breathed into the celebrated love-song of the Royal Preacher is the pendant to Faust's passion for Margaret. A genuine and generous attachment might have placed happiness, by means of the affections, once more within the reach of the melancholy author of Ecclesiasticus. But the presence of 300 wives and 700 concubines, deprived him of even that contingency. Mephistopheles, the caustic and cynical voluptuary, could have wished for no better allies. If an overgrown library can produce a surfeit of knowledge, an overstocked seraglio will more certainly bring on an atrophy of the affections. When reason, feeling, and conscience are ill at ease, to fall back upon sensual indulgences for a remedy, is to take a roll in the gutter by way of a medicated mud-bath.

We must conclude abruptly-but not without thanking Mr Hayward for the pains which he has taken in the collection of his materials—and in congratulating him on the success which always attends labours, which are labours of love.

ART. VII.-1. Scheme for a Graduated Property Tax. Pp. 54. London: 1832.

2. Suggestions for the Relief of the Public Burdens. Pp. 37. London: 1833.

ONSIDERING the extent to which taxation is carried in this

country, it is not surprising that many crude and abortive schemes should be put forward for lessening the severity of its pressure, and rendering it more conducive to the public interests. But, with few exceptions, these schemes have made little impression. The Government and the public have had sense enough to perceive, that no part of a real national burden could be defrayed by any sort of juggling; and it seems now to be universally admitted that, excepting in as far as relief may be obtained by a diminution of expenditure, it can be sought for only in the substitution of new and less objectionable taxes, for some of those already in existence; or in the introduction of such modifications into the present scheme of taxation as may serve to render it less injurious, without diminishing its productiveness.

We confess that the last appears to us the most likely method of benefiting the public. So far as experience may be relied on in a matter of this sort, it goes to show that the expectations of those who anticipate considerable advantage from a

transference of taxes, have, for the most part, been disappointed. Our present system of taxation seems, in its leading principles, to be well devised. There cannot, indeed, be any doubt that the duties on several articles are carried to an oppressive extent to such an extent as to be decidedly less productive than they would be, were they lower; and that others ought to be wholly repealed. But these defects are not of the essence of the system; they result entirely from the mode in which it is applied in particular instances, and might be effectually obviated without making any change in its principles.

We are not, however, sure that this is the opinion most commonly held by well-informed persons. A notion seems to be very generally diffused, that it would be advisable to repeal a considerable portion of the existing taxes, and to substitute a tax on property or on income in their stead. Those who advocate a measure of this sort have some plausible reasons to allege in its favour. The repeal of taxes] on commodities, it is contended, would, in so far, save the generally heavy expense attending their collection,-would put an end to smuggling and adulteration, and would prevent capital and industry from being forced into artificial channels; while, by obviating the necessity of granting drawbacks on the exportation of goods subjected to duties, it would obstruct fraud, and facilitate commerce. That these, and that several other advantages, which will readily suggest themselves, would result from the substitution of fairly assessed direct for indirect taxes, seems, at first sight, abundantly obvious. After all, however, this is a matter in which we have only a choice of difficulties. Supposing that the substitution of a tax on property or income, in lieu of the whole or of a portion of our present taxes, had the effects now stated, it may still, we think, be satisfactorily shown, that the change could not be made without producing other and far more serious evils than those it would redress. But as this is a subject of great practical interest, involving the determination of several very important and rather difficult questions, we shall take the liberty briefly to state the principles which ought, as it appears to us, to be kept in view in coming to a decision upon it.

We labour under a very great difficulty in attempting to institute any comparison between the indirect taxes at present in existence, and the direct tax for which it is proposed partially to commute them, from the want of any precise information with respect to the latter. It is argued generally, that it would be good policy to repeal several of the existing taxes, and to substitute in their stead a tax on property or income. These, how

ever, are by no means convertible expressions. A tax on property is materially different from a tax on income; and there is the greatest room for difference of opinion as to the properties and incomes that should be subjected to such taxes, and the mode in which they should be imposed. On all these points the most discordant notions are entertained; and, as many of those that are most popular seem to be inconsistent, not only with all sound principle, but even with the security of property, it may be proper shortly to enquire into the mode in which a property and an income tax should be assessed.

6

I. Dr Smith lays it down, that the subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of government, as nearly ' as possible in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, ' in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under 'the protection of the state.' Of the soundness of this principle there can be no doubt; but when we propose acting upon it, many serious difficulties present themselves. Shall we take the properties of different individuals as evidence of the revenue they enjoy? Shall we estimate the value of different sorts of property by the same standard; and subject the owner of a capital of L.1000 to the same rate of taxation as the owner of a capital of L.10,000 or L.100,000? Or, supposing income to be directly assessed, how are we to proceed? Are we to tax the incomes of professional men as heavily as those of landlords or capitalists? and is the same proportional deduction to be made from incomes of L.100 or L.500 a-year as from those of L.1000 or L.5000? These are not questions of easy solution; and yet it is indispensable that we should have our minds made up as to the course we are to follow with respect to them, before we are in a condition properly to discuss the question as to the comparative advantageousness or disadvantageousness of direct or indirect taxation.

