Volume III Part 28 (1/2)

I might here ask, if those only who come under the above description are to be considered as citizens, what designation do you mean to give the rest of the people? I allude to that portion of the people on whom the princ.i.p.al part of the labour falls, and on whom the weight of indirect taxation will in the event chiefly press. In the structure of the social fabric, this cla.s.s of people are infinitely superior to that privileged order whose only qualification is their wealth or territorial possessions. For what is trade without merchants? What is land without cultivation? And what is the produce of the land without manufactures?

But to return to the subject.

In the first place, this article is incompatible with the three first articles of the Declaration of Rights, which precede the Const.i.tutional Act.

The first article of the Declaration of Rights says:

”The end of society is the public good; and the inst.i.tution of government is to secure to every individual the enjoyment of his rights.”

But the article of the Const.i.tution to which I have just adverted proposes as the object of society, not the public good, or in other words, the good of _all_, but a partial good; or the good only of a _few_; and the Const.i.tution provides solely for the rights of this few, to the exclusion of the many.

The second article of the Declaration of Rights says:

”The Rights of Man in society are Liberty, Equality, Security of his person and property.”

But the article alluded to in the Const.i.tution has a direct tendency to establish the reverse of this position, inasmuch as the persons excluded by this _inequality_ can neither be said to possess liberty, nor security against oppression. They are consigned totally to the caprice and tyranny of the rest.

The third article of the Declaration of Rights says:

”Liberty consists in such acts of volition as are not injurious to others.”

But the article of the Const.i.tution, on which I have observed, breaks down this barrier. It enables the liberty of one part of society to destroy the freedom of the other.

Having thus pointed out the inconsistency of this article to the Declaration of Rights, I shall proceed to comment on that of the same article which makes a direct contribution a necessary qualification to the right of citizens.h.i.+p.

A modern refinement on the object of public revenue has divided the taxes, or contributions, into two cla.s.ses, the _direct_ and the_ indirect_, without being able to define precisely the distinction or difference between them, because the effect of both is the same.

Those are designated indirect taxes which fall upon the consumers of certain articles, on which the tax is imposed, because, the tax being included in the price, the consumer pays it without taking notice of it.

The same observation is applicable to the territorial tax. The land proprietors, in order to reimburse themselves, will rack-rent their tenants: the farmer, of course, will transfer the obligation to the miller, by enhancing the price of grain; the miller to the baker, by increasing the price of flour; and the baker to the consumer, by raising the price of bread. The territorial tax, therefore, though called _direct_, is, in its consequences, _indirect_.

To this tax the land proprietor contributes only in proportion to the quant.i.ty of bread and other provisions that are consumed in his own family. The deficit is furnished by the great ma.s.s of the community, which comprehends every individual of the nation.

From the logical distinction between the direct and in-direct taxation, some emolument may result, I allow, to auditors of public accounts, &c., but to the people at large I deny that such a distinction (which by the by is without a difference) can be productive of any practical benefit. It ought not, therefore, to be admitted as a principle in the const.i.tution.

Besides this objection, the provision in question does not affect to define, secure, or establish the right of citizens.h.i.+p. It consigns to the caprice or discretion of the legislature the power of p.r.o.nouncing who shall, or shall not, exercise the functions of a citizen; and this may be done effectually, either by the imposition of a _direct or indirect_ tax, according to the selfish views of the legislators, or by the mode of collecting the taxes so imposed.

Neither a tenant who occupies an extensive farm, nor a merchant or manufacturer who may have embarked a large capital in their respective pursuits, can ever, according to this system, attain the preemption of a citizen. On the other hand, any upstart, who has, by succession or management, got possession of a few acres of land or a miserable tenement, may exultingly exercise the functions of a citizen, although perhaps neither possesses a hundredth part of the worth or property of a simple mechanic, nor contributes in any proportion to the exigencies of the State.

The contempt in which the old government held mercantile pursuits, and the obloquy that attached on merchants and manufacturers, contributed not a little to its embarra.s.sments, and its eventual subversion; and, strange to tell, though the mischiefs arising from this mode of conduct are so obvious, yet an article is proposed for your adoption which has a manifest tendency to restore a defect inherent in the monarchy.

I shall now proceed to the second article of the same t.i.tle, with which I shall conclude my remarks.

The second article says, ”Every French soldier, who shall have served one or more campaigns in the cause of liberty, is deemed a citizen of the republic, without any respect or reference to other qualifications.”(1)

It would seem, that in this Article the Committee were desirous of extricating themselves from a dilemma into which they had been plunged by the preceding article. When men depart from an established principle they are compelled to resort to trick and subterfuge, always s.h.i.+fting their means to preserve the unity of their objects; and as it rarely happens that the first expedient makes amends for the prost.i.tution of principle, they must call in aid a second, of a more flagrant nature, to supply the deficiency of the former. In this manner legislators go on acc.u.mulating error upon error, and artifice upon artifice, until the ma.s.s becomes so bulky and incongruous, and their embarra.s.sment so desperate, that they are compelled, as their last expedient, to resort to the very principle they had violated. The Committee were precisely in this predicament when they framed this article; and to me, I confess, their conduct appears specious rather than efficacious.(2)

1 This article eventually stood: ”All Frenchmen who shall have made one or more campaigns for the establishment of the Republic, are citizens, without condition as to taxes.”-- _Editor._