REESE LIBRARY . 
 
 OF TIIIC 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 %eceived APR 12 1^°^ . i8q . 
 
 ^Accessions No.^^f.O.'r. Class No. 
 
 -u — u — l? 
 
■hi 
 
 ii' 
 
LOCAL TAXATION 
 
 CRITICISM OF FALLACIES, 
 
 AND A 
 
 SUMMARY OF FACTS 
 
 BY JOHN NOBLE, 
 
 Author of *^ National Fi^mnce,'* '^ The Queens Taxes^" ''Fiscal leffislation,*' 
 
 "It iR expedient to make owners as well as occupiers directly liable for a certain pro- 
 portion of rates." — Report of Select Committee of the Souse of Commons on Local Taxation^ 
 1870. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 P. S. KING, PARLIAMENTARY BOOKSELLER, 
 
 KING -STREET, WESTMINSTER. 
 
 • 187G. 
 
<' 
 
 LONDON: ' 
 
 PRINTED BY JTTDD AXD CO. PHOiNlX WOEKS 
 
 DOCTOES' COIfJIOXS, E.C 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 1. ME. E. DUDLEY BAXTEE ON LOCAL GOVEENMENT 
 
 AND TAXATION, AND ME. GOSCHEN'S EEPOET - 1 
 
 2. THE GLADSTONE GOVEENMENT AND LOCAL 
 
 TAXATION 41 
 
 3. PAELIAMENTAEY FALLACIES. FROM THE DEBATES . 
 
 ON LOCAL TAXATION - 5o' 
 
 4. ME. J. J. COLMAN'S PAPEE ON LOCAL TAXATION, 
 
 EEAD AT THE SOCIAL SCIENCE CONGEESS IN 
 NOEWICH, 1873 - « 133 
 
 5. A SDMMAEY OF FACTS COMPILED FEOM THE 
 
 LATEST LOCAL TAXATION EETUENS . - - 140 
 
 ■ '^PPORNIA. 
 
PEEFACE. 
 
 The attempts that have been made in recent years, and are 
 still continued with remarkable perseverance, to obtain a re- 
 adjustment of Local Taxation in favour of landed proprietors, 
 and thus to throw an additional burden upon the general public, 
 already heavily taxed in comparison with the class seeking 
 relief, render the question one of great and pressing interest. 
 The Government of Mr. Disraeli have proceeded as far as they 
 are able in the direction above indicated ; they are now stopped 
 for want of means, and a breathing time is afforded in which it 
 is to be hoped the public will examine the question, and decide 
 whether they ought not themselves to seek relief, but in quite 
 another direction. In the following pages the whole subject is 
 fully and carefully examined, with a view of presenting a com- 
 plete resume of the facts of the case, and an accurate statement 
 of the arguments employed on both sides. The work is divided 
 into five parts or sections, of the contents of which a summary is 
 appended. 
 
 The First Part consists of an examination into the accuracy 
 of the statistics and the soundness of the arguments employed 
 by Mr. Dudley Baxter in his work on Local Taxation, in which 
 he attacked Mi\ Goschen*s report, and claimed to have pointed 
 out a series of errors and fallacies, which destroyed all the credit 
 and authority of that document. Mr. Baxter's work was con- 
 
11 PREFACE. 
 
 sidered so valuable by tbe Local Taxation Committee, of which 
 Sir Massey Lopes was the Parliamentary spokesman, previous to 
 his location at the Admiralty, that a considerable number of 
 copies was purchased for gratuitous circulation. The author has 
 therefore given it a careful examination, and claims to have 
 demonstrated that it abounds in errors as to fact, and fallacies as 
 to theor}^ which completely vitiate its conclusions, and render it 
 worthless as a guide for legislation. 
 
 The Second Part narrates the mode in which the attacks of 
 the landowners upon the pockets of the ratepayers were met by 
 Mr. Gladstone's Government, recounts its proposals for the 
 amendment of Local Government and readjustment of Local 
 Taxation, and demonstrates the groundless character of the 
 complaints, so repeatedly urged by Conservative speakers, that 
 the interests of the ratepayers wero ignored by his adminis- 
 tration. 
 
 The Third Part reprints the main arguments employed during 
 the Local Taxation debates of the last and of the first two 
 sessions of the present Parliament, in favour of relieving owners of 
 property at the expense of the ratepayers generally, accompanied 
 by an enquiry into the accuracy of their statements and the reality 
 of the alleged grievance. It contains extracts from the speeches 
 of Sir Massey Lopes, Mr. Pell, Mr. C. 8. Read, Mr. Corrance, 
 and other known advocates of that policy, Y»'ith a demonstration 
 of the errors and fallacies upon which their demands are based. 
 It also contains extracts from and comments upon speeches of 
 Sir Stafford IS^orthcote, Mr. Sclater Booth, and Mr. Disraeli^ in 
 defence of the policy of the present Government, and from the 
 
TRHFACE. Ill 
 
 criticisms of Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Fawcetf, and the Marquess of 
 Ilartington. 
 
 The Fourth Part contaius an examination of some errors in a 
 paper read by Mr. J. J. Caiman at the Social Science Congress, 
 held at^Norwich in 1873, in which he put forward the claims of 
 town ratepayers to some relief, analagous to that sought by the 
 Local Taxation Committee of the Chambers of Agriculture, on 
 behalf of the landowners. 
 
 The Fifth Part is a summary of facts, compiled from the latest 
 Parliamentary Returns, and contains an analysis of Local Taxa- 
 tion, showing the proportions borne respectively by the towns 
 and the rur^l districts. 
 
 London, March, 1870. 
 
iJvf. 
 
 Me. R. DUDLEY BAXTER 
 
 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND TAXATION, 
 
 AXD 
 
 MR GOSCHEN'S EEPOET. 
 
