was that the purchaser, on making a calculation, found that he had very little margin left, if any at all, upon which to meet the equitable demand of the labourer for more wages. For that state of things there appeared to be no remedy, unless the landlord allowed the lease to be cancelled, and unless the right were conferred upon the tenant to that portion of his capital which he had expended upon the landlord's land. Were that carried out, it would avoid the hard alternative suggested by Mr. Jenkins, that the tenants all over England must submit to the consequences of the Juggernaut car of reform passing over them. He did not think the car of reform demanded any such sacrifice. He believed it could make satisfactory progress, and at the same time confer benefit on all classes of the community without injuring any. One benefit it certainly ought to bestow, and that was tenant right on the tenant farmer.

Mr. WALTER MORRISON, M.P., differed from Mr. Pell when the honourable gentleman said the proposal of the Speaker of the House of Commons was an uncommercial one. While admitting that it was somewhat crude, he pointed out that only imperfect reports of Mr. Brand's speech had appeared in the nec papers, and that no doubt there was some little misapprehension on the subject. So far as he understood the proposal, it was this: the Speaker offered to give to the skilled farm labourers for their co-operation exactly the same rate of interest as the savings bank, with this addition, that if the experiment proved successful in giving him a large profit on his farm, he would then give to the labourers,. who had presumably by their extra exertions brought additional profit to the concern, a certain share, so that the dividend might perhaps go up to ten per cent. There was nothing uncommercial in that. Most farmers borrowed money from their bankers, and paid more than 2 per cent. interest; and if the labourer was content with the security the farmer offered him, there was no reason why the latter should not borrow. It was quite a mistake to suppose that any person who had ever advocated industrial partnerships, did so on the ground of philanthropy, though he thought a high debt of gratitude was due to Messrs. Briggs for having led the way in this movement. Had the experiment failed, they might have suffered considerable loss, if not ruin; but never once had they advocated industrial partnerships on philanthropic grounds. Mr. Collier hit the real difficulty when he suggested that a reliable method should be devised for estimating the real value of farm profits; for under no existing arrangement could that be done within a term of several years. Although the difficulty was a serious one, yet it might be got over. In the case of a shepherd, so much might be paid for every lamb he brought to maturity; whilst, with regard to general farm labour, the average produce of a given amount of land should form the basis of calculation. But so much depended on the season, that even that plan would not always prove satisfactory. Somehow the problem, he thought, might be solved. He had not a sufficient knowledge of an arable farm to enable him to form a definite opinion on that matter, but it was only one among many difficulties they had to contend with, since the movement he advocated was not merely one in favour of higher pay, but also intended to react against feudalism. It was a struggle on the part of the farm labourers to attain a better position in society than they occupied at present. What they wanted, as Mr. Strange said, was an object in life; and that could only be attained by introducing the pure co-operative system to enable them to manage a farm themselves. Everybody knew in a country district that a labourer with half an acre of land could get a great deal more out of it than a farmer could get out of the same amount; and the remark would apply to some extent to farms worked by labourers on their own account. There was a desire spreading among these men to become their own employers, and cease to be the servants of other persons; but while in some respects this feeling had good in it, in other respects it produced evil. On the one hand it took a foolish form, like that which obtained among the artisan population of the United States of America when they refused to call their employer "master,' calling him "boss" instead, as if changing the name could change the thing. The experiment of co-operative farming would require great care, and wishing as he did to see the system gain ground throughout the country, he did not wish to see it spread too rapidly, for it was a system that could not be carried out in a day. In order to ensure success, the farms should be established only in moderate numbers at first, and be under the management of picked men; and he

knew of no better test of fitness than the fact that such men had saved money. If the farms were to succeed, it would be desirable that the bulk of the capital should be supplied by the men themselves. Very little was known of cooperation in farms, though a deal of experience had been gained by co-operative societies in the ordinary trades. The Assington case, mentioned by Sir B. Leighton, was not to the point, as the farms there were not worked on the true co-operative principle. They were only joint-stock companies, in which the shares were held in small amounts of 31., the whole profits, after paying the labourers, being divided among the capitalists; whereas, according to the true principle of co-operation, the labourer would receive a portion of the profits in addition to his wages. A co-operative farm should not be fostered, but like the co-operative societies in the north, it should be worked by the men themselves. If fostered, a co-operative farm would become a sort of hot-house plant. The difficulty of getting the young labourer more interested in the soil must find a practical solution, and he believed the only one lay in co-operative farming. In purchasing a farm, not only should the workmen themselves club together, but a great boon would be conferred upon the labouring poor if landlords were to come forward, and by advancing capital help the men to buy the freehold. With regard to cow-runs, it was a common custom in Devonshire to pay the labourer in part by giving him a cow always in milk, and a shepherd two cows always in milk, and that kind of payment was very acceptable to a man with a family.

