the province of commerce was to provide sufficient food and clothing for His people. But governments have put an interdict on such free intercourse; they have made unlicensed industry an offence, free buying and selling a crime, to be put down by fines and imprisonment, and if there be any tyranny more odious, improvident, and indefensible than this he had yet to learn. Proportionately to means and advantages, taxation ought to be as nearly equal as possible with due consideration of the fact that in addition to personal freedom and security as to which all classes are, or are supposed to be, on an equal footing, some classes have much more that stands in need of protection, and is protected at the expense of all of them, and should therefore pay more proportionately for it. Even inequality of taxation, though it is more odious and more obvious, is actually a much smaller evil than the limitation of markets and the prevention of trade; for it is clearly less injurious to take from a man more than a strictly fair proportion of his income, be that for rent, interest, wages, or profits, after he has received or earned it, than it is either to stop his trade altogether or to diminish it, and thus either prevent his making any income at all or reduce it far below what it would otherwise be. All experience showed that the prevention or reduction of income or earnings is the uniform and inevitable effect of indirect taxation. Whenever the duty on any commodity has been largely reduced, the consumption has increased in much greater proportion; whenever such duty has been repealed, the increase has been multiplied manifold, as is evidenced by the enormously increased production and consumption or glass, soap, paper, bricks, newspapers, and other articles, since they have been relieved from taxes, stamps, and excise supervision; and also by the much larger proportionate consumption of tea, sugar, coffee, &c., in Australia, where they are either taxed lightly or not all, than in the United Kingdom, where they are heavily burdened. To tax commodities is to tax a man according to his wants and necessities, not according to either his means or advantages. It is to tax him according to the number of mouths he has to feed, so that the labourer, with wife and family, on such articles as tea, sugar, coffee, &c., is made to pay very much more in taxes than his unmarried fellow-labourers earning the same wages-and a childless and miserly millionaire may pay next to absolutely nothing in the shape of indirect taxation, whilst the poor curate, clerk, or tradesman, with five or perhaps ten or a dozen children, must either contribute largely to the revenue in this way, or, what is worse, pay in privation of the common necessaries or comforts of life. It is alleged that under a purely direct system of taxation the working classes, many of whom are earning wages that ought to bring them within the operation of the income-tax, would escape scot free, and that they can only be reached through taxes on articles of general consumption, including especially beer, spirits, and tobacco. But this is an entirely erroneous assumption, for if the old land and property-tax of four shillings in the pound were revived according to its original intent and meaning, or if a tax of two

shillings in the pound were imposed on the ownership, and a similar tax on the occupation of property by tenancy-in lieu of all other imposts whatsoever, excepting postage, does any one suppose that the working classes could escape paying their share of such taxes, even if they were neither owners of such property, nor occupiers of it, excepting as lodgers. The wastefulness of indirect taxation is generally pushed out of sight by its defenders, although this alone is its sufficient condemnation. On the other hand, the cost of collecting direct taxation need not exceed 1 per cent., and the plea that this, the richest country in the world, and that most interested in the widest possible intercourse with every part of it, cannot raise whatever is necessary for State purposes without pillaging the people, and imposing restrictions on trade and commerce, as a sheer absurdity, heightened by the fact that whilst raising the bulk of our revenue at such extra cost for the elements of trade and commerce, we nevertheless fancy ourselves free traders, and are ever and anon lecturing foreign countries on their blindness and folly in not imitating our example, by adopting the free trade policy in its entirety. To ask how far taxation ought to be direct or indirect is but to ask how far taxation ought to be honest and just, how far it ought to be an incentive to economy in the public expenditure-how far it should allow free development of the national resources, permit to every man the enjoyment of the primeval blessing-that of earning a living by his own labour-and promote friendly relations between all the nations of the world by making trade and commerce really free, or how far it ought to obstruct and prevent the enjoyment of all these benefits and blessings.

