labours, and who abandons them to all the temptations which human beings, destitute of their natural controlling influences, and brought together in great masses, are liable to, must be held to incur a very serious responsibility to the whole of his species. That it is a responsibility capable of being legally exacted, would be a dangerous proposition. Laws cannot safely be made for such cases until after the mischief is done; for prospective legislation, proceeding without a full experimental knowledge of the circumstances to which it is to be applied, is a very precarious operation.

"It must be admitted, however, that a late formidable example has shown how difficult it is to influence the cupidity of men in their haste to become rich, so far as to make them reflect on the consequences of their acquisitive operations to society at large. We have already spoken of the social evils of the railway speculation of 1847 in connection with the pecuniary fluctuations occasioned by it. It was another evil of that mania, that it brought into existence an army of men-powerful in bodily strength, but totally uneducated, and little restrained by religious and social influences, who had necessarily, from their aggregation in large numbers, almost all the peculiarities of a military body, except its discipline. The number of labourers employed in the spring of 1847, in the construction of the various lines of railway, amounted, as we have elsewhere had occasion to say, to 240,307. Of these a large number were, by the late depression of trade, dispersed through society as suddenly as they had been originally brought together; and the various destitution funds throughout the empire, along with the riots which disturbed the peace of the community, were the indications of this partial disbanding of an army. Yet when we observe the utterly disorganised and chaotic nature of their amalgamation, their excesses and their mendicancy have been far less than might naturally have been expected.

"Believing that the time when workingpeople will be effectively protected from the selfishness and recklessness of their employers will come when the employers, along with the rest of the community, are protected from the barbarism of the workmen-that that civilisation, or e lucation, or whatever we may term the regenerating element, will leaven the whole mass-it should not be forgotten in the meantime, that for whatever disorganising influences in the arrangements between employers and their workpeople are removable, the former-being the better educated of the two classes, having the chief opportunities for reflection and observation, and being able to make the most considerable sacrifices-ought to be responsible."

It is time that we should now turn

to the other volume which lies before

us.

Mr. Heron's "Lectures on Taxation," although not free from error, which a little more consideration we are satisfied would have obviated, are creditable to himself and to the institution with which he is connected. The fair and practical spirit which pervades the whole is most commendable. Instead of claiming for his subject a paramount importance, as might naturally have been expected from a young professor, he thus fairly states the place which it is entitled to hold:

"Of course you will not understand me in this course of lectures as absolutely recommending anything to be done or any reform to be made in our system of taxation. It is merely the business of the political economist to state principles and draw conclusions; but his conclusions, however true they may be, do not authorise him to add a single word of advice. That privilege belongs to the statesman, who has to consider, besides the absolute justice of the measures which he proposes, the expediency also of these measures in relation to the existing interests and complicated rights of society. The business of a political economist is neither to recommend nor to dissuade, but to state principles which it is fatal absolutely to neglect, but neither advisable nor practicable to use as the sole guide in the conduct of human affairs legislator must consider not only economic principles, but also the political, the social, the moral principles, and those which are expedient at the present time."

The

It would be very unfair to test this little work by the strict rules which would apply to a professed treatise on the subject. The publication consists of three lectures, which were delivered to public voluntary classes in the Queen's College, Galway. In lectures of this nature it would have been quite impossible for Mr. Heron to have discussed his subject strictly scientifically. He was necessarily obliged to attract and to fasten the attention of his audience. This no lecturer could succeed in doing, if he were to commence with the enunciation of abstract principles, and to proceed with rigid scientific accuracy to trace their application through every minute ramification of the subject. All that a lecturer, under such circumstances, can hope to accomplish is, to impress some strong leading views of his subject on his hearers. In almost all these views, so far as they are of

an economical character, we fully concur with him. There are a few less essential points, chiefly introduced by way of illustration, which it occurs to us Mr. Heron might reconsider with advantage. We would more particularly refer him to the forty-fifth page, in which he speaks of the effect of the abolition of the duty on tea :

“Supposing then," says Mr. Heron, “that the price of tea being lowered, consequent upon the abolition of the duty, the population of these islands continued to expend the same amount upon tea which they do now paying the tax, and that the price of tea did not vary materially in China, it is plain that nearly £5,000,000 additional (such being the amount of the duty), less the cost of transit, would be expended upon tea there. In order to pay for this, it would be necessary to send to China £5,000,000 in whatever manufactured goods they would take in exchange. Now we must bear in mind, that these goods would be manufactured in addition to the quantity already required; so that if this tax were abolished, not only would the price of a wholesome article of food be lowered, and the comforts of the labouring poor, and the productive powers of the country be thereby increased, but there would be also a new demand for the £5,000,000 of manufactured articles; and this increase in the demand for manufactures would not only benefit the manufacturing population, but would also benefit ship-builders, labourers, carriers, and others engaged in the transit of goods to the port of shipment, and the brokers and commercial agents employed there. Again, the greater part of this £5,000,000 being distributed in wages amongst the people, they would to that extent be enabled to purchase, and would purchase better food; so that the agricultural population would be ultimately benefitted, the value of agricultural labour increased, and the landlords receive higher rents, for the interests of manufacture and of agriculture are inseparableunited."

