threw our trade open to universal competition. Of course, the total downfall of our mercantile navy was confidently predicted by the protectionist party; but their fears were not realized. Instead of decadence, came development; our mercantile marine became more pre-eminent than ever. We have become the carriers of the world, and our flag waves in every port where any trade exists at all."

A fitting reward for admitting our error, for discarding protection and substituting free and open trade. Now let us look at the working of the opposite system on the carrying trade of the United States. Mr. Mongredien says that "protection raised prices to such a point that it became no longer possible for America to construct and equip merchant ships (whether sailers or steamers) on terms that would allow the owners to compete with British merchantmen, and the latter have accordingly had the carrying trade almost to themselves ever since."

There is much soreness because we take so much from America -about three-fourths of the total American exports; whilst the United States barely take one-twelfth part of ours. But our purchases are quite spontaneous; we buy their commodities out of selfish motives. Because they try to shut us out of the markets as sellers, are we to be such fools as to refuse their wheat, and cotton, and bacon? There is no compulsion in the matter; we buy of America because it suits us, because we can get what we buy of them cheaper than we could get the commodities elsewhere. If they are so foolish as to prefer making an article themselves at a cost of 20s. that they may get of us ready made for 15s.,—well, it seems to us, it must be a mistaken policy in every way; as it makes every article in the United States so much dearer to the consumer, and they thereby restrict their dealings with the rest of the world, when they might expand them to any extent by free trade, not only to their own benefit, but to the benefit of all mankind. The light will shine on them in good time; they are too shrewd a people to pursue a mistaken economical policy once they perceive that free trade is to their interest.

The paper on "Economic Science", submitted by Mr. G. B. Powell to the British Association at York, September 5th, 1881, entitled "Protection in Young Communities," ought to convince all that "protection" is economically unsound to those nations that adopt it, and fatal to those interests on whose behalf it is generally adopted. Mr. Powell remarked "that the case was unique. It was a test case, the first which history had given us, of the actual recorded results of low and high tariffs in two similarly constituted communities, specially interesting because they were young communities, where, if anywhere, protection was allowed theoretically. Victoria and New South Wales started ten years ago with practically similar economic environments and opportunities. Victoria had during that decade pursued a policy of protection, and New South Wales one of free trade. The results were as follows: 1st. The development of manufactures, as opposed to the production of colonial produce' (food and raw material), had been on the whole about equal, if we looked to employment of population and capital. If protection had introduced some manufactures, free trade had introduced others. 2nd. In regard to the provision of revenue (the main argument), New South Wales provided a far larger general revenue per head of population; and the special revenue from Customs' duties had increased with a low tariff, but had barely maintained its level under the high tariff. The low tariff provided an equal amount of revenue to the high tariff. 3rd. In regard to general prosperity, industrial prosperity, social prosperity, the growth of trade, of the carrying trade, of the general wealth, and, above all, of population, New South Wales had advanced with far greater rapidity than Victoria. As regarded general results in Victoria itself, this record of what had actually taken place would greatly increase the reactionary movement in favour of a lower tariff. Signs of this were already apparent; and in the British Empire generally those recorded results might stimulate local parliaments to maintain low tariffs, to the undoubted material benefit of every industrial worker throughout the empire."

TAXATION.

"No man oppresses thee, O free and independent franchiser; but does not this stupid pewter pot oppress thee? No son of Adam can bid thee come or go, but this absurd pot of heavy-wet can and does. Thou art the thrall, not of Cedric the Saxon, but of thy own brutal appetites, and this accursed dish of liquor. And thou pratest of thy 'liberty,' thou entire blockhead!"-CARLYLE.

"In all conditions and circumstances, well-being is in the power of those who have power over themselves."-J. J. GURNEY.

