_blank" title="n.比率 vt.使成比例">proportion to his increased capital, as the revenue of all
other farmers to their capitals.

If M. Say's suggestion were followed, and the State were to claim the