If the choice lay only between a tax on property and a tax on income, we incline to think that the latter ought to be preferred. It is, indeed, quite impossible to ascertain incomes with any thing like accuracy, or to tax them fairly after they are ascertained. But whatever errors might be made in their estimation and assessment would be at least equalled, and probably exceeded, by those that would be made, were it attempted fairly to tax the property of individuals. Let any one fancy himself appointed to value the property of some one of his neighbours engaged in agriculture, or in any department of trade or manufactures, and a very little reflection will satisfy him that the task is one of the utmost difficulty. Suppose, for example, that it

VOL. LVII. NO. CXV.

K

were required to estimate the stock of an individual engaged in farming. In this case, the property to be valued is mostly all obvious, and it might be supposed that there would be little difficulty in the matter; and yet, in point of fact, the difficulties would be all but insuperable. In the first place, no two individuals would form the same estimate of the value of any article ; and, in the second place, how are they to decide as to what is to be deemed stock, and what not? Is all that is upon the farm in the month of March or the month of August to be deemed stock, and subjected to taxation? and, if not, what deductions are to be made at each period to arrive at the true amount of stock or farming capital employed? Suppose that a field has been recently limed, marled, or otherwise manured, at a heavy expense, is the worth of this improvement to be taken into account in estimating the farmer's stock? And if this question be answered, as we think it ought to be, in the affirmative, how is the value of those manures to be ascertained that have been recently ploughed down, and incorporated with the soil? Were an attempt made to calculate the stock of any individual engaged in trade, the difficulties would be much greater. It is to no purpose to propose referring to books; for, were they used for such an object, it would be the easiest thing in the world to construct them so that they should yield no information, or such only as was false and misleading. In fact, it would be found that, in nine cases out of ten, nothing better than the declarations of the parties concerned could be obtained; and we look upon every system of taxation as radically vicious, that sets the interest and the duty of individuals at variance-that tempts them to balance between the loss of property and the commission of perjury.

But admitting that it were possible, which it obviously is not, to form a tolerably fair estimate of the property possessed by individuals, its adoption as a standard by which to determine the amount of taxation would be singularly inexpedient. It is necessary to look as well at the practical operation as at the abstract justice of a principle. Apparently, nothing can be fairer, supposing the property of individuals were known, than to tax them proportionally; and yet few things would in reality be more mischievous and unfair. If income be assumed as the criterion by which to apportion taxation, there is an inducement to conceal its amount; but a tax on income will not tempt any one to employ inferior instruments or processes in carrying on any employment. This, however, is the inevitable effect of a tax on capital or property. The moment such a tax is established, every one attempts to escape or to elude the severity of its pres

sure, by concealing a portion of his property, or employing it in some underhand manner. Those engaged in industrious occupations, endeavour to carry them on with the least possible amount of capital. Such as are not poor, counterfeit poverty. Inferior machinery and inferior cattle are employed. An indisposition is generated to lay out fresh capital in works or improvements, seeing that it will be taken as an evidence of increased wealth, and will consequently expose the parties to additional taxation. The object under such circumstances is not to appear rich, but to appear poor; and the reality too often corresponds with the appearance.

Pauper videri vult Cinna, et est pauper.

The history of the taille, as it existed in France before the Revolution, strikingly exemplifies the truth of what has now been stated. The taille was intended to be a tax on the profits of the farmers; and it was assessed according to the amount of the capital they employed in cultivation. They were in consequence tempted to employ as little capital as possible, and were deterred from making any considerable or expensive improvement. It is not easy to exaggerate the injury done to the agriculture of France by this system. All who made anything by farming were anxious to withdraw to some other business; at the same time that agriculture drew no recruits from the other classes. Not only, therefore, did the taille hinder the greater part of the capital generated on the land from being laid out upon it, but it turned from it all the capital that had been accumulated in other employments. Considering the long period to which France was subjected to so odious a tax, the wonder is not that her agriculture was in a very depressed and backward state at the Revolution, but that it was so far advanced as it really was.

Although, therefore, it were true, and it only is so under peculiar circumstances, that if the capital employed by a farmer or manufacturer could be ascertained, it would afford a pretty good criterion of his ability to bear taxes; it is also true, first, that it is next to impossible to determine the amount of capital belonging to any individual; and, second, that supposing it to be determined, it would be most unwise to adopt it as a standard of taxation. Under the pretence of equality, taxes proportioned to the property or capital of individuals are, from the impossibility of ascertaining its amount, about the most unequal that can be imagined; while, from their pernicious influence on industry, they become the most prolific sources of poverty and dissatisfaction.