Mr. E. THORNE (Plymouth), whose experience was not confined to England, described the farm labourer and his wife as the most extravagant of the working class in any part of the world. They did not know how to use money when they got it, and their earnings were largely spent in drink. When one of the speakers dwelt dolefully on the meagre diet of some farm labourers, his own mind reverted to personal experience of the simple fare he enjoyed while working in the bush in North America. It was winter, and in company with several other Scotchmen, who provided themselves with a blanket, a pillow, and a little bag of oatmeal, he lived a whole week in the bush with nothing to eat but oatmeal. And he did very well on it. He had, therefore, yet to learn that a large amount of animal food was necessary to sustain a working man, even in arduous toil. With regard to wages, they ought not to lose sight of the fact that what a man did not get in money he often got in kind; and with a third to half an acre of ground to cultivate on their own account, there were labourers in Devonshire who realized more than enough to pay house rent, while, in some cases, they had a front-garden, with roses climbing about the window. He had adopted this plan in the houses, which he let to farm labourers at a rental of 30s. to 50s. Besides all these advantages, they had the benefit of pure air, and altogether were better off than many of the working class in the large towns, who were cooped up in stifling courts, where not infrequently five or six persons slept in a single room. Several farm labourers known to him had become tenant farmers-men in Devonshire, receiving no more than 12s. a week, some even less than 9s., when they had to appear every Sunday at church or chapel in a decent suit of clothes. These men became tenant farmers, not because they got larger wages than others, but simply because of their honest thrift, their integrity, and their general good character.

Mr. EDWARD WILSON (London), referring to the opening remarks of the preceding speaker, reminded the Department that they were not now dealing with Scotch labourers. For his part, he confessed he always approached the traditional Scotchman with a sort of awe. As a matter of fact, Scotchmen must be regarded as exceptional men; for he questioned very much whether an ordinary English working man could support a splendid existence upon a little oatmeal. He had for his privilege to spend the better part of his life where men received more wages than were given in any other country, viz., from 15s. to 20s. a week, while, in addition to this, they were given in kind 10 lb. of meat, 101b. of flour, and a quarter of a pound of tea. That was in Victoria. The condition of the same class of men in England presented a painful contrast. He could sincerely sympathize with them in their toil, for he had experienced something of hard work himself, and knew what it was to look upon the sinking sun and wish it would sink a little faster. There was no greater cruelty to mankind than putting him to hard work on insufficient food. In Warwickshire, the correspondent of the

Daily News did the best thing he could do under the circumstances for the labouring poor there, when he sat down to an early meal with them one morning. Writing his experience, he said: "I have had breakfast for twopence, and I feel as hollow as a drum." That was anything but a pleasant sensation for anybody to feel; but what must the feeling be to a hard-working farm labourer? Pitying, heartily pitying them as a class, he ventured to say that, if any man had a first claim upon a fair share of the profits from a good crop, that man was the farm labourer, who practically contributed towards the result. These men were the victims of the feudal system. Habitually reared in a humble and servile condition, though they turned out very good work, they were kept at it on very low wages, sufficient only for bare existence. There was a purpose in all this feudalism; and it was to keep them down to as low a level as possible. Yet the moment they declared they would submit to this feudal system no longer, up jumped the large class of farmers, and complained: "Our profits are not much; we are not rich; and if we give you more wages, the balance will be on the wrong side." It appeared as if the farmers themselves were under the feudal system; for when a farm was vacant, there were from twenty to fifty applicants, and the man who was fortunate enough to get the farm had to submit to almost any terms as to rent, game, and other matters of direct interest to the landlord. He concurred in the view which had been taken by the best writers, who predicted that it would be a serious matter for England when the agricultural labourer found out his real position, and resolved to submit to degradation no longer; and if anything strengthened his conviction on the point, it was the fact that this rebellion on the part of the agricultural labourer-for it was a rebellion-was in some quarters met in a spirit less worthy than might have been expected. Dukes had handed cottages and shops over to the custody of farmers, so that the occupants might be amenable to the farmers, and liable to instant eviction; while a dignitary of the English Church recommended that the agitators should be "ducked in a horsepond." When men occupying such prominent positions were acting in that ungracious way, the danger was becoming more and more imminent, and it behoved all persons who took any interest in the down-trodden farm labourer to do their utmost in order to avert the coming calamity.

Dr. W. PEARSE (Plymouth) said, it had been his lot to labour among the working classes of Australia, the West Indies, East Indies, and other countries, where such men had a greater aim and object in life than the English labourer. He spoke without any disrespect of the English labourer; he had worked on board-ship with him, and it required some trouble to manage him; yet he was manly and worthy. The coolie looked forward, in the midst of his toil, to the time when he should return independent to his own country, and he did so return. Others obtained independence, almost at once, in Australia. Having himself visited the Borra Borra mines, he could testify to the temperate, manly character of the men working there: they were really splendid fellows. So were the workmen in Melbourne and Ballarat; they met you with respect, and you were proud to associate with them. In this country, the same class of labourers were poor, abject, and downcast: because they had no aim. Whatever the method of improvement, it should give the labourer a certain object and prospect in life.

