practicable redress, the granting of subsidies from State funds in proportion to the State control now existing, that being the measure of the general interest of the community, and this method affording the fairest means of reaching all property. With regard to such local expenditure as must remain local, he urged the fullest possible extension of the rating area, the graduation, where practicable, of rentals before assessment, together with improvement in administration, in collection, and in the forms of accounts and of audit, as portions of a general system of local taxation reform.

Mr. W. D. HENDERSON, of Belfast, pointed out that originally all taxation was mainly local, and that it was rather the State which had absorbed local government than the opposite view that the State was now trying to roll over a portion of its duties on the several localities. Local government would be found on examination to be conversant with questions either of productive expenditure, or of unproductive expenditure; and the former, including improvements, road making, gas and water works, and docks and canals, would almost necessarily be of local benefit, and best administered by a local board. The latter, including the poor rate and police rate, and the education rate, was rather of imperial importance, but was put under local government because it could be best administered by the localities, and because both the poor and police rates had for a very lengthened period been so included. The taxation to support this local government was mainly levied in the counties by a tax on the rental on the value of farms, and it became necessary to inquire who paid such a tax in the case of the poor rate and police rate. Admitting the general principle of political economy that such a tax in theory tended to fall on the landlord, it was, however, not so clear that a portion did not fall on the tenant. Whilst looking to the practical monopoly enjoyed by the landlord unchecked, in the case of beef and milk, and many other commodities, by foreign competition, it did seem that it was only in so far as the extra price checked consumption that the landlord was the loser, and that thus the present tax was paid by the consumer to an extent which was not generally presumed. Coming next to the question of what improvements should be made in taxation, it was suggested that the areas of taxation should be carefully arranged, so as to throw the cost of making improvements upon the lands improved. It was also suggested that some system of a consolidated stock could be arranged, by which the rate of interest paid by local bodies might be permanently reduced. It was pointed out that to find any new local tax would be no easy matter. Local income tax, or an increase of market tolls was almost impossible. The chief value of this substituted tax would probably be, as regards the new burden thrown on land by the school rate, and it was suggested that not merely should the school fees be regulated with a view to diminish the taxation of the county, but the large educational endowments, now so often squandered, should be utilized. As regards the question of local administration, it was

It

pointed out that the difficulty always had been to get the best men to become members of local boards. The causes of this difficulty were the undue multiplication of local boards, the fact that what some regarded as local honours were not associated with the performance of local duties, and the case of Scotland was instanced where the town councils were permitted to choose the magistrates out of their own number. The formation of new electoral districts instead of adapting the ancient territorial divisions was condemned, and the impolicy of permitting members of local boards acting bona fide to be rendered liable for errors of judgment was pointed out; and it was suggested that, as in Ireland, the presentments should be fiated before the judges at assize, and that there should be an official audit of accounts by public auditors. was then stated that what rendered any form of representative government possible, was what might be called the principle of selection, by which the most suitable and able men almost spontaneously get their position accorded to them; that this principle would be found most valuable in the appointment of committees of local bodies, and probably to the formation of school boards where the selection might be made, partly out of the selecting body, and partly out of persons in the neighbourhood who possessed special qualifications. But it was possible to carry this principle of selection too far, and it was strongly urged that the members of the local boards should be elected directly, and not by nomination chosen by the parishes, as had been proposed by Mr. Goschen. It was then explained that the question of the local administrators, such as surveyors, sanitary inspectors, &c., was of great importance, as they would often be in advance of their councils, and should not be exposed to dismissal by the councils for their zeal. This right of dismissal should be in the central board or boards in London. It was suggested that these centra! boards should include a certain proportion of the chairmen of county boards selected in rotation, but that the proceedings of these boards should, as at present, be private.