 ME. DUDLEY BAXTER, the well-known Conservative 
 Statistician, could hardly fail to put in an appearance on 
 this question. At the Social Science Congress, held at JS'orwicli 
 in 1873, and in several letters addressed to the Times and other 
 newspapers, he supported the claims put foi'th b}^ Sir Massey 
 Lopes, and combatted the returns published by Mr. Goschen in 
 his celebrated report. These criticisms have since been reprinted, 
 with the addition of a chapter on the subject of "Hereditary or 
 Prescriptive Burdens." Upon the question of Local Government 
 there is no difference between Mr. Baxter and his opponents; in 
 this volume he fully endorses the description of our local adminis- 
 tration given by Mr. Goschen, and agrees with him as to the 
 necessity of immediate reform. Upon the other branch of the sub- 
 ject. Local Taxation, there is the widest divergence of opinion ; 
 he contends that the great augmentation of local expenditure is 
 borne mainly by owners of real property, and makes an attemp 
 to refute the doctrine of hereditary burdens, laid down by Mr. 
 Mill and other political economists. He endorses every fallacy 
 that figured upon the Conservative side, during the local taxation 
 debates, and arrives at most positive conclusions upon insufficient 
 or erroneous data. It is, therefore, to this branch of the subject 
 exclusively that any examination of his statistics and arguments 
 need be directed. The main force of Mr. Baxter's attack is 
 directed to the destruction of Mr. Goschen's celebrated report of 
 1870 ; upon this he brings his heaviest artillery to bear, and 
 because no notice was taken of his newspaper strictures, either 
 by Mr. Goschen or his friends, he assumed that " the facts and 
 
2 y\n. Pv. DTDLKY 75AXTEK 
 
 figures which they contained were, in the main, unassailable.' * 
 The great aim of his work is to substantiate the allegation that 
 landowners are unduly taxed, and in pursuit of this object he 
 omits to notice important considerations which, materially affect 
 the force of bis arguments. 
 
 About one fact there can be no dispute. It is brought out very 
 clearly in Mr. Baxter's speech at Norwich, viz., that the great 
 increase in the poor rate, which took place in the latter part of 
 the last and the early part of the present century, was owing to 
 wars, carried on by an aristocratic government, first, in order to 
 subjugate the American colonies ; and, secondly, against France. 
 The real cause of the growth of pauperism, consequent upon these 
 wars, is shown more clearly by an American writer on political 
 economy * than it is by Mr. Baxter. The following are the two 
 accounts, and it will be evident, upon a consideration of both of 
 them, that the growth of out-door relief was not the only, or even 
 the main cause of the rapid growth of the poor rates ; it would 
 be more accurate to say that the rapid growth of pauperism led 
 to extensive out- door relief. 
 
 Mr. Baxter : — " With the end of the American War in 1782 came 
 " a disastrous change of system. The war led to a rise of 
 " prices, and the rise of prices to a necessity for a rise in wages. 
 " But instead of leaving things to take their natural course, 
 " the Government and the country concurred in a very mis- 
 " taken policy — that of supplementing wages out of rates. An 
 " Act, called 'Gilbert's Act,' was passed in 1782, authorising 
 " the adoption of outdoor relief, which was extended by later 
 ** Acts in 1795 and 1815. In consequence of this system and 
 *' the immense rise during the American and French wars in 
 "' the prices of corn and all the necessaries of life — corn going 
 " to 70s., 80s., 90s., and even 112s. a quarter — the Poor Bate 
 " increased, quite out of proportion to the increase of popula- 
 " tion, from £700,000 in 1750 to £2,000,000 in 1785, then 
 " to £4,000,000 in 1803. to £8,500,000 in 1814, and even to 
 " £9,300,000 in 1818, or more than fourfold in thirty-three 
 " years." 
 
 Mr. Caret. — " The injurious effect of war would have been per- 
 " fectly evident to the capitalist had the mode of raising sup- 
 " plies for the war been different. Had all the extra demands 
 " of the Government been supplied by an income tax, he 
 " would have found that his extra profits were thus absorbed ; 
 " but instead of paying his money, he lent it, receiving from 
 *' the Government an engagement to pay a high rate of 
 
 * Carey on "Wealth. 
 
AND MT^. GOSGHEN*S REPORT. '3 
 
 ^' interest, which interest was collected from the labouring 
 " classes, by taxes on salt, beer, sugar, tobacco, <&c. The 
 '' reduction in the amount of production could not fail to be 
 '•' attended with a diminution in the proportion assigned to 
 '' the labourer, and the mode of raising supplies for the 
 " Government tended to throw upon him almost the whole 
 " cost of the war, thus vastly increasing his sacrifices. Under 
 " such circumstances, it is not surprising that pauperism should 
 *' have increased, and that the amount expended for relief of 
 •' the poor, which in 1785 was £1,912,241, should have risen 
 " in 1803 to £4,077,891." :Nreither is it surprising that a 
 continuance of this policy should have caused the rates to 
 increase still further, until they reached, in 1818, as Mr. Baxter 
 points out, the sum of £9,300,000. 
 
 The mistaken policy was not merely, or even mainly, one of 
 poor-law relief. By the system of taxation and loans, adopted 
 to carry on the war, the people were deprived of employment, 
 and out-door relief became a necessary consequence. Mr. Baxter 
 complains that the Government did not leave things to take their 
 natural course, as if that were possible under the abnormal 
 circumstances he describes. The natural course of things was 
 departed from at the commencement of the war, and the neces- 
 sary consequence of high prices, accompanied by diminished 
 employment, would have been starvation. In due course, no 
 doubt, the evil would have been cured by this heroic remedy, if 
 the people had submitted to it. It is, however, possible that the 
 attempt would have led to Peterloo .campaigns at a much earlier 
 period, and upon a much more extended scale than that cele- 
 brated encounter. After the close of the war in 1815, the aris- 
 tocracy attempted to maintain high prices by means of the corn 
 laws, and the evils produced by the war were thus perpetuated 
 during thirty years of peace. It was of this policy that Byron 
 wrote : — 
 
 " True, blood and treasure boundlessly were spilt, 
 " But what of that 1 the Gaul may bear the guilt ; 
 " But bread was high, the farmer paid his way, 
 " And acres told upon the appointed day. 
 " But wheie is now the goodly audit ale 1 
 ** The purse-proud tenant, never known to fail ] 
 * " The farm which never yet was left on hand 1 
 
 " The marsh reclaim'd to most improving land? 
 " The impatient hope of the expiring lease ? 
 *' The doubling rental 1 What an evil 's peace ! " 
 
 Since these lines were written, it has beeu abundantly demon- 
 strated that the fiscal policy pursued, both during the war and the 
 
 B 2 
 
4 -Mil. U. l)l-i3LEY JJAXTEll 
 
 thirty years of peace which immediately followed its termination, 
 was a huge mistake, and that the surest guarantee of an improving 
 rental is to be found in the principle of free trade, and not in the 
 friendly interference of the State. 
 
 Mr. Baxter lays great strdss upon the gradual increase of the 
 poor rates since 1837, but this is not a feature peculiar to local 
 taxation ; the imperial revenue has also experienced a very 
 marked development. The following are the figures in both 
 
 cases : — 
 
 The Poor Eate.* Imperial Eevenue. 
 
