“ ’Tis not that my masters are so dreadfully heavy, that I complain, but ’tis that they sit and drive in so aukward a fashion, that flesh and blood cann’t bear it. -So I suppose skin and bones must, until we all tumble down together. ” The Complaint of old Dobbin Grey. Printed and Published by John Clark, 1848. THE WONDER of THE WINDOW TAX. “What a dreadful shame to tax the Light from Heaven! ” Not a bit of a shame.—I shall undertake clearly to prove, unto all reasonable people, that a tax on the Light of Heaven, under certain modifications , would be one of the best in the Budget. Whilst, under its present mode of operation, it certainly is one of the worst which the legislative folly of our ancestors has ever devised. “Shut up the world at large—let bed’lem out,” As Byron somewhere says, and we shall go Much better on, in this our motley rout.— ’Tis strange! yet small reflection serves to show The tr uth of this remark—though Peers may pout, ^The progress p’rhaps is certain, though’tis slow, The true principles of Taxation. Taking it for granted that the Government must and will have money annually from the people, (in¬ stead of being supported, in a independent manner, wholly on Crown Lands, granted by the nation,) it consequently follows, 1 Firstly—That largeness of amount, in proportion to the expense of collecting, is one great desideratum. Secondly—That it is highly desirable that all tax¬ ation should have a tendency to promote individual economy of wealth. Therefore, on the first principle, the more consoli¬ dated our taxes be rendered, the more productive and eligible they become.'' : On the second principle, a heavy taxation may be properly levied on some expensive articles of con¬ sumption. For, if these be indulged in, the Govern¬ ment Revenue is thereby increased;—and if they be not indulged in, the latent wealth of the nation is thereby certainly saved. . But the Light from Heaven is not an expensive article, —therefore our saving it by closing our windows benefits nobody. A tax on any expensive article, tends to economise its consumption, and thus saves our latent wealth; whilst the window-tax, by causing us to lessen our consumption of daylight, benefits no party, nor is our latent wealth promoted in the smallest degree. Even although we may save twenty thousand tons of sun¬ shine, annually, or ten thousand bushels of moonshine, our latent wealth would not thereby be promoted, nor saved, nor increased, but would be materially injured, because daylight is one of the means whereby labour is, assisted, health promoted, and wealth obtained. “Tax Luxuries, ta# Wealth, ’till all be drained; But never tax the. means by which ’tis gained.” The following is one illustration amongst a thousand, of the destructive tendency of levying a tax on the means of producing wealth. A small house in the country, and newly built, had one window more than the law allowed without being taxed: that said window had been used by an aged woman in the family, being the only convenient place in the house, where she sat and earned a trifle by knitting. On being 3 apprised that the window was subject to the tax, it was closed. Let us now look at the position of affairs. Did our Government gain anything by closing the said window % No. "Did the owner of the house gain anything ? No. Did the old woman gain by it 1 ? No she lost all the profit of her work by it; and the nation was impoverished to that exact amount. It may not perhaps have been great, in this instance, but the multiple of all the similar cases in the king¬ dom, amounts, annually, to a considerable sum. Therefore, the general effect of such tax is inju¬ rious, and the mode of its operation irrational. “ Examine well our tax on Window Light : Did ever a fool’s blunder, or the pen Of “ moody madness” ever once indite A Public Act more ruinous'?—for when The people thus change sunshine into night, As, more or less, they do before all men, A lunatic- would laugh, it looks so funny ; The People lose the light, the Peers the money. Not so with other taxes .-—not with one. Tax wine, tax oil, tax luxuries, tax lead; And you will find it true, when you have run Though the catalogue, when you have read Smith’s “Wealth of Nations,’’that we ought to shun This error of our thoughtless Peers, who’ve laid A tax on that which cost nought to possess. And which, if saved, makes all our wealth much less! Whereas, if wine we save, our wealth is greater; That is, our Latent Wealth. And all ivise Lords (Comparing Government to some Great Eater, The People to his servants; w'hich accords With Tories’ sentiments, ’though perhaps a neater Comparison they’d make) would grant rewards! Instead of taxing means of earning money, They’d bless the Bees , although they’d tax the Honey.” D. J. 4 OF WEALTH. All Wealth, whether of the nation, collectively, or of individuals, separately, arises from the productive application of Labour. There are many, blessings which we receive in this