Mr. OWEN WILLIAMS, of Liverpool, followed with a paper on the subject, showing that parties should contribute towards local taxation according to the income, or ability, or profit of each, as is done towards national taxation through the property and income tax. The present standard for measuring taxation, he maintains, is unjust, because those who derive immense profits through commerce contribute little or nothing towards local taxation. When rental of lands, houses, and every other kind of property was selected as a measure for all to contribute towards taxation, the commerce of the country was insignificant. As profits were derived mainly from agriculture, all who had anything to do with lands or other property were assessed, and all, therefore, engaged in trade did contribute. But now matters are much altered. In Liverpool, for instance, a rate of one penny in the pound within the Parliamentary borough for the relief of the poor yields about 70001, per

annum, whilst one penny in the pound for the property and income tax, within the same area, yields about 42,000l. per annum. If the property and income tax is the proper measure for national taxation, the writer maintains that it must be so for local taxation, because commerce is much more directly served and advantaged by the purposes for which local taxation is applied than by the taxation paid for national purposes. Then the writer pointed out how the funds raised for the several purposes are disposed of, showing that commerce should contribute in a direct manner towards local taxation; as, for instance, the highway rate. The heavy grinding weights of sugar, cotton, corn, timber, oils, as well as all other commercial products which are drawn over the roads, have a very direct tendency in necessitating high taxes. By reason of good roads products are moved the more rapidly and merchants are the quicker enriched; they should therefore, in the measure of the service received, contribute towards the highway rate. Improvement rates are necessitated by widening narrow roads and laying out new lines of road mainly for the convenience of commerce, not for footpassengers. Commerce, in a direct manner should contribute to this rate according to the advantages derived. The Watch Rate.The army and navy are employed mainly in protecting life and property. Towards this commercial men contribute through a property and income tax. The police are employed mainly in protection of life and property; but especially commercial products at the dock sides, in warehouses, in banks, offices, and in motion along our roads. Commercial products derive more protection from the police than from the army and navy, and the merchant class should contribute towards the police rates, as they do through the property and income tax towards national taxation. The Water Rate.-Water in large expensive mains is brought in front of warehouses, &c., where merchandise is stored at a great expense, by reason of which insurance rates are comparatively low, and fires more speedily extinguished. Here is another very direct service, which should be as directly paid for. The Education Rate.-Only a little over one out of every hundred of all who appear before magistrates and judges of the land for all offences, can read and write well. It must be to the advantage of the owners of the valuable products and wealthy classes to have honest persons handling their goods. Merchants, from this point of view, again, should contribute according to their profits towards the education, and library and museum rates. The Poor Rate. The poor, who work the casual trade of the large towns, are supported in part by wages, and in part by the poor rate. Easterly winds in Liverpool increase the applicants for relief. But this kind of labour is as necessary to the merchant class as are the assistants in offices, who are employed the year round at wages they can live upon. Were the poor maintained the year round the profits at the end of the year would be less to the merchants, and the poor rate would be less in the pound. At present immense profits are made by the merchant and trading classes, but they contribute little

or nothing towards local taxation. Most of the merchant classes reside out of town, and they are assessed, some of them, for their offices simply, whilst the expense to the town in the carriage of goods along the wide, solid, and good roads to and from the large fleets of steamers in Liverpool is something fabulous. Were the local taxation collected on the same principle as that for the property and income tax, a rate of about 1s. 2d. in the pound would be sufficient for the poor and all other rates in Liverpool, instead of rates averaging nearly 6s. in the pound, as at present. All that would be necessary in the change would be that the local authorities should be allowed to collect a rate, to be called the local rates, upon the same assessments, aud from the same parties who now pay the property and income tax. In Liverpool, there are persons who contribute very largely indeed towards the property and income tax, and are engaged in the steam and other trades, whose local taxation does not reach 30l. per annum. It is so, no doubt, in other large towns as well. At present we have a very rich class and a very poor class, and much of the poverty is caused by the middle and lower classes paying local taxation which should be borne by the rich trading classes.

DISCUSSION.