 £ £ 
 
 1837— 5,300,000 1837—50,400,000 
 
 • I8i0— 6,000,000 1840—51,000,000 
 
 1843— 7,000,000 1843—5(5,800,000 
 
 1856— 8,000,000 1656—70,300,000 
 
 1863— 9,000,000 1863—70,600,000 
 
 1868—10,400,000 1868—69,600,000 
 
 1872—11,500,000 1872—74,700,000 
 
 1874—11,500,000 1874—77,300,000 
 
 1875— 1875—74,900,000 
 
 The increase in poor rates is £6,200,000, while the increase o^ 
 imperial burdens is £24,500,000 ; is it not the case that there is 
 so loud an oatcry about the former burden, while few complaints 
 are heard about the latter, although far heavier and more oppres- 
 sive in its incidence, because the one is an open and honest pay- 
 ment, while the other is concealed in the price of commodities, 
 and the public are thus deceived and kept in ignorance of the 
 facts? Mr. Baxter says that the increase of the rates has given 
 rise to great discontent ; if imperial taxation were as honest as 
 the local rates, the dissatisfaction now expressed at the growth of 
 the smaller burden would be extended to the larger. Ic was in 
 respect to the absence of any serious remonstrance respecting the 
 increase of national taxation that Mr. Gladstone, in his budget 
 speech of 1860, described the people of this country as ** dis- 
 tinguished by an ignorant patience of taxation." 
 
 Mr. Baxter also calls attention to the fact (p. 18) that '^ while 
 the total rateable value had apparently increased more than forty 
 per cent., the total rates had more than doubled ; " and adds, 
 " Such an increase naturally caused great discontent among rate- 
 payers, and led to an agitation for local taxation reform." It is 
 
 * The poor rate is for England and Wales only, the figures for 
 Scotland and Ireland not being obtainable for the whole period. 
 Eeceipts in aid of rates are not included in these figures, nor payments 
 to Highway Boards for the latter years, as such payments are no 
 addition to local taxation, but merely a transfer from the Highway rate. 
 
AND MR. GOiCHE.N S REPORT. 5 
 
 well to understand what has been the real meaning of the agita- 
 tion referred to ; so far as the chambers of agriculture 
 arc concerned, and the principal outcry has come from them, 
 it has mainly been a revival of the old complaint with 
 respect to alleged peculiar burdens on land, which was the ground 
 upon which protection was formerly defended. The real 
 grievance, however, is to be found, not in the rural districts, but 
 in the towns, where heavy expenditure has, during recent years, 
 been rendered unavoidable to remedy previous neglect. The 
 whole of this expenditure has been met by occupiers ; owners of 
 property, although deriving the full benefit of the improvements 
 thus provided, have contributed nothing towards the increased 
 taxation which they have rendered necessary. 
 
 One of the gravest accusations preferred against Mr. Groschen's 
 report is the selection of the period embraced between the years 
 1803-1834 for comparison with the present time, in order to show 
 that the burden upon land is not greater now than it has been at 
 various periods of this century. Mr. Baxter calls this a caricature 
 of Mr. MilFs " questionable doctrine of hereditary burdens," and 
 makes Mr. Goschen say : *' You landowners and householders 
 have no right to complain of the rates in 1870, because your 
 fathers, in the great French war, and the days of indiscriminate 
 out- door relief, paid heavier rates in the pound than you do now." 
 The sentence is printed in inverted commas, and has all the 
 appearance of a quotation, but an examination of the report fails 
 to disclose its existence in that document. It is Mr. Baxter's 
 inference from Mr. Goschen's figures, not an extract from Mr. 
 Goschen's report. The only foundation it rests upon is one para- 
 graph which asserts, that " in those rural districts where the 
 poor rate is now high, it has, with few exceptions, always been 
 high, and constitutes an hereditary burden which has at all times 
 been heavy." In another part of the report the enormous 
 hereditary poor rates of the purely agricultural counties are 
 spoken of, but neither of these instances justifies the statement 
 that iu this report Mr. Goschen endorses Mr. MilPs doctrine of 
 hereditary burdens on land, ur that he holds that owners and 
 occupiers of the soil have not a right to any legitimate relief 
 irom the pressure of the poor rate, that it is possible for them to 
 obtain. 
 
 It is an interesting enquiry how far hereditary poor rates in 
 agricultural districts are an accompaniment of an hereditary low 
 rate of wages, and these, in their, turn, a consequence of an 
 hereditary want of security for capital invested in the soil, which 
 has prevented farmers frmn cultivating it to the full extent, 
 That the rural poor rato is in effect a rate in aid of low wngo.. 
 
6 Mil. R. l)LDLi:Y BAXTER 
 
 is an opinion held by tlie majority of competent authorities who 
 have examined the question. Mr. Palgrave, author of *'The 
 Tayler Prize Essay on Local Taxation," says, " "With regard to 
 " the amount of poor's rates raised in the agricultural districts, 
 " the effect of a system of organised poor relief like that of 
 " England and Wales on the wage-earning classes, must not be 
 " lost sight of. There is little doubt but that it does to a certain 
 " extent cheapen labour." * Mr. Purdy considers that " English 
 " poor rates largely supplement wages, and consumers thereby 
 " gain some temporary, but, in its consequences, more than 
 " doubtful benefit." f In a paper on the Incidence of Local 
 Taxation, Professor Thorold Rogers lays down the principle that, 
 " Economically considered, a poor rate is an insurance of the 
 " labourer's life and health. It does for him what those who 
 * ' are above the condition of pauperism do for themselves, main- 
 " tains him in childhood and old age, assists him in sickness, pro- 
 ** tects him when labouring under mental disease, and supplies him 
 " with the services of a highly skilled person in the shape of a 
 *' medical officer. Now it is plain that at the existing rate of 
 '' agricultural wages, the farm labourer and, to some extent, the 
 *' artisan, could hardly supply these services for himself. Cut 
 " away poor law relief and one of the two things must happen. 
 '^ Either the labourer must bo better paid, that is, the cost of his 
 '' labour must be enhanced, or a considerable number of those 
 " who are habitually maintained by the poor rate must perish. 
 ** A poor rate, then, is a rate in aid of wages, under which 
 " wages are supplemented, and, therefore, the prime cost of 
 '' labour is diminished. The poor rate, then, is not wholly 
 " loss. It cheapens labour, and so increases rent. Take it 
 '* away, and a considerable portion of that which the land- 
 ** owners might receive in the shape of an increased rent, due 
 " to a diminished outlay for the maintenance of the poor, would 
 " be reassumed by the farmer in consequence of the exalted cost 
 *' at which labour would be procurable. It is a notorious fact, 
 ^' that v/here wages are low, poor rates are high." J These are 
 considerations which are overlooked by Mr. Baxter, but they 
 must be taken into account in an examination of the question,, 
 why a high rate of pauperism is a constant and hereditary 
 condition of our agricultural districts. 
 
