instead of anything having been done for his advantage, he has been tormented, and he is made to pay for having been tormented.
If the expenses are altogether thrown upon the party who is found to have done wrong (although it often happens, owing to the uncertainty either of the facts or of the law, that there has been no wilful wrong on either side,) this cannot be done at first: this party can only be known at the termination of the suit.But then such a judgment would be a punishment; and there is a chance that such a punishment may not be deserved; another chance, that the individual may not be in a.condition to support it; another chance, that it will be either too great or too little.[1]
II.As another violation of this rule, may be cited the practice of taking fees, as carried on in most custom-houses, and which constituted a great abuse in those of England, previously to the reform introduced by Mr.Pitt.Many of the officers, not receiving salaries sufficient for their maintenance, were allowed to make up the deficiency by fees received for their own advantage.This custom had an appearance of reason.``We pass your merchandise through the custom-house'', they might have said;``and you ought to pay for this service.'' But this reason is deceptive.
``Without this custom -house'', the merchants might have replied, ``our merchandise would have gone straight forward.It is not for our advantage that this costly depot is established---it is for the general wants of the State; the State, therefore, which you serve, ought to pay you, and not us, whom you torment with your services, which we should be very happy to do without.'' But it may be said, this expense must be borne by somebody:
why should it not be borne by these merchants as well as anybody else?
Because it is a partial and unequal tax.Taxes upon merchandise are generally in proportion to the value of the goods; this abusive tax seldom is so.
A rich merchant does not feel it; he is reimbursed by the sale of his goods:
a poor individual is oppressed by this second contribution, which he finds is necessary to pay to the clerk after he has paid what is due to the Exchequer;and it with reason appears to him the more odious, because it is oftentimes arbitrary.
III.In conclusion, as a last example of the violation of this rule, we mention the emoluments of the clergy, in so far as they consist of tithes.If the services of the clergy contribute to the maintenance of public morality, and obedience to the laws, even those to whom these services are not personally directed are benefited by them---they are useful to the whole state: their expense, whatever ought to be its amount, ought to be borne by the whole community.
Distributed as this expense is at present, under the system of tithes, in such manner that every one knows bow much and to whom be pays it, no advantage is derived from this knowledge; whilst the inconveniences are but too manifest, in that hatred which so frequently subsists between the parishioners and their minister, the shepherd and his flock; by means of which his labours, so long as this enmity subsists, are rendered worse than useless.Were this expense to be defrayed from the general source of the public treasure, these scandalous dissensions would be avoided;and whether the revenues were more or less ample, it would be possible to preserve a more just proportion between them and the different degrees of labour, instead of floating as at present between £20 and £20,000per annum, under the direction of chance.[2]