Sir MASSEY LOPES, Bart., M.P., thoroughly concurred in the views expressed by Captain Cragie in his paper. He desired, however, to make some general observations. He thought it difficult to determine what rules and principles should be applied to local taxation before they had really determined and ascertained what local taxation was. He contended that at present they had hardly arrived at that point. They wanted first to know for what objects and purposes local taxation was levied and expended, and in what respect it differed from imperial taxation? There was some difficulty as to the term "local taxation," and it seemed to be an anomaly to call it local taxation. One would think by the term "local" that it was taxation levied and expended exclusively for local purposes. The great difference between national and local taxation was this, that the local was for the benefit of the locality, the imperial was for the community at large. They must not forget that distinction. Every one would admit that local taxation, as now existing, was taxation levied locally, but the sum raised was both for imperial and local purposes. The peculiarity or speciality of local taxation was that it was raised from one description of property only, while imperial taxation was raised from the entire property of the country. The total amount of expenditure at the present time was 28 millions, but of that 12 millions was classed as national, while 16 millions was local. The 12 millions was expended upon the poor, police, lunatics, and the administration of justice. He contended that those were national objects. They did not complain of the 16 millions which was expended for local objects. The local authoritythe ratepayer-had, to a certain extent, almost complete control with regard to this local expenditure, and the object of the expenditure was really for his own exclusive benefit rather than for national benefit. And the ratepayer, to some extent, exercised his discretion whether a certain amount of money should be raised or not. When they came to the national part of it, the 121 millions, he contended that there was no control whatever at least only nominal. The object was universal. The levy was compulsory: it was made absolute and arbitrary by Parliament, and the local authorities had little or no control. Their grievances might be stated in a few words. One was that

the capital was raised from one section of society, but was expended for the benefit of the community at large. They imposed national obligations and responsibilities upon one class of property only, and that for benefits which were for the common weal, and not exclusively for the class who paid for them. They had no control over that expenditure; they obliged them to raise it, but when raised, they had no control over it. The local authorities were the raising authority for the money, whereas the executive were the spending authority. He thought that in that was the great objection of which they had to complain. Their objection generally was not so much with reference to the old rates, but to the new rates. They did not mean to say but that old grievances had increased. The administrators of the poor law had been more philanthropic, and they had imposed additional burdens upon one section of the community. With regard to the extra rate caused by education, the speaker asked whether any one could assign any reason why the expenses of education should not be put on personal as well as real property. If it were a national object, it was for the benefit of the people at large. It was an injustice to fix the expenses of education upon one section of the community. The rate-raised portion of the national charge was 11 millions, but this did not include education, for the cost of that was not taken into account. By-and-by they would have to deal with education, and the owners of real property would have to pay almost exclusively for it, but those with personal property would hardly have to pay anything. If they paid the education rate, and had a 3d. rate on 100 millions, it would produce 1 millions, and he was satisfied in his own mind they would never have education for less than 6d. in the pound, and 24 millions will have to be raised and added to the 11 millions imposed upon them for national charges; they would thus run up to 13 millions. That was a matter of which they had very much to complain. The grievance was being annually aggravated. They were imposing on the landowners an increased property tax, which was nothing more than an income tax, which was greatly increasing. They said there was a grievance with reference to the occupation of lands and houses. Occupation was not, as formerly, a fair index of a man's fortune or ability to pay rates. Such might have been the case when land was the only property in the country. At present only onesixth of the income of the government was derived from personal property. Land was now only a fractional part of the nation's wealth. Personal property had now sprung up, and everybody with an income from personal property should pay for those national charges which they called national responsibilities and national obligations. Mr. Purdy calculated the profits of trades and professions alone from 1815 to 1865 (fifty years) to have increased 212 per cent., while rental of land had only increased 36 per cent. in the same period, and yet the land rates had increased in the interval from £8,000,000 to £16,000,000. They were told by Mr. Gladstone that, partly on account of convenience, and partly on account of antiquity, the greater part of imperial taxation was placed upon personal property, while the greater part of local taxation was placed upon real property. But what were the arguments here? Two: convenience and tradition or antiquity. In these days of reforms they ought not to say much about antiquity. Antiquity had not saved the oldest rate, viz., the Church rate, or the Irish Church, which was as old as the law of Elizabeth, and no one in these days would attempt to justify an injustice on the plea of convenience. He denied the correctness of the assertion that the balance was equally adjusted between taxes paid by personalty and rates paid by real property. He challenged the proof of this statement. It was quite true, and they all admitted, that real property paid no probate duty and legacy duty. But, per contra, personal property paid no land tax, and had transferred to real property the portion which was formerly imposed upon it. Real property also paid house tax, and a much heavier income tax than personal property, as it paid on gross valuation and not on net receipts. It must also be remembered that real property paid succession duty instead of legacy duty, and that real property (land or houses) when leasehold paid probate duty, and that personal property when in settlement paid succession duty and not legacy duty. If these differences were considered and adjusted, he believed the balance with respect to imperial taxation would be almost even; but admitting, for the sake of argument, that the owners of real property had the