As a proof of this, he mentions, almost in the same place, an effect of the increase of taxes, which is quite contrary to the former.
“Consumption,” says he, “diminishes, as taxes augment.”
This is a contingent, but not a necessary consequence, as we have seen, and has the effect of lowering prices.
I mention these particulars, only to shew how little this great man had studied the principles of taxation, or combined the causes of those phænomena which he saw arising from them.
Such contrary effects could not fail to be felt, when taxes were raised[raised] in the manner usual at that time, and when no method was contrived for augmenting the currency.
In Richlieu’s time the custom was to treat with the partisans, as they were called, or undertakers for the farm of taxes; and for a sum of money, valued at a certain interest, to give them a right to levy certain impositions on the people, esteemed equivalent to the rate agreed upon; some in one province, some in another, as the parties could agree. Then the partisans fell to work with the people, and committed the most horrid extortions. In the 4th §. of his 4th chapter, he says, “The abuse is carried such a length, as to be quite insupportable, and must end in the ruin of the state; the people are plundered, not taxed; fortunes are made by rapine, not industry: using the partisans like spunges is very just; but liable, on the other hand, to great abuse, when not conducted with moderation and justice.” This is a very different system of taxation from that carried on in England in Davenant’s time, and must have produced effects very dissimilar.
But it may be asked, if these partisans in France had found out means of raising money, far beyond the King’s intention; what prevented the Cardinal from examining into such means, and using them in a gentle and equitable manner, to the extent only of satisfying the creditors for the money borrowed from them?
In those days several difficulties occurred, which rendered this expedient impracticable.
1mo, The partisans would lend in no other way; they would have nothing to do with the King as a debtor: his credit was not well established; and by having the direct administration of a tax, they considered themselves as more secure.
2do, Had the King levied the money on the people, and been paymaster to the creditors himself, there would have been no gains to the partisans but what were stipulated: had they exacted more than legal interest, they exposed themselves to great danger; and consequently would not lend. So, by delivering up the people to be plundered, the King made a better bargain, he thought, than any other way; and if the partisans plundered the people, the Cardinal plundered them in his turn.