 " It is to be feared," says Mr. Pashley, Q.C., an able writer 
 on the poor laws, "that in the fatal growth of the raw produce 
 '* of pauperism, the industry of the English agriculturist is 
 
 * Statistical Sodeii/'s Journal, vol. xxxiv. p. 136. 
 
 t I^id. vol. xxxii. p. 319. 
 
 X Ihid, vol, xxxiii. pp. 250 and 251. 
 
A^D MR. GOS(;IIL:^ S IlErORT. 7 
 
 " unrivalled throughout the world.'' * And again, " It is 
 ** impossible not to see, or fear, that the unequal distribution of 
 ** landed property, the progressive extinction of the class of small 
 " proprietors, the creation of a vast proletarian population, and 
 " the neglect of the State to make public provision for the edu- 
 " cation of all members of the community, as well as the law of 
 " settlement of the poor, may have been connected witli the 
 " development of pauperism, and the other social evils which are 
 " so rife in the agricultural districts of England." t These 
 words were written above twenty years since, and they arc, in 
 the main, equally applicable now. The same causes have been 
 in operation for successive generations, and have produced a 
 constant and inevitable condition of pauperism, which is very 
 accurately described as " hereditary ; " its pressure would have 
 been much more severe but for the extensive migration that has 
 taken place to the commercial and manufacturing districts. 
 
 Mr. Baxter says, with reference to the comparison of existing 
 pauperism with that of the early part of the century : ^* By this 
 ** mistake about the period of comparison Mr. Goschen comes to 
 *' a mistaken conclusion, viz., that the present burdens en land 
 " are not heavier than its old legitimate burdens." The con- 
 clusion at which Mr. Groschen arrives, stated in his own words, 
 is, that " as regards the burdens on lands, they are not heavier 
 ** than they have been at various periods of this century." This 
 is a fact which cannot be denied, and, as the Economist very 
 justly observes, a burden covering a complete generation cannot 
 be passed over as exceptional, and the landowners ought to be 
 reminded of its former existence, when they complain of the 
 present pressure of taxation. 
 
 THE INCREASE OF RATES SINCE 184 L 
 
 The fact that there has been a considerable increase in rates 
 during this period is clearly shown in Mr. Goschen's report 
 (p. 8), the total amount so raised beinj:: given as £8,101,000 in 
 1841, and £16,800,000 in 1868, or^ considerably more than 
 double in the latter as compared with the former year. Again, 
 (p. 17), the increase of rateable value of 1868 over 1841 is given 
 as £38,128,000, or 61 per cent. ; the increase of rates (all rates) 
 as £8,474,000, being 105*5 per cent. ; and the rate in the pound 
 
 * Pashley c n Pauperism tiiid the Poor Laws. Longmans, 1852, p, 59. 
 
 t Ibid, p. 127. 
 
8 ME. li. DUDLEY liAXTPyR 
 
 for all rates 3s. 4cl. for 1868, as against 2s. 9d. for 1841. The 
 growth of local taxation since 1841 is admitted by both parties 
 to the controversy, and is shown as plainly in Mr. Goschen's 
 report as it is in Mr. Baxter's strictures upon that document. 
 
 Mr. Baxter deals at considerable length with the fact that 
 Mr. Goschen omitted to take account of the effect of the Union 
 Assessment Act of 1862 in increasing the standard of rateable 
 value, and gives calculations showing that '^ during the 35 years 
 "' of fair comparison betv;een 1836 and 1871, while the poor 
 '* rate has increased 85 per cent., rateable property has only 
 *' increased 41 1 per cent, or scarcely half as rapidly, and the 
 " rate in the pound of real value has increased 30 per cent." 
 This calculation, in so far as it has any bearing upon the question 
 of the incidence of local taxation is, however, considerably modi- 
 lied by the Income Tax returns, which show the gross amount of 
 profits assessed under Schedule A in 1842 — 3 to have been 
 £85,800,000, and in 1867-8, including railways, mines, &c., 
 assessed under Schedule A in the former, but under Schedule D 
 in the latter year, £144,600,000, an increase of £58,800,000, or 
 above 68 per cent. It appears, therefore, to be more than pro- 
 bable tbat Mr. Goschen's calculation of 61 per cent, for the in- 
 crease of rateable value is really more accurate than Mr. Baxter's 
 calculation of 41 J per cent. 
 
 The comparison, however, of rates and rateable value does not 
 settle the question of the recent increase of local taxation, unless 
 it is assumed that rates are a deduction from the income upon 
 which they are assessed, but such a doctrine is entirely opposed 
 to the facts of the case. Mr. Goschen expressly guards against 
 the possibility of his being supposed to entertain so erroneous an 
 opinion, and says (Report, p. 31) ; — '* Throughout this report, 
 " rates have been treated as falling on real property, but in 
 '' reviewing the comparison frequently drawn between the bur- 
 " dens upon owners of real property and those borne by other 
 " classes of the community, it would be wrong to consider that 
 " the whole amount of rates falls upon the former class. Indeed, 
 " the term ' Taxes on Eeal Property ' is in itself somewhat mis- 
 " leading. If the term generally used were " Taxes on the 
 " owners of Eeal Property,' it would at once become apparent 
 " that the total of rates is by no means paid by them." This 
 consideration, which Mr. Baxter fully admits in a subsequent 
 portion of his work, materially affects the value of his calculations 
 as to the comparative increase of rates and rateable value ; it 
 also affects his conclusion as to the growth of rates upon land 
 being a burden on land, in the sense in which the phrase is 
 intended to be unr^^^'rstood. 
 
 K 
 
AND MR. 
 