Mr. BOTLEY (London) remarked that there should be industrial education producing temperance, prudent forethought, with economy; every estate should have a sufficient number of cottages on it, with land adjoining for growing plenty of vegetables, and, if possible, with a cow-green as well; farms should be let on long leases, with compensation clause for unexhausted improvements, or tenant-right; wet and strong land should be thoroughly drained, immoderate preservation of game discontinued, and tenants selected on account of their skill and enterprise, and not because of their politics; and piece-work should supersede day-labour. Those, he held, were the great principles which would eventually lead to the improvement and advancement of the agricultural labourer.

The PRESIDENT (Sir J. Bowring), closing the discussion, said that although the opinions expressed in the course of this interesting debate were much opposed to each other, it was gratifying to observe, that while they had been severely attacked, they had been defended in a courteous and friendly spirit.

LOCAL TAXATION.*

What Principles ought to regulate Local Taxation and Adminis

tration?

author of the Second Taylor Prize Essay on Local Taxation, awarded by the Statistical Society of London, was read. The writer maintained that, although the amount of local taxation has much increased of late years, the burden is not heavier than it was, inasmuch as there has been a proportionate increase in wealth and population. A large proportion of present local taxation is not a burden at all, but an investment with an ample return. But, with a view to the future increase of local burdens which is likely to take place, it would be well to readjust the present local charges, so as to throw upon the whole country all such as are strictly imperial burdens. The main items which ought to be thus transferred come under the heads Administration of Justice (including the expense of the police and the cost of prisons) and the Maintenance of Pauper Lunatics. If the local taxation be thus relieved, it would not then be more than what is just; and any excess in it can only be the result of mismanagement. But no relief of local taxation should be brought about by means of a grant from the Consolidated Fund. The majority of existing rates almost exclusively benefit the land; and all rates are a charge upon the land, subject to which the present owners received their property. An imperial grant would, therefore, be a present to landowners, just as much as would be the payment by the State of a portion of all existing mortgages, or the imperial land-tax. The land should also be subject to special charge by reason of its special privileges, such as its exemption from probate duty, and because it is the only kind of property that increases in value with the increase of general prosperity without any exertion on the part of the owner. The just mode of dealing with such portions of the existing rates as are not properly local would be to convert them into a general land-tax. The main portion of present local taxation justly falls upon the land, and the main local tax should remain an occupation-tax. Of such a tax the owner and occupier really share the burden; there should, therefore, be a division of rates, as proposed in Mr. Goschen's Local Taxation Bill. In such case, the land would pay the whole of one moiety of the rates; and, in so far as the occupier includes land amongst his property, the land would also contribute to the other moiety. But new rates are now being levied, e.g., the Education Rate, which are not of peculiar benefit to the land, and it would not be just for the land in such

*See Transactions, 1871, p. 613.

cases to pay the greater portion of the burden. To meet such new rates, a local income-tax, levied on the plan of the local direct taxation in France, is proposed. Local assessed taxes, local licenses, and a local excise on wines and spirits are also suggested. As regards the local administration, the local areas adopted by the Sanitary Act should become the unit of administration for all purposes. There should be one governing body, with power to delegate its authority to committees; there should be plural voting, a representation of minorities, and the ex-officio element of existing local boards should be abolished. The writer also endorses the proposal of provincial beards contained in Mr. Goschen's Local Taxation Bill as a good practical compromise between a purely representative body and the present quarter sessions government. A consolidated rate, a uniform system of assessment, a demand-note informing the taxpayer when he pays, what he pays, and for what object he pays, are also recommended.

Captain CRAIGIE next read a paper on the question. He stated that the strong feeling of grievance long prevalent in the country as to the unjust incidence of local taxes had culminated in the vote of the House of Commons on the 16th April last, and had drawn from the Premier the announcement that local taxation reform would occupy a prominent place in the business of the next session. Mr. Goschen had placed the local revenue and expenditure for the year 1868 at 30,000,000l. for England and Wales alone. Later official returns had been issued, whose totals did not reach this amount, but placed the receipts of local authorities in England and Wales at 27,775,000l., and the expenditure at 27,315,000l., these sums being chiefly, though not altogether, for the year 1869-70. In Mr. Goschen's figures loans raised in the year were included in the receipts of all local authorities; in the later returns they are included in some cases and excluded in others. This partly accounts for the difference in amount; but other errors, such as the overstatement by Mr. Goschen of the Government subventions, may be noticed. Disregarding loans raised and debt repaid during the year, the local revenue has now reached 25,842,000l., of which the State contributes 895,000l., localities raising a further sum of 3,549,000l. from their property and from miscellaneous sources. This leaves an amount of 21,398,000l. to be provided by local taxation properly so called. Of that amount 16,874,0007. (or 79 per cent.) is levied in rates, and 4,524,000l. (or 21 per cent.) apparently collected by dues, tolls, and indirect imposts. If the statement of loans raised be considered, they show how rapidly the local requirements of our times were heaping up burdens which would in future augment the calls of the local taxpayers. Including the debt of the Metropolitan Board and of the City of London, more than 60,000,000l. of borrowed money remains chargeable to the localities of England. The expenses incurred for promoting the local welfare of the community by the relief of pauperism and lunacy, cost 9,252,000l. The various sums