William Petty once raised this question in one of his books: Why did people have to pay both import and export duties to the monarch?
William Petty believed that tariffs were originally payment made to the monarch for protecting imported and exported goods from pirate raids. If goods were plundered by pirates, the monarch bore responsibility for compensating those losses.
Of course, the true original purpose of tariffs could no longer be determined. At present, tariffs had become a tool of trade protection. British textiles still faced high tariffs, while taxes on raw materials had been lowered, which benefited France's domestic textile industry.
Naturally, this was unfair to those working in Britain's textile industry. However, Napoleon had implemented a zero-tariff policy on British grain and steel, allowing British steel to be dumped on the French market. Britain had originally exported grain to France as well, but grain producers discovered that compared with France's high flour prices, British flour remained more profitable even after a markup. More importantly, the French Revolution had abolished indirect taxes, and a flour tax was needed to replace them. Supplying flour directly could reduce French tax revenues.
This was absolutely a losing deal and had to be stopped. At the root of it all was Britain's Cleopatra. Sweden had granted French goods tax-free status, and Louis XVI had even ceded a piece of territory. What had Britain ceded?
Still, these matters had to be treated differently. The funds invested by the Orleans and Lyon Railway Company came from local government budgets, and that money was supplied through taxes. If the investment were changed to bank financing, then tariffs on steel would be restored.
As for exempting British flour from tariffs, that would give the French people one more choice, so they would no longer wave their