world, independently of Labour. The air we breathe, the rain from the clouds, and the water from the springs, are all inestimable blessings, but none of these come under the correct denomination of. wealth or Riches : ' these are the produce solely of Labour , National Wealth is the collective wealth of every individual comprising the nation. The National Latent Wealth is a subject of great importance : yet it is one which Governments have often overlooked. If the 'amount of Revenue for the current year be large , they commonly regard it as a favorable cir¬ cumstance. They forget that the more cash they draw out, the less there is left in the national reser¬ voir : this remaining surplus in the national reservoir, is Latent Wealth. OF ANNUAL INCOME. The National Annual Income is the exact amount of the wealth produced by the Labour of the nation. It is in vain to object that some incomes are de¬ rived from. lands, interest of capital, &c., for all these originate, and are wholly derived from past Labour. Annual Income, whether public or private, has its limits, yet, it may be augmented to a great degree by judicious procedure; and it may be diminished, and even annihilated, by the reverse. Thus it is pro¬ verbial that when money is not to be had, even the King loses his right. Of the PRODUCTION, the SATING, and the CONSUMPTION of WEALTH. Every article, produced by Labour, increases the National Wealth to the exact amount of the commercial value of the article produced. The saving of Wealth is a negative term: it neither increases nor diminishes Wealth, for thereby it remains in statu quo. Saving does not imply either getting or losing. “ That a penny saved is a penny got.” is a false proverb. A man who has a penny in his pocket, may save it every hour of the day, but unless he adds to it, by earning another penny, he will find himself no richer in the evening than he was in the morning, Consumption of Wealth is the reverse of Produc¬ tion ,•— it impoverishes the nation (directly) to the amount of the value of the article consumed. Illustration. —If a man, by his Labour, pro¬ duces any commodity worth £1., he is richer to that exact amount. If he saves it, he does not add thereto,neither does he deduct therefrom : it remains the same. If he consumes it, he is poorer to that exact amount—£1. And here it affects not the truth of the argument to say that the man lives by it. So he does, and very properly, for he earned it. Yet nevertheless he is poorer by its consumption, £1. But, being strengthened by eating or using it, may he not be enabled thereby to produce £2. ?- No doubt of it; and when he really has produced it, he will be exactly £2. richer by it. And thus it is that all Wealth is generated and increased. Of the DUTY and INTEREST of GOVERNMENTS. Assuming it as granted, that every Government is desirous of increasing its Revenue, it consequently follows that all its acts should tend to the national welfare, and to the increase of the annual income of Wealth. To effect this, it is evident that Labour (the root of all wealth,) should be promoted and.encouraged by general (not by particularJ protection. And even occasional aids may not be inexpedient: but let it be remembered that protection, and not aid, is the chief duty of Governments. Let us now examine how, far the Window Tax tends to promote the national welfare, or the riches of the kingdom. This tax is optional: that is, it depends on the will of individuals. If we open more than seven win¬ dows, we pay the tax in proportion to the extra num¬ ber opened. If we open no more than seven, we pay nothing. Consequently, the tax operates as an inducement to darken and to deteriorate our houses, instead of improving them ; and if every extra window in the kingdom were closed, it is evident that no window- tax would be paid. But let us pause awhile,—examine—reflect. Would the Latent Wealth of the nation be thereby increas¬ ed? No. Would our annual income be increased ? No. It would be much diminished. Would our general Revenue be benefited by the closing of our ■windows ? Not a sous. So here we are, all fools together! “ Quod erat demonstrandum. — Q. E. D. As our Logicians say, when they have gained An honest inference from those facts, which we Regard as pre-established, having reigned 7 Through all the tests of trial which may he With Logical propriety sustained, Or e’er have been applied to overthrow ’em, At least as far as most good people know ’em. D. J. GENERAL SYSTEM . .. OF FINANCE. Whenever the national benefit be the object, Taxes should not be laid on natural blessings, but rather on common nuisances: smoky chimneys, for instance. Again, we have a heavy tax on Fire-Insurance. But, before we proceed, let us understand each other. Is the Fire-Insurance a national benefit, or is it a common nuisance Y Which side does our Govern¬ ment take in the matter ? Do our legislators wish to encourage this Fire-Insurance as a fit and proper thing