JB/036/137/002

Click Here To Edit

1821 Jany 16

After this explanation This being understood, let us observe the results of a
prohibitory law of this sort, considered in all the varieties variations of which they
are susceptible.

When, in the view of favouring home commodities a prohibition, inhibiting the introduction
of certain foreign commodities considered considered as rival
commodities is issued, it is in the instance of each consumerpurchase
made for consumption either obeyed or disobeyed: this obeyed if instead
of the foreign article it is the home article that is
purchased: purchased: or if neither the one nor the other is purchased: disobeyed if instead of the home article it is
the foreign article that is purchased. In consequence the case of every such prohibition
obedience has takes place in some instances, disobedience in
other instances.

Case 1. The prohibition obeyed: and the purpose answered, by namely by the purchase and use of the home article instead of the rival foreign article. Let us observe the effects of
it in this case.

In this case if every such prohibition in so far as
it is observed, the effect of it is the price paid for the
home article is greater than the price which, but for
the prohibition would have been paid for the rival foreign article:
if it were not the prohibition would be without an object: the act of
In this case prohibiting without a motive. The difference between the one price and the
other has, in respect of the loss quantity to the consumer – in respect
of the weight of the burthen thus imposed upon him
– the effect of a tax to that same amount.

But the pocket into which the produce of
this sort of tax goes whose is it? that of the public? No:
but that of an individual – the producer of the article
thus taxed. To the people at large, in respect of any
saving in the quantity of taxes that require to be imposed
in other shapes, it the effect is no other than the benefit
no greater than that of a tax to the same amount would
be, if instead of being conveyed into the public treasury pocket, it
were left to remain in the pockets of the collectors.

If, instead of the prohibition in question, a tax to this
same amount had been imposed upon the rival foreign article, the produce
instead of being thus given to the collectors, have been carried
conveyed into the public pocket, and by the whole amount, operated as a
saving to the people in diminution of the taxes contributions that would otherwise have
been to be exacted from
them through other
channels. Not to the
whole amount, it may
be said: for ex in the
case of the tax the expence of collection would have been to be deducted. Yes, to the whole amount: for the expence of enforcing the prohibition will not be, assignably less in
to an assignable amount less than the expence of collecting the tax.

Identifier: | JB/036/137/002 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 36.
Date_1	1822-07-15	Marginal Summary Numbering	or 1 - or 4
Box	036	Main Headings	constitutional code
Folio number	137	Info in main headings field	constitut. code
Image	002	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	c1 / e1
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	j whatman 1819
Marginals	jeremy bentham	Paper Producer	john flowerdew colls
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year	1819
Notes public		ID Number	11061
Box Contents