66

THIS is a free country, and as the people tax themselves, or think they do, they pay their taxes, perhaps grumblingly, but they are paid, and the majority of the people give little attention to the subject. Yet the amount paid by us yearly in Imperial and Municipal taxes is enormous. Economy" has been a party watchword for years, and yet our expenditure has steadily increased; and as the power of a people to pay taxes depends not upon numbers, but upon wealth and income, and as the income has, until recently, gone on steadily increasing, the higher taxation has not been felt. But, unless a change soon takes place, "high taxes and rents" will be felt, and stern necessity will compel the people to consider how the national affairs can be more economically managed. Frugality is as essential for a State as for an individual, and extravagant public expenditure demoralizes the people, discourages industry, and diminishes the capital of the country. The system of taxation should be permanent; changes are injurious to commerce. Under the old system of indirect taxation, there was always the fear that paralyzed trade, that the taxes would be increased or decreased. The basis of the system should be, to be as "equally just" as possible in its collection. It should reach all classes of people and all kinds of property alike, without unjust discrimination in favour of any. The payment of it should be regarded as a debt due to the State

for protection of life and property, for peace and security; and one and all should feel that in paying less than his fair share, he is thereby making some one else pay more than he ought. It may be difficult to determine what is just for men with different incomes to pay; but once the people understand "taxation," they will find a means of applying the principle of equality, more especially as the disregard of it is subversive of civil liberty. Unequal taxation has always been characteristic of despotic and barbarous governments. The principle of equality-viz., that each and all shall willingly contribute his just portion of the expenses would have stopped the errors of the past, when the rich put the burden upon others, and the danger of the present -to favour the poor at the expense of the rich.

The principle upon which all our taxation, direct or indirect, should rest, is, that it should be general in its application. Our present system of direct taxation, with its system of "exemptions," practically limits its payment to a single class, and is, in reality, nothing more or less than a forced contribution levied upon that class. I know it is argued that the greater the number, and the more various the means of supply, the easier is the task of raising a large amount of revenue; so our Chancellors believe in Customs' and Excise duties, as well as direct taxation. But the time must come when people will see the wisdom of knowing what they pay; then "financial reform" will be a reality, not the mockery it has been since 1849, when Mr. Cobden gave notice of motion for pledging the House of Commons to undertake a reduction of the expenditure of the country by about £10,000,000, so as to bring it down to what it was in 1835. We shall get no reduction until we alter our system of raising the revenue. For our complicated method, our subtle,"disguised" system of extracting the money from the ratepayers, we want the open and direct method. The most honest, simplest, and wisest, as it is the most economical, is "one tax" -the Income Tax. By it every man would know what he contributed to the State; by knowing what he paid, his attention would be drawn to the subject; he would examine the expendi

ture, and try to reduce it; and every man would be interested in knowing that his neighbour was paying his fair share of the burden. It will be said, "The people would not bear such an infliction as taxation pure and simple;' they must have the pill gilded over, or would refuse to swallow it." But it is worth a trial; the saving would be very great. "Economy in collection" would be a large item. There should be an officer in every parish, and every individual liable to be taxed should call and pay his share of the taxes. The nation wants so much; the national income is so much; 5, 10, or 20 per cent. of that income will yield the sum required; pass the law yearly as to what percentage of his income, let it be little or great, every individual has to pay, and make him pay it; the paying of it giving him the right to vote for the national representation; "No taxation without representation " being a just cry, if there be an Upper Chamber to protect the rights of the minority, who have a larger stake in the country, against being overwhelmed by the masses, by decisions adverse to the rights of property, in a Chamber where numbers alone would carry the day. The safety-valve is, in all being taxed; truly they are now, but I mean by the direct" system, by which alone every individual knows what he pays. Once get the people to understand that the interests of the poor and the rich are identical in the matter of taxation and public expenditure, we shall have taken away the danger of Radicalism, which really means taking away from A to give to B, shifting the burden of taxation off the shoulders of the poor to the backs of the rich, and in so doing breaking the backs of many that are not rich, but, from their social status, are assumed by the State to be so. The "Income Tax " is far superior to the "Property Tax," as the yearly income from the same amount of property will vary according to how it is invested; it is simple, direct, and the most equitable; it is paying to the State a kind of tithe, and should be paid as willingly and honourably as tithes are voluntarily paid by members of certain religious bodies. In Massachusetts they have a "Poll Tax," tax on deposits in savings' banks, tax on

66