for every prudent man to avail himself of? If they do, in the name of common sense, why do they tax it? But, if they wish to discourage it, as pro¬ moting carelessness in the management of our fires, then, by all means, they ought to double or treble the tax, until every fire-insurance office in the kingdom becomes completely spifflicated. Aye! but how is the present amount of Revenue to be raised ? With the greatest ease. If- insu¬ rance from fire be really a good thing, then tax all houses that are not insured, and call it the non-insu¬ rance tax; it will produce a prodigious sum ! and imprudent men had much better part with their superfluous goods to the Government than suffer them to be burned in a fire. On the other hand, if the Fire-insurance be a had thing, our Rulers are perfectly right in taxing it. For my part, I can’t exactly make up my mind about it.-1 really don’t know which side to take, 8 . I have written to Mr. Punch on the subject, but he says that he can’t make up his mind about it, neither. However, he will consult his wife, when she returns from the House of Commons, and let me know.- He says, there is nobody at home at preseut, except the servant maid, and she is gone to Church. LAND TAX. As long as annual taxes are deemed eligible, there are few better than the Land Tax. It affects ( directly or indirectly, ) every class. The Land is always tangible, and is easily defined. This tax should not be high, and it should be levied equally on the acre , whether the land be good or bad, and not in proportion to the rental, This, at first sight, appears unfair, but the reason is obvious. If the tax be levied by the acre, it operates as an inducement to the improvement of the Land. But if the tax be increased in proportion as the rental increases, it operates against improvement, precisely as the old tithe system operated. TAX on INCOME. This is an inquisitorial tax, and therefore on that account objectionable. In other respects it is not much amiss, provided it commenced at not less than an income of £500. per annum. A great income is a great luxury, and therefore it ought and can well afford to pay a large share of money for its protection. Besides, if it be not laid on the low scrubs of small incomes, it will be considered honourable and gentle¬ manly to pay it. The tax on Hatchments (Achiev- ments) and all other armorial bearings, may be viewed in the same honourable light. An Income Tax should be laid on a sliding scale, in an accelerating ratio. A man with £20,000. per annum, can much better afford to pay fifty per cent, than a man of £200. per annum, can afford to pay five per cent. 9 It is possible, and really practicable, for a family possessing £300.000 , at compound interest, in the course of a few centuries, to purchase the whole world ! and then they may be legally justified in sending all their neighbours a regular Notice to quit. One objectionable circumstance relating to the Income Tax is that it has been levied equally high on Incomes arising from Labour and temporary en¬ gagements, as on Incomes arising from realised Pro- party.^ ; Assessed Taxes. A Tax on Dogs, parrots, magpies and monkeys, weasels and white-mice, caged birds, and all uselessly domesticated and imprisoned animals, 'would tend much to promote the National economy of Wealth; and would also act as a check on occasional instances of' thoughtlessness and cruelty. It is an optional tax, and those who chuse to indulge in such extravagan¬ cies, ought, and can well afford to pay the tax for it. “ But we don’t like to pay it. ” —— Of course you don’t. But as taxes must be paid, they ought to be made conducive to the national economy. Tax on all intoxicating Liquors, and on Snuff & Tobacco.-* This tax is good in its effects.-It promotes national temperance and wealth. The : Duty on the importation of Tea, Coffee, Sugar, and Spices, is not much amiss. Perhaps one of the most economical taxes which can be devised, would be a tax on Leaf Gold. ’Tis astonishing how many tons of the precious metal are frittered away in this foolish vanity, — when we look at the great ugly Sign-boards, with large Gold Letters, over the shops of braziers, glaziers, grocers, grinders, printers, painters, nigglers, nailors, tinkers, tailors, and the deuce knows what; and when a little 3 10 chrome-yellow paint would answer every reasonable purpose. “ Many an estate is spent in the netting.” as Poor Richard says.-A Duty of 100 c|j?r cent would not be too high. The use of Leaf Gold would then be properly confined to the Chef d’Ouvres, in the arts. Another excellent tax may be levied on expensive Coffins, and Coffin furniture, Many thousand pounds of the National Wealth are annually wasted in this foolish pride of the living, falsely called vanity of the dead. A slendid hearse, or a costly pall may be used without loss, but a plain elm coffin is quite sufficient to be buried in the earth at any time. If the rich will be wasteful , they ought to pay for it. RECEIPT-STAMP TAX. This, in its operation and effects, is one of the worst in the catalogue. It causes a public waste of time, paper, and money, putting the payer to numer¬ ous inconveniencies, without producing an adequate effect to the Revenue. Instead of hinderances, every possible facility shonld be given to Trade and Industry: but the Re¬ ceipt-stamp tax operates point blank against both.