Mr. JOHN NOBLE, of Westminster, read a paper on the same subject. The writer commenced by referring to the controversy raised as to the correctness of the definition of taxation, as direct and indirect, and described the former as a tax which is seen, the latter as one which is not seen. The amount of the former is known, while concealment is the very essence of indirect taxation. The apparent ease with which the Government collect 40,000,000l. by means of customs and excise may not be equally profitable and advantageous for the public. If taxation is not levied in proportion to the ability of the taxpayer, if the amount is not certain but arbitrary, if the time, manner, and amount of payments are not clear and plain, if it takes out and keeps out of the pockets of the people more than it brings into the public treasury, it cannot be said to be levied at the time, and in the manner most convenient to the taxpayer. The necessity of repeating again and again these canons. of taxation, and the arguments against indirect taxation, is exemplified in the actions of Chambers of Commerce, whose main efforts are directed against the Income Tax, the heavier and more pressing burden upon commerce, the Custom House being ignored, as if it had no existence. The history of commerce since the peace of 1815, amply demonstrates the short-sightedness of the policy which re

pealed the Income Tax, and left heavier burdens upon trade untouched. The series of years from 1815 to 1840 form a long period of stagnation and distress, slightly relieved at intervals through reductions of indirect taxation. The returns of our exports show a considerable decline during the earlier portion of the term, and an increase during the last ten years in consequence of Lord Sydenham's reforms, which, however, did not bring the value to a higher amount than in 1815. At length the income-tax was again resorted to, in order to relieve trade and industry from heavier burdens. The result is that our exports of British produce and manufacture, which were 17. 14s. 7d. per head of the population in 1821, and in 1840 were only 17. 18s. 9d., have risen in 1870 to 6l. 9s. 6d., our tonnage, previously stationary, having been as follows: 2,447,831 tons in 1815; 2,768,262 tons in 1840; and 5,690,789 tons in 1870. These facts should make the country pause before adopting a similar policy at the present time. The great objections against the customs and excise are, that real freedom of trade, as distinguished from the conventional free-trade, which merely implies the absence of protective duties, is impossible so long as they exist. An examination of the conditions under which trade is carried on under cus

toms' regulations proves this statement. The number of ports is limited by the Commissioners, and it is at a very limited number of those that wine and tobacco can be imported, and only at eleven that wine can be tested for duty. Every article of import, whether dutyable or duty free, must be landed under customs' supervision. A town like Worcester, with direct access to the sea, and which has expended a vast sum in improving its navigation, cannot be allowed to import and export its own commodities. In the home trade, manufacturers of taxed articles must carry on their business under inspection, and adhere to processes sanctioned by the authorities. Improvement is rendered difficult, and in many cases impossible. An Englishman's home is not his castle. He can neither make malt nor distil spirits for his own use. The farmer can neither grow tobacco, nor malt his barley for the purpose of feeding cattle or supplying his family with home-brewed beer. Import duties, by limiting importation, restrict the demand for our own productions. All these conditions are inconsistent with freedom of exchange. Indirect taxation is very costly. According to Mr. Dudley Baxter's calculations, the profits of traders upon the 36,000,0001. of taxation collected by the duties on tea, coffee, intoxicating drinks, and tobacco, amount to 9,000,000l., or 25 per cent. Mr. Baxter considers no profit is paid upon the sugar duty, as it is usually sold by the grocer without profit, overlooking the fact that the bulk of the sugar passes through the hands of the refiner, who has no other article to charge his profit upon, and, therefore, must obtain a profit upon the capital he advances for the tax through an increase in the price of the sugar. According to the calculations based upon estimates of the late Mr. G. R. Porter, the spirit and tobacco duties alone impose a burden of 44,000,0007. on