 9 
 
 Another question, upon which there is a complete difference 
 between Mr. Baxter and Mr. Goschen, is the respective pressure 
 of the poor rate on land and houses. Mr. Baxter attempts to 
 show, from several parliamentary returns, that the statement in 
 Mr. Groschen*s report that the burden of the poor rate upon lauds 
 has increased very slightly in amount, and not at all as regards 
 the rate in the pound, is inaccurate. His calculations, however, 
 are based upon a most extraordinary fallacy. Mr. Hibbert's 
 return f^N'o. 141, 1871), shows the poor rates in -1868-9, on 512 
 rural unions, to be 2s. 0:fd. in the pound, and those in 155, town 
 unions, 2s. 6d. in the pound. Upon this return Mr. Baxter makes 
 the following observations : — 
 
 " It has been elaborately argued by Mr. Goschen's friends that 
 *' this measures the difference of rates in the pound between land 
 ** and other property ; but their reasoning is evidently erroneous, 
 " since the 512 rural unions contain about £20,000,000 rateable 
 " value of houses and other property, which will reduce the town 
 " average of the rate in the pound on houses." 
 
 It is Mr. Baxter's reasoning that is defective, as he arrives at 
 his conclusion by the ingenious process of transferring the 
 £20,000,000 of houses and other property to the town unions, 
 but retaining the rates assessed upon that property for the rural 
 unions. That he should have fallen into such a delusion is most 
 extraordinary ; it is one from which he would have been pre- 
 served if he had consulted the return (No. 437, session 1870), 
 which gives the details of the division of the kingdom into rural 
 and town unions. In that document, which, in common with 
 other returns from the department, is signed by Mr. Purdy, the 
 well known statistician, the real facts of the case are stated in the 
 following words : — 
 
 " In dividing the country into rural unions and town unions, 
 ** the following rule has been observed ; wherever a union con- 
 " tains both a town and a rural population — there are many in 
 " this condition, like Bedford — it has always been placed with 
 " the * rural unions ' ; on the other hand, the * town unions ' are 
 "believed to be purely urban. The result of this course has 
 *' been that the average rate of the ' rural unions ' as given in 
 " the summary below, is higher than it would have been if the 
 " mixed union had been dealt with separately.'' 
 
 The summary referred to in the concluding part of this extract 
 is one giving the totals of the rates levied in each description of 
 Poor Law TJnion. It shows that in 1868 the amount raised by 
 local rates in the 512 rural unions was £7,705,260, or 2s. O^d. 
 in the £, while the amount in the 155 ^own unions was 
 £9,023,588, or 4s. in the £. " From this it is seen," says an 
 
 i V t' 1 
 
 .^^ 
 
10 MK. K. DUDLEY BAXTEk 
 
 i 
 
 introductory memorandum, in explanation of the detailed returns, 
 • that the rate in the town unions exceeds that in the rural 
 unions by Is. 2Jd. in the £, or 44 per cent." If the town rates 
 included in '' rural unions '* were dealt with separately, it would 
 considerably increase the town average and reduce that of the 
 country. 
 
 Mr, Baxter endeavours to confirm his conclusion by an 
 analysis of two other returns (Nos. 417, 1871, and 421, 1869) 
 which give the rateable value of land, houses, and other property, 
 and the poor rate in tbe pound, for every union. From this 
 analysis he estimates that land is assessed to the poor rate at 
 2s. Id., and houses and other property at 2s. 3d., in the £, and 
 adds : " The table shows the strongest probability that lands 
 bear within 2d. in the £ the same poor rate as houses and other 
 property." 
 
 The same fundamental error, however, underlies this calcula- 
 tion, that vitiates his assumption with respect to Mr. Hibbert's 
 return of the rural and town unions. The return of poor relief 
 (No. 421, 1869) does not give the amount levied, or the rate in 
 the £, for each parish, but merely for each union ; it is therefore 
 useless for the purpose of comparing the incidence of rates upon 
 lands and houses, as the rate in the £ upon rural parishes and 
 town parishes in the same union will differ materially, and, 
 judging from the facts that are known, will be heavier in the 
 latter than in the former. There is only one mode of obtaining 
 accurate information upon this point ; that is, to go behind the 
 unions and take the parishes, adopting the same classification and 
 ascertaining the facts in the case of every parish. When this is 
 done it will be ascertained whether Mr. Goschen, ^Ir. Purdy, and 
 others who have investigated the question, are in error ; but 
 until this has been proved upon more certain evidence than that 
 adduced by Mr. Baxter, it is impossible to accept his conclusions. 
 
 There is, moreover, another element in the consideration of the 
 question. Houses and buildings are invariably let upon com- 
 mercial principles, and the full value is paid in rent, whereas it 
 is no infrequent occurrence for land to be let below its value, the 
 owner preferring the compensation of the political power which 
 results from his having the character of a **good landlord.'' 
 The respective assessments of land and houses are therefore no 
 accurate test of their respective value. 
 
 THE TRANSFER OF BURDENS FROM LAND. 
 
 That the burden of local taxation upon land has been lightened 
 
ANl) -'^IK. GOSCHEN*S REPORT, 11 
 
 by the transfer of rates to other kinds of property is the general 
 opinion of those who have paid attention to the question of local 
 taxation. Mr. Baxter disputes the fact in ioto, and asserts that 
 the theory is a delusion, that there has been no such transfer, 
 and that those who believe in it, especially naming Mr. Goschen, 
 the Mconomisty and the Fall Mall Gazette, are the victims of a 
 statistical fallacy. 
 
 According to the figures which Mr. Baxter accepts as accurate, 
 the proportion which land bears to the total assessment has 
 diminished from 69 per cent, in 1826 to nearly 38 per cent; in 
 1869. After quoting extracts from articles iu the Economist and 
 the Pall Mall Gazette, in which they refer to this fact as having 
 relieved land from a part of its former burden, Mr. Baxter 
 says : — 
 
 " It seems to be growing into a settled article of the Liberal 
 " creed (one of the sticks with which they delight to beat the 
 " landowner) that there has been a considerable bodily transfer 
 " of rates from land to other and more popular property, to the 
 " unfair easement of land and the disadvantage of other sorts of 
 " property." 
 