— ’Tis not the largeness of the amount which makes a farmer or a tradesman unwilling to pay it: ’tis the interruption and the bother of the thing, especially when they have to attend to business of much more importance. Only imagine a farmer in a market receiving a sum of money for his corn. A receipt is required, he gives it with pleasure on the same bill ; for this is done in a minute, on the spot. But, as for his running about the town to get a stamp.,—he can’t do it,—and he won’t.;—notThat he .cares a dab for the t.co-pence , but he has other fish to fry: his time is 11 of much more importance,—and as to his constantly carrying stamps in his pocket, ’tis all humbug; they would be literally worn to rags before he may want to use another. Thus sit is that the small stamp tax is extremely inconvenient and ineligible : fre¬ quently inducing pitiful evasions ; and these tend to lower and debase the moral character in its integrity and honesty. Even the Quakers , with all their punctilious scrupulosity, are scarcely able to act up to it. And let us remember that it was the bother¬ ation of the Two-penny Stamp Tax which caused us to lose America! In the public examinations of Dr. Franklin, be¬ fore the British Parliament, in 1766, he asserted that the inhabitants of America were so situated that many of them could not possibly obtain Stamps without taking long journeys, at the cost of two or three pounds, to enable the British Crown to get two- 44 You cannot judge for us, you do not know How we are situated. It would take A whole day’s journey, if compell’d to go Across our forests', or across some lake. To buy a Stamp—p’rhaps thirty miles or so; And all this trouble taking, for the sake Of two-pence! nineteen times a year. You ninnys, We each would rather pay you nineteen guineas.” D. J. 12 OF MAKING WORK for the PEOPLE. Thi s U one of John Bull’s vulgar errors, in. which he displays his folly and his ignorance, in a niost especial manner. Labour , or work, is indeed the root of all riches ; j especially remembered that, after all said and done, we do not live by Labour, but by that which is produced by labour: and if gammon and spinage grew in the'gutters, like common garbao-e; or, if apple-dumplings, boiling hot, fell, from the clouds like plum puddings in Lubber Land, it matters not a fig, so long as they were as good as those made by George the wonderful; which, no doubt, were excellent, if Peter Pindar may he relied on. They would, indeed, cease to be denominated' riches, they would then be called blessings, in com¬ mon with other blessings as before mentioned. A man may turn a, Parish Grindstone from one end of the week to the other, but unless some good come of it, his Labour would benefit nobody. ‘•The King of France and twenty thousand men, Walked up the hill, and then—walked down again.” Put case.—A storm of hail breaks £1.000 worth of glass m our windows. This makes work for the glaziers. Now take stock : First loss to the nation.. £1000. The Glass is restorecTby the Glaziers,' who gain a: profit by it: say. £200. Leaving a' dead loss to the nation, of .. £800. But will not more glass be made in consequence of the accident 1 ? No doubt of it. But this could have 13 been done, and would have been done, in proper time, without the accident, as well as with it, and rather Bet¬ ter, for then our stock would be two thousand £. instead of one. The short of the matter is this, as Franklin says, “ He that destroys five shillings worth of his property, loses five shillings, and he may as well throw five shillings into the sea. ” and this explains what is called Waste, whether of Wealth or of Labour. If a man orders a wall to be built in a lorong place, and then pulls it dowm, he makes work , in¬ deed, but to no purpose. Not that the money is wasted, which he has paid in wages,—for the mason has got it safe in his pocket; and most likely will make abetter use of it: but the mason’s Labour is literally wasted, and his master had much better have paid him the same sum for doing nothing, or for playing on a fiddle and bagpipes, unless he directed his labour to a better purpose. OF ‘‘AFFORDING IT.” He that is absolutely determined to have an article, must pay the market price for it, whether he can afford it or not. To attempt to regulate the price of a thing by what we can afford , is all fudge. The price is, and ever will be regulated by the proportion of the de¬ mand to the supply. Illustration. —In George the Third’s time, there was a prodigious demand of men for the army. This, of course, made