Now here is an interminable series of advantages ascribed to the abolition of the duty on tea, by a process of reasoning which, as we conceive, involves much misapprehension. We only wonder that our author stopped so soon; for plainly, on the principle on which he set out, he might continue to expand the circle of advantages throughout all the foreign countries with which England directly or indirectly has any commercial intercourse. We apprehend that the effect of the abolition of the duty (supposing, as our author does, that we would expend the

same amount on tea that we now do paying the tax, and that the price did not vary in China) would be simply this that we would have more tea and fewer soldiers, or colleges, or ministers of justice, or whatever else it is that the tax is now expended on. Test the matter by an individual instance: a shoemaker produces a certain number of pairs of shoes annually-this is his income; with this he purchases his tea, pays his taxes, and soforth; if his taxes be remitted, he can buy so much more tea, no doubt, but he does not make more shoes than ever he did; of course the fact of his exchanging his shoes for money before he buys his tea, or pays the tax collector, makes no change in the matter. Now, how can the process vary when applied to a nation, which is but a collection of individuals. The income of a country is the annual produce of its land, its labour, and its capital; a certain portion of this, to the value of £5,000,000, is now expended in providing for some purposes of public defence, or education, or such like; it is transferred from these purposes to providing an article of food for the people. Surely this transfer of £5,000,000 from one mode of expenditure to another, can only affect the application of the income of the country-it can have nothing whatever to say to the amount; there may be changes created from one branch of trade to another, but the whole will result in this simple statement, that there is more tea by the value of £5,000,000 annually brought into the country, and distributed amongst its inhabitants.

In one way, indeed, which Mr. Heron was not called upon by his subject to advert to, the change might have the effect of increasing the manufactures of the country. The soldiers, and schoolmasters, and such like persons, to whom the five millions' worth of the annual produce of the country had hitherto been given, would be obliged to embark in some other occupations, and many of them, no doubt, would find their way into the manufacturing employments of the country. This would, of course, increase the manufactures of the country; and probably a portion, even of this increased manufacture, would find its way to China to purchase an additional quantity of tea; a certain number of persons would be transferred from one kind of occu.

pation to another; so much of the annual labour of the country would be converted from the production of services to the production of commodities, and which were best for the country would depend very much upon which were most needed at the time. But with this consideration, as we have said, our author was not concerned; we have merely adverted to it to guard against any misapprehension of our own meaning.

Indeed, the error, which lies at the basis of Mr. Heron's reasoning in the passage which we have quoted, breaks out more expressly in the sixty-seventh page, when he is treating of the economic evils of indirect taxation. He there says, that "the duties levied upon articles of consumption produced abroad, discourage the importation upon such goods, and prevent the production of home manufactures to be sent abroad in exchange." Now the discouragement on the importation of foreign articles which we wish to use is undoubtedly an evil; but surely it is no additional evil that we are prevented from making goods to be sent abroad in exchange for them. What good does the manufacture of what we send abroad do us? None in the world, but as it procures us something in exchange which we wish to use. Prima facie, it is a loss; if we could get the foreign articles that we want gratuitously, as the nations of antiquity used to get their corn, without being obliged to give any product of our own for them, it would save us a vast deal of trouble. The nett income of a country, what it actually has to consume, has been well expressed by Dr. Longfield, as being its produce, minus its exports, plus its imports. If a shoemaker is unable to drink French brandy, it is no aggravation of his misfortune, that he does not produce the number of shoes which he would be obliged to give for it. It was this same error, that of ascribing this two-fold benefit to foreign commerce, which we think led Mr. Heron astray in his reasoning on the repeal of the tea duty.