 So far as the Liberal creed has been hitherto embodied in 
 legislation, it does not appear to have done much harm to the 
 landowner, but the reverse. No class of the community has 
 benefitted to the same extent by the financial policy of the last 
 thirty years. To represent the Liberal party as delighting to 
 beat the landowner may be a very good simile for a hastily- 
 written article in a Conservative newspaper, but it is unworthy 
 of a place in a work which professes to deal gravely and 
 seriously with this important question, and to treat it upon 
 a scientific basis. It can hardly be imagined that Liberal laud- 
 owners have any delight in beating themselves, although they 
 may take a different view of this question from that held by Mr. 
 Dudley Baxter and his allies. In resisting efforts that are made 
 to afford them an apparent relief from local taxation, they may 
 be acting on truly enlightened views as to their own interest. 
 Against the relief from local burdens which rural districts have 
 obtained from the development of great cities and towns, 
 the Liberal party raises no objection. The only use they 
 make of the argument is to disprove the idea that the 
 owners of land in rural districts have any good ground of 
 complaint against the inhabitants of the towns, for this s 
 the meaning of the alleged grievance so persistently urged 
 ipon Parliament by the representatives of the landowners. 
 What the Liberal party does complain of is another matter 
 (. litirely, — that the owucrs of the freehold in cities and t nvu 
 
12 . >iR. K. DUDLFA- liAXTEIl 
 
 contribute nothing towards local taxation out of the augmented 
 incomes, which are created for them by the industry of the com- 
 munity. They draw large revenues, as the consideration for the 
 privilege of building upon their property, but leave the whole 
 burden of local taxation to be borne by those, by means of whose 
 capital and enterprise a large portion of its value has been created, 
 and who have, moreover, only a temporary interest iu the pro- 
 perty in respect of which they are assessed. The stick in this 
 case has been in the hands of the landholder, and has been used 
 pretty briskly about the shoulders of the ratepayer. 
 
 Mr. Baxter describes the proposition that burdens have been 
 transferred from land to other property as absurd, and gives the 
 followihg reasons for this opinion : — 
 
 " Lands are rated for the most part in rural unions, quite 
 *' separately from the rapidly growing aggregations of other pro- 
 '* perty in the towns ; and from 1814 and 1826 down to the 
 '^ present time, have borne their own rates and provided for their 
 *• own paupers quite separate from the rates and paupers of the 
 " towns. No transfer of rates or burdens has been possible 
 " between them. There has been a small relief of many parishes 
 '* by railways running through them. But otherwise the rurals 
 " and the town aggregations have been shut up in separate cages, 
 '* the bars of which have rendered transfer physically impossible, 
 " except only that in the neighbourhood of large towns a certain 
 *•' proportion of agricultural land is shut up in the same cage as 
 " the denser population, and has the increased burden of paying 
 " for part of their paupers in addition to its own." 
 
 There is, no doubt, some policy in boldly meeting any state- 
 ment, which you are endeavouring to refute, with a strong adjec- 
 tive at the outset of your argument. When a proposition is 
 characterised, without hesitation or appearance of doubt, as 
 *' absurd," a reader is apt to conclude that there must be unques- 
 tionable ground for the use of the epithet, and is favourably 
 impressed to receive the reasons which may adduced in support of 
 so emphatic a pronuticiamcnto. The picture of rurals and town 
 aggregations shut up in separate cages and so carefully guarded 
 that " no transfer of rates or burdens has been possible between 
 '* them " appears conclusive, but unfortunately the keepers of the 
 cages have not always kept the doors locked, and there has, for 
 some time, been a pretty free communication between the two 
 aggregates, and a considerable transfer from one to the other. 
 
 It is not the case moreover that the land, or rather the poor 
 rate assessed on land, has provided for all the paupers of the rural 
 parishes, quite separate from the rates and paupers of the towns. 
 The towns contain a considerable number of agricultural labourers. 
 
AND MK. GOSCHEN^.S KKPOJIT. 13 
 
 driven to reside in tliem because sufficient cottage accommoda- 
 tion is not provided in the parishes in which they work'. When 
 they are out of work they obtain relief from the parish in which 
 they reside, and the cost is thrown upon the inhabitants of the 
 towns. In such towns it has been the custom during severe 
 winters to raise public subscriptions for the relief of distress, and 
 the enquiries of district visitors for the distribution of such funds 
 have disclosed the fact that, in numerous instances the bulk of 
 the poor requiring assistance were agricultural labourers, who 
 were employed in the neighbouring parishes. 
 
 There has also been a considerable relief to the rural districts 
 by the growth of large cities and towns. Mr. James Lewis, in 
 his Digest of the English Census for 1871, (p. li), says: — 
 
 " The urban districts have, in the last ten years, grown more 
 "than twice as fast as the country districts ; in the previous 
 " decade the growth of the towns was more than four times as 
 " last as that of the rural population — a result probably accounted 
 " for by some of the rural districts having gradually assumed the 
 " character of towns. In point of fact, a correct estimate of the 
 *' extent to Avhich the large towns have drawn upon the popuia- 
 " tion of the rural districts, cannot be arrived at without taking 
 *' into account the growth of suburban neighbourhoods consequent 
 " upon the increasing value of property in town centres for purely 
 " business purposes, the gradual displacement of the people from 
 " the denser parts as a result of improved sanitation, and the 
 ** development of railways, which every year adds to the number 
 " of those who resort to suburban or to country homes after 
 " their day's business in towns is over." 
 
 Mr. Baxter denies that the recent growth of towns has relieved 
 the land from taxation, and argues that the 1,500 millions 
 sterling spent since 1814 on new houses, railways, maiiufactories, 
 mines, and similar property, *' gives house room and employment 
 ** to a vast additional population, with its due proportion of 
 " paupers and poor rates. It adds to the total poor rate expendi- 
 " ture, but it also adds a proportionate amount of poor*rates, 
 *' quite independent of, and with no sort of transfer from, the 
 ** rural districts and the land." Where, however, does this vast 
 additional population spring from ? It does not come from the 
 moon, or spring up ready grown from the soil of the districts 
 converted into towns ; it is gathered from all parts of the king- 
 dom, and to a very large extent from the rural districts, which 
 are thus relieved of a considerable population, which would other- 
 wise increase the burden of their poor rate. If the separate 
 cages, of which Mr. Baxter speaks, existed anywhere, except in 
 his own imagination, the owners and occupiers of laud in rural 
 
14 MR. R. DUDLEY BAXTER 
 
 districts would have found the burden of their poor rate much 
 heavier than it is under existing circumstances. The relief of 
 the rural parishes by migration to the large towns, is a fact so 
 patent that it is astonishing it can be ignored by any writer on 
 the question of local taxation. 
 
 Owners of agricultural land shut up within town cages are not 
 deserving of much pity, being amply compensated for any increase 
 in their poor rate by the increased value conferred upon their 
 property by its proximity to a centre of commercial activity. 
 Accommodation land in towns invariably yields a high rental. 
 If, however, there is so heavy a burden imposed on these lands 
 because they are located in towns, what becomes of Mr. Baxter's 
 argument, that the burden upon land and houses is so nearly 
 equal that the difference is unworthy of notice? 
 
