right and honourable that we should avail ourselves of the peculiar advantages of our own native productions. The bill of exchangeable value would stand thus:

Cost of production at the mine per ton.

Cost at the foundry

Cost of taxation at two and a half

809

£2 10

2 0

per cent.

2 3

£4 12 3

These prices are hypothetical; but the statement is simply to show how the founder would make his charge on the public: he would as soon think of paying the charge of the miner out of his profits as he would the amount of the tax. It would not in the slightest degree affect his profits, but would be paid by the consumer, as it justly ought. After subjecting the whole mineral kingdom to a similar assessment, we should extend this scheme of taxation to the animal kingdom:

British wool costs in the raw material

Costs of Spinning.

Dying

Weaving

Now, what could press more equally on all classes of the community than such a tax as this? A superior cloth at 20s. a-yard would yield twice the amount of tax to an inferior cloth at 10s. Thus the rich consumer would not only pay a greater amount of tax on the superior quality of his cloth, but on the greater quantity which he would consume.

We should next invade the vegetable world, and cause its various and important products to contribute to the public revenue, and consequently to the national advantage:

Raw material of Flax and Hemp costs

Cost of preparing, &c..

Cost of Weaving.

Cost of tax on linen, sails, cords, &c. at 24 per cent.
Profit

With respect to the raw produce of silk and cotton, which are not of British production, it appears but just and reasonable that a similar tax should be levied on the home consumption, much more on the fabrics intended for exportation. Drawbacks are the greatest frauds ever practised upon a deluded

nation. By such absurd regulations you plunder your own people, delude the foreign purchaser, and give unjust and enormous profits to speculating merchants. By such a tax as we have proposed, silks at the value of 2s. 6d a-yard would bear a tax of about d. a-yard, whilst, on cottons at 74d., the tax would be about half a farthing, and at 3d., not a fourth of a farthing. No reasonable man can suppose that such a tax could be injurious to foreign trade: on the contrary, we think a higher tax on exportation might safely be levied. Depend upon it, the merchant would repay himself, and the foreigner would be made, justly, to contribute towards the support of those advantages of British capital and material which he so largely shares.

We have now only to remark that all commodities of foreign importation should be free, provided no further taxes are required for the public revenue: and amongst these, we may enumerate tea, coffee, sugar, and other articles which enter largely into the people's consumption; but, decidedly, a tax should be laid on their exportation. The reason is obvious. Taxes on the importation of foreign manufactured goods, which enter into competition with home manufacture, ought to be levied, at all events, to the amount of taxation laid on the home production, with an increased tax on exportation; otherwise the home consumer pays an additional price on the exported article, inasmuch as it lessens the home supply, evades the competition of the home markets, and seeks for profit elsewhere.

It must be borne in mind that these observations are made on the supposition that all taxes which enter into the consumption of wages are abandoned. We are deeply convinced that a thorough investigation of the taxation of the country is at this moment required: we further think that it is capable of great improvement; and that, by careful management and an equal distribution, it might be made abundantly productive for all the purposes of public expenditure, and so arranged as to be borne cheerfully by a prosperous and grateful people.

Since writing the above a small pamphlet has been placed in our hands, in the form of a letter to R. Cobden, Esq., M.P., and signed “ J. Hyde," and which we have read with attention. The writer is a man in earnest, and has had considerable opportunities, through a long experience, of observing the workings of the fiscal system of the country among the middle and lower classes of society. At the present crisis every individual who can offer practical illustrations on this important matter, of which he has made himself master by

personal observation, affords the most valuable materials for the investigation of the economist and is a benefactor to his country. But the writer of this tract goes far beyond this. We admit that he has manifested some practical knowledge of the subject; but he has startled us by the assumption of a grand principle without informing us of the steps by which he has arrived at it. He has made himself master of the city without drawing his lines, erecting his batteries, or attempting to effect a breach. He has, indeed, achieved his purpose; but it has been in the dark. Now, for aught we know, this may be the best mode of taking a city; but, in matters of inductive science, where every point must be reached by a long and patient investigation and induction of particulars, such an overleaping of barriers and jumping to conclusions are inadmissible. The writer in question assumes that "the only legitimate foundation of taxation is property." Now, we might admit at once that property is the only foundation for taxation, inasmuch as without property there could be no society to tax. Property is every thing to society-it is the support of labour, the spur to industry, the incentive to genius, and the source of wealth-hence, therefore, and of necessity, the "foundation" of taxation. Had the writer of the letter to Mr. Cobden carried out this harmless self-evident proposition, his incubations might have been of singular service to the community; but he has done far otherwise. He has not made property the foundation of taxation, but the subject of it: he has not built his fiscal superstructure upon this broad and durable basis; but he has set himself to work to destroy it. If it be a solid foundation, do not weaken its stability: if it do afford a basis sufficiently broad and expansive for the superabundant weight, do not narrow its limits and render it unfit for its grand purpose. We admit that property, in some way or other, must be made the subject of taxation. If it be a foundation, leave it in all its solidity: if it be a stately oak, do not hack its roots: if it be a mighty river, do not divert its course. In the one case, build upon it, if you please, and make use of its lofty chambers: in the other, gather your fruit from its branches: or, in the third, draw your happiness from its never-failing streams. But guard the foundations of your polity with a watchful eye-in other words, let property be sacred. In the mass let it be protected, and it will inevitably form the ground-work of national prosperity: but if you interfere with its sources-if you prevent its expansion -if you divert it from its natural channel-you will weaken