The general scope, however, of Mr. Heron's economical views, are unquesHis adtionably accurate and just. vocacy of the system of direct taxation, in preference to that complicated and wasteful system which now prevails, is well worthy of examination. He enters into the several objections which

have been urged against an incometax, and displaces the greater number of them most efficiently. The objection arising from the alleged disposi tion to evade such a tax, he meets by reminding us that, in point of fact, there were no serious complaints on that head, during the many years in which it has been in force in England, and that it is not to be expected that truth and honesty would desert men in the payment of their tax: without which qualities they never could have realised the income on which such tax was imposed. We do not so fully feel the force of his answer to the second objection which he notices, that of the inquisitorial character of such a mode of taxation. We believe that this is the chief objection to the tax, and the one which will operate the longest in making it distasteful to the people of these countries. We entirely dissent from Mr. Heron when he tells us, that "if any one wishes to conceal the amount of his income, it is generally in order that he may live beyond it for some time, and in the end defraud his creditors." We believe that the most honorable and most upright men in the community are influenced by this feeling; we believe that it is one that is common to the whole English people: it is a part of that habit of reserve, that desire for privacy, and dislike to be intruded on or brought before the public, which lies at the basis of the Englishman's character. Mr. Heron's answer, however, to the objection, that tax-payers would be unwilling to pay so much money directly, is well worthy of attention. "The reluctance to pay directly," he says, “appears to me one of the arguments in favour of the income-tax. The public would see with their eyes open the sums which they pay in taxation, and would insist on a proper application of the public monies." "We are convinced that there is much force in this argument. He then adverts to the cheaper rate at which the same amount of taxation would be levied, by the abolition of the coast-guard, excise officers, and soforth, the emancipation of the manufacture of exciseable articles, and several other circumstances, which strongly recommend the adoption of the direct system of taxation.

But Mr. Heron tells us in his preface that he purposes in these lectures to

give a digest of the principles of taxation, as developed by modern jurists and economists. Now, although with the exceptions which we have mentioned, we can safely recommend Mr. Heron's economical views to our readers, we confess that when he drops the economist, and becomes the jurist, we are not so fully prepared to go along with him. Here, however, we dissent from him with diffidence; we feel that we have no established principles to which we can appeal to test the accuracy of our respective opinions. The study of jurisprudence, or rather of "the science of legislation"—for so it should be styled-is yet so imperfectly cultivated, that we cannot but think that our rising institutions, the Queen's Colleges, were ill-advised in introducing the study into the regular course of academical instruction. Indeed, we strongly doubt whether the philosophy of law and of legislation admits of being reduced to a science at all— whether it ever can be extended beyond those first principles of morals which are universally acknowledged in civilised countries.

"At the same time, I do not propose that any tax should be laid upon absentees, for the purpose of compelling them to reside upon the spot whence they drew their income. Such a principle is merely a Russian one; and the only effect it could have, if enforced, would be to diminish the value of certain remote districts. Absentees, besides, are sufficiently punished by the necessary deterioration which ensues when agricultural property is not under the eye of the owner. However, there is a certain tax which absentees ought to pay, and for the following

reasons:

"As I here before stated, taxes are paid by the subjects of a government, as wages to the public servants, for the protection afforded by their services to their properties and liberties, and taxes should be paid in proportion to the individual's ability. Therefore, one who derives an income from a country should, no matter where he resides, VOL. XXXVI-NO. CCXV.

contribute a just proportion to the taxation which pays for the public protection and security, without which that income could not be collected. At present, one who derives an income from England or Ireland, and resides in France, has his property still protected for him; but he escapes the taxation, which he should have paid had he resided at home. This is manifestly unjust. It would be considered monstrous if one deriving a large income from a country, and resident in it, were exempt from its taxation. Is it not more unjust that one being out of the country, and not benefiting it by his expenditure, should not contribute to its public burthens? At present, under the indirect system of taxation, an absentee enriches a foreign country by his expenditure, while he wholly escapes the taxation of his own; but if a direct system of taxation were substituted for the present system, by being abroad he would be at least under a double set of taxes; and in any event it is at least just that a person deriving an income from a country should pay proportionably for the protection by which he is enabled to enjoy it."

Now it occurs to us that it is both expedient and just to impose a much larger tax upon absentees than Mr. Heron suggests, and upon very dif ferent principles from those here laid down. Mr. Heron would only subject the Irish absentee landlord to the same amount of tax which he would have incurred by being a resident, and this solely on the principle that as his property was secured to him by the State, he ought to pay for such security, whether he lived in the country or lived out of it. Now look to the nature of the injury which is done to the country by the Irish absentee. He transports the food of our people to a foreign country to pay him his rents. That land, which is limited in extent, and from which all must derive their support, may teem with abundance; but his own countrymen-those for whose support it was provided by the Almighty-are not to participate in it. Some, indeed, may earn their bread by cultivating it others may make a livelihood by carting it to the nearest seaport, and then bid adieu to it; it is off, to be squandered by the devotee of pleasure in the frivolities or dissipations of a foreign land. Now, without knowing anything of jurisprudence, on every principle of humanity, justice, religion, and policy, we would tax this man-tax him most heavily-tax him avowedly on the principle of securing for the coun2 M