 Looking at all the facts of the case, it is impossible to resist 
 the conviction that the great migration of labour from the agri- 
 cultural to the manufacturing districts which has now for many 
 years past been in constant progress, has had a material efiPect in 
 reducing the burden of the poor rate upon land, and that Mr. 
 Goschen and the " eminent writers " who excite such astonish- 
 ment in the mind of Mr. Baxter, are perfectly correct in arriving 
 at this conclusion. 
 
 The final report of the Census Commissioners affords valuable 
 corroborative evidence as to the relief afforded to rural districts 
 by the growth of towns. Speaking of the case of the metropolis, 
 it says : — 
 
 " London, the capital of the empire, is a great centre of popu- 
 " lation, and affords an example of the special study of which 
 *' each division may be the subject. In 1871 it contained 
 " 2,055,576 persons born within its limits, and 1,198,684 persons 
 " born outside its borders. Whence came these multitudes of 
 " both sexes, equal in themselves, without counting those born 
 " there, to a number greater than the inhabitants of any other 
 " European city ? More than 607,000 of them came from the 
 " chiefly agricultural, south-eastern, south- midland, and eastern 
 " counties surrounding the metropolis. A large contingent of 
 " 147,532 was drawn from Devon, Wilts, Somerset, and the 
 " other south-western counties. The west-midland counties sent 
 *' up 84,389 ; but all the counties north of this region are drawn 
 " within the sphere of another attraction, Lancashire and Cheshire, 
 " round Manchester and Liverpool, the second great centre of 
 " population." 
 Eespecting the last named districts the report adds : — 
 
 " As another illustration of the tables of birth-places, Lanca- 
 " shire and Cheshire may be taken. 741,225 of their population 
 
A^D MR. goscfien's report. 15 
 
 " were born outside their boundaries, 224,003 coming from 
 *' Ireland, 52,585 from Scotland, 104,831 from Yorkshire, and 
 " the rest chiefly from the west, the north-midland, the northern 
 " counties, and Wales." 
 
 Here, then, is an ample refutation of Mr. Baxter's impressions 
 with respect to the relief of rural districts by the growth of town 
 populations. The "separate cages, the bars of which have 
 ** rendered transfer physically impossible," are proved to be non- 
 existent, and the entire argument upon which he relies for the 
 discomfiture of Mr. Goschen and his supporters is shown to be 
 nothing more nor less than a pleasing delusion. 
 
 ALLEGED ERROES ABOUT TOTAL TAXATIOl^ AND 
 
 THE COMPARATIVE TAXATION OF REAL 
 
 AND PERSONAL PROPERTY. 
 
 Mr. Baxter alleges that Mr. Goschen has fallen into important 
 errors in marshalling the figures and drawing conclusions about 
 the total Imperial and Local Taxation of England and Wales. 
 The following are the words in which he frames his indictment : — 
 
 ** In one set of tables he includes railways, canals, and similar 
 '' property under the head of Real Property, and computes its 
 *' Local Taxes. In another set of tables he excludes railways, 
 " canals, and similar property, from the head of Real Property, and 
 " computes it Imperial Taxes. Then he joins both tables together, 
 " and obtains a total of Imperial and Local Taxes, which is not 
 " the total for either definition of Real Property. Such faulty 
 statistics are useless for any accurate comparisons." 
 
 There is nothing in this criticism, nor in any other portion of 
 Mr. Baxter's work, to indicate that Mr. Goschen has himself 
 admitted the defective nature of these returns. In regard to this 
 very point the report contains the following important para- 
 graph : — 
 
 " It should not be forgotten in this comparison that the amount 
 ** of taxation borne by real property is overstated. The profits 
 " on railways, canals, &c., are rated, and supply a very consider •< 
 *• able sum, which ought not to have been included in the amount 
 '^ derived from taxes on real property ; and further it has been 
 '^ conclusively proved that a great proportion of the rates, 
 " especially in towns, does not fall upon the owner, but is paid by 
 '* the occupier, i.e., the consumer of the houses." 
 
 It appears, therefore, that both parties are agreed that the 
 returns in question are imperfect. They differ upon the point 
 
16 . MU. K. DUDLEY BAXTER 
 
 whether laud and houses are, or are not, unduly taxed. It will 
 be seen, however, upon an examination of Mr. Dudley Baxter's 
 own calculations, that he has fallen into errors of even greater 
 magnitude than Mr. Goschen in his endeavour to substantiate the 
 proposition that land in this country is heavily burdened in com- 
 parison with other kinds of property and personal income. 
 
 The " second fallacy " upon which Mr. Baxter comments, is 
 that Mr. Goschen has calculated the value of real property upon 
 the gross income-tax assessment, whereas the net assessment, in 
 which some abatements and excusals have been made, represents 
 in its total, rather than in its details, more nearly the true value 
 of the total real property. Tlie abatements and excusals consist 
 of deductions on account of land tax ; embankment, drainage ; 
 ecclesiastical, collegiate, and charitable properties ; and on account 
 of incomes from which abatements are made on the ground that 
 they are below £300 a year. These deductions do not in them- 
 selves materially affect the question, but there is every probability 
 that the net assessment very nearly corresponds with tlie net 
 income from such investment?. There is, however, a very 
 important omission from the assessment of real property under 
 Schedule A, which increases its total annual value, and must 
 materially modify the conclusion at which Mr. Baxter arrives. 
 Eents and royalties paid for the privilege of working coal and 
 other minerals are assessed under Schedule D, along with the 
 profits of the lessees, and must be taken into account in esti- 
 mating the profits of landowners. Again, personalty is assessed 
 for probate and legacy duties upon its saleable value, while land 
 and houses are assessed according to their rental, and only upon 
 the life interest of the person who inherits. It is well known 
 that, in the case of land, a considerable increase in selling value 
 is constantly taking place in a progressive state of society. Cases 
 have occurred where owners of laud have allowed it to lie waste, 
 and their heirs have more than once, in the case of some proper- 
 ties, escaped assessment to the succession duty on the ground that 
 no income was received from it, although it had been year by 
 year steadily increasing in value, and during all the time the 
 owner had enjoyed the protection of the State. In estimating 
 the comparative burden of taxation upon real property and per- 
 sonalty, these facts cannot be ignored. The mansions of wealthy 
 landowners are also very inadequately assessed both to the local 
 rates and for the house duty. Probate and legacy duties are also 
 paid upon property which yields no return, such as furniture, 
 paintings, books, &c., for which allowance should be made in 
 calculating the comparative pressure of taxation upon incomes 
 from land and houses and incomes from personal property. 
 