the taxpayers, of which the Treasury receives only 21,000,000. Upon the most moderate computation, therefore, the 40,000,0001. of customs and excise involve an extra cost, in addition to the amount paid by the Government for collecting and protecting the revenue, of at least 10,000,0007. The Custom House is a practical blockade of our own ports, and the excise an interference with the freedom of domestic manufacture. Both favour monopoly by increasing the amount of capital required to conduct a taxed business. They make commodities artificially dear and scarce, and prevent the growth of an export trade in such articles as sugar and manufactured tobacco. Taxes upon tea, coffee, and sugar, are taxes upon necessaries of life, and are indefensible upon the principle of taxation now recognised, and whenever a tax is levied upon a commodity there is a point at which it becomes prohibitory, and this prohibition affects the very poorest of the community. Every such tax is also protective in its operation, as it tends to favour the production and consumption of the lowest qualities of the taxed article. It is commonly alleged that opponents of indirect taxation wish to relieve other taxpayers at the expense of holders of property, Nothing can be further from the truth. The greater the activity of trade and industry the greater is the growth of rent, and the consequent prosperity of the "landed interest." It is clearly shown in Carey's Political Economy" that the taxes on consumption levied during the French War upon the labouring classes deprived them of the means of subsistence, caused a vast increase in the poor rates, and thus imposed upon the owners of property a tax indirectly, which they had refused to pay directly. It is also said that indirect taxation is necessary to secure equality-a proceeding resembling that of the dog in the fable. In the delusive search for the shadow of equality the substance of profit, which would result for unfettered industry, has been lost. The equality which taxes a man in proportion to his necessities, according to the number of mouths in his family, and which Sir Robert Peel was compelled to admit pressed unduly upon the class with incomes ander 30s. a week, is also questionable. Every argument employel against the income-tax applies with equal force to the customs and excise. The great difference is that under the former the taxpayer knows the amount he pays, and that every penny exacted from him is received by the State, while under the latter he is kept in ignorance as to the amount of his payments, and his contributions are largely in excess of the sums received by the Treasury. The main objection urged against the repeal of indirect taxation is that it is the only possible way of taxing the working classes, an assumption which a very little inquiry will dispel. In America there has always been a poll-tax. These classes might be reached by a tax on wages, collected by the employer, or by an extension of the house tax. Looking at the question, with a view to early legislation in the direction of perfect freedom of trade, the writer proposes the repeal of the malt tax, the duties on tea, coffee, sugar, and dried fruits, and the income-tax, imposing, in their place

a tax of 10 per cent. upon rent, one-half paid by the owner, and one-half by the occupier of property assessed under Schedule A, and upon such portions of the assessment of railways, canals, &c., under Schedule E, as are fairly to be designated rent. This would, it is estimated, yield 14,000,000l., and the remaining 7,000,000%. required to carry out the proposal might be obtained by the extension of the probate duty to real property, the assessment of the succession duty at the same rate as the legacy duty, the imposition of an equivalent for the probate and succession duties upon properties held by corporations, the transfer of fire insurance from public companies to the State, and an extension of the facilities now offered by the Post Office for life assurance. The adoption of such a scheme of taxation would meet one of the most pressing questions of the day-the crude theories propounded by the working classes respecting property, capital, labour-by widely extending trades, manufactures, and employment. It would also enable our manufacturers, in the face of the growing competition of their continental rivals, to open fresh markets for the export of their productions. It would vastly benefit every section of the community, and not least those who might in appearance have to assume an increased proportion of the public burdens.

He said

Mr. THOMAS BRIGGS also read a paper on this question. that in order to obtain a net revenue of sixty-seven millions in 1870 the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to raise the sum of 244,880,0007. by taxation; this is an inevitable consequence of taxing commodities. The malt duty alone is responsible for 47 millions of the 244 millions of waste and loss above alluded to. The malt duty is responsible for the present famine prices of butcher's meat, and in like manner all the other duties rob the working classes of one-third of their wages; or, what is the same thing, enhance the price of their comforts and necessaries to that extent. It having been demonstrated that the present system of indirect or mixed taxation causes a loss and cost to the people of 177,630,970l. in order to secure a net revenue of 67,249,2297. per annum; it having also been demonstrated that direct taxation will only entail a cost of about one million in their collection, or 14 per cent.; and, moreover, as we have the best of authority (which has never yet been refuted) for the fact that, in whatever way taxes be levied (direct or indirect), the owner of the soil eventually pays all, is it not wonderful that the owners of the soil should be so infatuated as to endure such a burden for one moment, when it is clearly shown that, relieving trade from all taxes, or other impediments, no injury can thereby be inflicted on the land? A flourishing state of trade and a depressed state of agriculture, he said, were things never yet known and which never can occur. The interests of trade and land are identical and inseparable. Having shown how taxes ought to be levied in order to be a blessing to all classes, or, if not a blessing, at least a considerable amelioration of the condition of the mass of the people