Labourers scarce, whilst the fanners’ demand for labour was also great. There¬ fore the price of wages rose extremely high The 4 14 farmers said they could not afford it -, and true enough it was, no doubt, that they really could not afford it. But, nevertheless, they were obliged to pay it to the Labourers, or to do without them. Of The CIRCULATION of WEALTH. Circulation , merely as such, amounts to nothing. Let the 24 Letters of the Alphabet represent the Na¬ tion, or 24 persons in the nation. Let each person possess £1., then their united wealth will be exactly £24. Now let A circulate his Pound all down through the 24. Then if we take stock, it will be £24. exactly, as before : and this whether the pound stops with X, Y, or Z, or whether it comes back again to A, the united wealth remains the same. But if A goes to C, a carpenter, and orders him to make a table worth £1., and gives his Pound to him for it, then the nation will be richer by £1.—not in money, for that remains the same, but by the Table £1., produced by the Labour of C, and the united stock will now be £25. Of COMMERCIAL EXCHANGES. All commercial exchanges, purchases, or sales, are productive of national wealth, to the exact amount of the individual benefit, collectively. A has an article for sale, worth to him £20. He sells it to B. But it is worth £22. to B. Thus the increase of wealth is exactly £2.; and this altogether irrespec¬ tive of the price which B pays to A for it. Because w hether he buys it cheap or dear, whatever A loses B gains if too cheap, and whatever A gains B loses if too dear. ’ ' 15 Of EXPORTS and IMPORTS... A nation, or individual merchants, are enriched by their Imports directly to the exact amount of their imports, and they ai’e impoverished by their Exports directly to the exact amount of their exports. Put case.—An English merchant imports from America £100. worth of Corn. The moment it arrives in his possession, he is directly £100. richer. He exports to America, by way of payment,- £100. worth of manufactured goods. The moment itleaves his possession, he is directly £100. poorer. Not¬ withstanding this, both parties are benefitted by the exchange. For to the English merchant (or in Eng¬ land) the Corn is worth, say £10. more than £100., and the manufactured goods £10. less. Consequently his gross profit is £20., whilst to the American merchant (or in America) the Corn is worth £10. less than £100., and the goods £10. more. So that his gross profit is also £20. Hence the advantages of Free Trade, and the folly and impolicy of any restriction on Commerce. Because an individual who enriches himself enriches the nation of which he forms a part, and the reverse if he impoverishes himself. However opposed it may be to the popular opinion, it is an important truth, that any Nation which, by its superi¬ or knowledge in making purchases, by its skill, or by any .mode whatever, can cause the value and amount of its Imports to exceed the value and amount of its Exports, will as surely become more rich thereby, as that a Pond will become more fall, when the quantity of water which runs into it exceeds the quantity which runs out of it. Of The NATIONAL DEBT. Compared with the population of Great Britain, there are very few persons who have a clear idea of the National Debt. 16 Who are the Debtors ? and who are the Creditors ? In one sense, the Nation is both.—The Nation is both debtor and creditor, and therefore may liquidate it at once, without being one farthing poorer or richer by paying the Debt. But, to be more precise, th e nation at large owes it to certain individuals called Stock-Holders. The history of the Debt is briefly this: that the English Government, finding that the amount of taxes was not suflicient to carry on the American war, and the French war, and sundry other wars, during the last century, borrowed large sums of money of every body who was disposed to lend oninterest , having power to tranfer their Credit on Government to any body who may choose to purchase it of them. Now there w r as a 'premium given to the original lenders,— this made them willing to lend. The in¬ terest is very regularly paid every half-year: this makes people willing to buy the shares. ’Tis very convenient for old maids, and young widows, and rich persons out of business. The interest is always the same, but the price of the shares varies considerably, like other things, according to folk’s opinion of the matter. . Some clever persons have a knack of buying when they are low', and selling when they are high, and this is called Stock-Jobbing.. This variation of price, is commonly called the rise and fall Qf the Funds. When things look pros¬ perous, they rise ; if the French were to land, they would probably fall extremely low. J t Query. ' —rr Whicfa of them would fall extremely low, The Freneh/.or the .F.unds? .. . : p.D. 1? Now as for paying off this great Debt, it may be done at once, by a fair assessment on all the property of the nation. Put case.