the springs of labour, exhaust the powers of industry, and hasten the national decay.

In our opinion the writer of this unpretending brochure has not well considered the question. He has not examined it on every side, and looked at it again and again from every point of view he could command; but has rashly seized upon a conclusion which he ought to have arrived at by a slow and painstaking investigation. He has thus laid down a system of taxation at once arbitrary and impracticable, which, if attempted, would be speedily followed by the most disastrous consequences. Why, for instance, is property in land to be taxed at a higher rate than any other property? On account of its "durability?" Can this be a just ground of distinction? Is it more durable than property in gold and silver? Or, if it should be considered more durable than property in houses, is it to be doubted that the investment has been more valuable? If land be more durable than houses, no doubt it cost more. But the fact is, there is no distinction to be drawn-at least, no legitimate distinction-between the different kinds of property. Property invested in land, or houses, or machinery, or stock in trade, is property, and the tax imposer has no right to make any distinction. All he has to do with is the existence of property and its bond fide value. Our author, therefore, has been guilty of an assumption which he has not proved nor even attempted to prove, and of a distinction which can have no existence in fact; and which is, therefore, arbitrary and unjust, and which, if carried out by enactment, would be oppressive to individuals and injurious to the community.

Nor has the writer been sufficiently careful in his use of language. No man can ever be a safe guide who commits himself by making statements which will not bear to be examined. In speaking of the excise duties, as a departure from the principle of a tax on property, he says that "the miser with his tens of thousands may escape them." Now, it may be true that the miser may not choose to build houses; and, consequently, will require no bricks. He may be too penurious to buy hops, or malt, or even soap; but where are his "tens of thousands?" Are they also buying no bricks, purchasing no malt, or using no soap? It is evident the case of the miser is mere declamation. Again: he asserts that "the peasant pays (the excise duties) in a far greater ratio than the prince." Now, this is liable to the same interpretation: it is clap-trap reasoning. According to this, the peasant builds as many houses as the prince, purchases as many hops, consumes

as much malt, writes as many letters, employs as many posthorses, consumes as much soap and as many pounds of sugar. Personally, no doubt, the peasant might drink more ale, require more soap, and consume as much sugar; but the subject is rich in absurdity; and it is, to say the least of it, discreditable in any man who undertakes to write on grave and vastly important subjects, in which the national weal or woe are discussed, to permit himself to write in a style more suited for the hustings than for a grave and elaborate treatise. PROPERTY, then, is to be tenderly handled, and carefully guarded, and judiciously directed; and TAXATION must not come down upon it, like some infernal monster, and seize it with giant strength and break it on the ponderous wheel of society; but taxation must transform itself into a wise and skilful architect, making the best use of the material provided to his hands, adapting it as circumstances will allow, and extending his plans as opportunities shall offer; or as a gardener, securing the parent tree from injury, nourishing its roots, and enriching himself from its loaded branches; or as the agriculturist, directing the fertilising stream through his extensive meadows, not with the intention of weakening its supply, but with the design of continuing for ever. Thus must taxation act upon property; and he will be the best friend of his country who points out the readiest and safest methods of accomplishing it.

ART. XI.-Ireland and the Channel Islands; or a Remedy for Ireland. By CHARLES LE QUESNE, Esq. London: 1848. Longman.

A WITTY friend of ours, on being solicited a few days since to take a ticket for an anniversary dinner, excused himself on the plea that the general bouleversement of dynasties had made sovereigns so scarce, that he could not find one for the purpose. In whatever direction we turn we see nothing but confusion and perplexity. The King of the French, "afraid. where no fear was," abandons his throne and scampers off in most unkingly haste, followed in the race by his sons, with a speed more creditable to their agility than their courage. After a vain and sufficiently ridiculous attempt at government by a junta of novelists, philosophers (such as they were), and poets (by courtesy), confusion became worse confounded; and what is France now but a fine field for a bold adventurer?