—The assessment on the property of A.B. may be £100. If he pays it, he loses the interest of £100. for ever, say £5. per annum. But he now pays £5. per annum, as his share of Tax, to pay the interest of the National Debt, which is equal to £100.—Therefore, by paying it, he is neither richer nor poorer, — and the case of one is the case of all. Yet two great advantages would accrue from our paying it off. First. -We should save the future expense of collecting the tax : this amounts to several hundred thousand pounds per annum. Secondly. - -It would make Money extremely plentiful and cheap, because so many persons would want to lend it on interest. And the natural conse¬ quence would be, that all other species of property would increase in value. But what was done with the large sums of money originally borrovyed ? —— We spent it; chiefly in guns and gunpowder,— and we sunk it in ships, and in scarlet cloth for the soldiers. — Nothing can re¬ store it.— We may, indeed, work hard, and make more gunpowder, or more scarlet cloth, or more any¬ thing; hut, nevertheless, we shall always be exactly so much poorer as the amount of the National Debt. £761.347.500. —■ ’Tis gone, and for ever ! EX NIHILO NIHIL FIT. IS Let us now return to our First Subject, The WINDOW TAX. Had Sir Robert Peel taken off the Tax on Windows, and doubled the Duty on Glass, he would have promoted the good of the Nation in both cases. The opening of our Windows would have promoted pur health, our energy, and our industry. Whilst a heavy Duty on Glass would have economized our Wealth, and benefitted the Revenue.—Nevertheless, much praise is certainly due to Sir Robert Peel. He had an intricate and difficult situation to fill,- he had many arduous tasks to perform. — He was oblig-. ed “ to play on several instruments at once,” --to please all parties,— and to balance all powers, “Upwards or downwards, as the stream Of Hydra Faction kicks the beam.” And when we consider the prejudice of Parlia¬ ments, the bigotry of Sectarians, and the ignorance of the people, it is rather astonishing that our leading rulers have been enabled to effect so much political good as they have done. — However, much yet re¬ mains to be accomplished. “ Mankind in general are not aware How much of happiness may be attained In these abodes called temporal.”- “Great is the sacred privilege of Kings ; Great the responsibility of Lords.” “ Where much is given, there much shall be required, And Nations shall be judged, as well as Men.” 1): J. It is a strange contradiction, that whilst we are im¬ proving our sewerage, our.lighting and paving, and our street - ventilation, we still are compelled, or at least induced, to darken and deteriorate our dwel-. ling-houses!- 19 “ Even an air-hole, covered with wire, or a single glass tile in a roof, is legally subject to the same duty as a window a hundred times as large. The Window Tax has its maximum in the number of windows, but not its minimum in their size.” Some folk have said that the Window-tax is, in fact, a House-tax, —the number of Windows being commonly a true criterion of the value of the house, and of the wealth of the landlord. Not a bit of it. “ No more than the number of buttons on a man’s coat is the criterion of the quantity of money in his pocket.” Humberstone, “ Poor old John Brown is dead and gone, We ne’er shall see him more, He used to wear a long-tailed coat, All buttoned down before.” “ Dash my buttons ! ” he used to say, “ I know I shall die a pauper in the parish poor-house.” And so heactually did, notwithstanding he had forty-eight large metal buttons on his coat, and two dozen small ones on his waistcoat. But we will now perform our promise, of proving that a Tax on the Light of Heaven, - under certain modifications, would be one of the best in the budget. We all know that a pack of hounds cannot well hunt in the dark. Therefore, let every hound, hunters, horsemen and all, be well taxed for the Light of Heaven, -in the superlative enjoyment of that “Jovial sound, so sweet to huntsman, gentlemen, and hound.” And all donkey-races, bull-baitings, boxing-matches, &c. for enjoying the same privilege, — the Light of Heaven. 20 If this won’t sufficiently increase the Revenue, lay a tax on fashionable Eye-glasses , for the Light of Heaven, (one-eyed gentlemen paying only one half, and blind gentlemen nothing.) This Tax will tend wonderfully to improve our eye-sight.-’Tis as¬ tonishing, or, I should rather say, ’tis not astonishing, to observe how generally the fashionable Professors of Law, Physic, and Divinity, wear Spectacles: Whilst Soldiers and Sailors seldom or never wear them. A plain proof that Spectacles are worn all for fudge and for fashion. Therefore tax them well; ( at all events, it will be as wise as the Window-tax,) and it will wonderfully support the Government Revenue of Great Britain, Scotland, and Ireland. Q. E. D. Printed by Jolrn Clark, Bridgwater,