AND MR. GOSC'IIEN^S REPOllT. 17 
 
 When all these circumstances are taken into account, it will be 
 seen that Mr. Baxter's calculations are by no means complete 
 and accurate. In several important particulars they are entirely 
 broken down, and his positive conclusions are not nearly so 
 valuable as guides for legislation as the cautious statements of 
 Mr. Goschen's report. In the latter readers are put upon their 
 guard against drawing erroneous conclusions, while in the former 
 patent fallacies are treated as established facts. 
 
 Mr. Baxter next calls attention to *' a serious error of omission," 
 which will be best described in his own words : — 
 
 " Having told us what is the total taxation on real property, 
 ** he ought to have gone on and told us what is the taxation on 
 *' personal property and incomes for comparisons with that on 
 " real property. But here he follows the well-known example 
 " of witnesses who give unwilling testimony. They commonly 
 ** use in different forms one formula, that of non mi recordo. 
 *' Mr. Goschen's form is * I cannot calculate.' When we come to 
 " an account likely to work out to the advantage of the rate- 
 " payers, we find that he says, ^ T cannot calculate it,' and gets 
 *' out of the difficulty by leaving it out altogether." 
 
 The task which Mr. Goschen considers to be " almost impos- 
 sible " (Report, p. 30), appears to present few difficulties to Mr. 
 Baxter ; for he says " it is not at all impracticable to make the 
 calculation," and gives the following as the result of his own 
 effi)rts in that direction : — 
 
 ^' The relative proportions of imperial taxation ultimately 
 •'* borne by the different kinds of property and income appear, 
 " therefore, to be approximately as follows : — 
 
 '* Imperial Taxatiox 
 *' (Ultimately borne by) 
 
 *' Lands and houses 5 per cent. 
 
 " Eailways 8 „ 
 
 " Canals and other rateable property 5 
 
 ''Personalty 5 
 
 ' ' Industrial Incomes paying Income Tax 3 
 
 *' Besides the Taxes on Expenditure common to all 
 
 Incomes £31,288,000. 
 
 With all due respect for so confident an authority, it does not 
 appear that his final conclusion respecting the incidence of taxa- 
 tion, imperial and local, differs materially from that which he so 
 emphatically condemns. It is merely a question of degree. 
 Mr. Goschen submits that it is impossible to apportion 
 £40,976,000 of imperial taxation between different classes of 
 income; Mr. Baxter indeed deals positively with £9,688,000, 
 but says of the remaining f -31,388,000, '" these are a most 
 
 >> 
 
 >} 
 
 (' 
 
18 MR. K. BTTDLEY BAXTER 
 
 " entirely taxes on expenditure common to every class of income, 
 " whether from realty, personalty, or industry." Can it be pos- 
 sible to arrive at a more vague and unsatisfactory conclusion ? 
 " Common to every class of income," this is the phrase which 
 the public is to accept as a solution of an intricate question. In 
 considering the total imperial and local taxation of England and 
 Wales, he employs the same method. He accounts for only 
 £24,000,000 out of a total of £67,000,000, and practically con- 
 fesses his inability to carry his calculations any further. This 
 is his answer to the question of the relative taxation of real pro- 
 perty, personalty, and industrial incomes. 
 
 '* Common to every class of income !" as if that fact were any 
 proof that each class contributed its due proportion. He might 
 as well argue that the total property, real and personal, of Eng- 
 land and Wales was common to all the population, and that 
 therefore it was equally divided among them. Whether it is 
 possible or not to apportion the share of this burden borne by 
 each class of income, he makes no attempt to do so, and practi- 
 cally arrives at the same conclusion as Mr. Goschen, that the 
 problem is insoluble. 
 
 With respect to the £24,000,000 which Mr. Baxter does 
 appropriate to different kinds of income, he does not, moreover, 
 arrive at any positive result. It is true that he said, in his 
 Norwich speech, " it is not at all impracticable to make the cal- 
 ** culation, and when made, the result comes out, that while real 
 ** property pays local and imperial taxes amounting to 12 per 
 " cent, on its income, personal property pays only imperial taxes 
 *' amounting to 5 per cent, on its income, and personal or indus- 
 " trial incomes (paying income tax) pay only 3 per cent., in 
 " addition to the general taxes on expenditure, which are com- 
 " mon to every kind of income." From his subsequent letter of 
 the 17th January, 1874, it appears that he has seen reason to 
 speak with much less confidence, for he says, " the investigation 
 " is no doubt difficult from the complication of many of the facts 
 " and the uncertainty of some of the figures. But approximate 
 " conclusions can be obtained, which may be valuable guides for 
 " legislation." It appears, therefore, that the ultimate result at 
 " which he arrives is only " approximate." In many respects 
 his calculations require serious modifications, and tbey cannot be 
 accepted as " valuable guides for legislation," if that legislation 
 is intended to be fair and equitable. 
 
 The word " ratepayers " is used, in some parts of his work, as 
 if the class so described constituted a small exclusive body, upon 
 whom the whole burden of local taxation is unfairly placed. For 
 example he says (p. 22), in reference to Mr. Goschen's acknow- 
 
AND MR. GOSCHEN's REPORT. 19 
 
 ledgment that he cannot calculate the taxation of personalty, 
 " when we come to an account likely to work out to the advan- 
 ** ta^e of the ratepayers, we find that he says, * I cannot calcu- 
 " late it/ and gets out of the difficulty by leaving it out alto- 
 gether." Who are the ratepayers for whose benefit the calcula- 
 tion is to be made, and who are to be relieved by some transfer 
 of local burdens ? Let Mr. Baxter himself supply the answer. 
 In a subsequent portion of his work, he says (p. '62), *' rates reach 
 " everybody, and every one is interested in their diminution." 
 Does he mean to relieve " everybody " at the expense of every- 
 body else ? He complains very loudly of the inequality of local 
 taxation, but ignores the still greater inequality of imperial 
 taxation ; and in respect to the former, his complaints are urged 
 on behalf of a class which is not suffering under any real griev- 
 ance. The proposal to transfer rates to the consolidated fund 
 would not relieve the ratepayers, it would merely deceive them. 
 
 In his calculations of the incidence of imperial taxation Mr. 
 Baxter adopts the figures that are given by Mr. Goschen in his 
 report (p. 30) as to the amount levied upon land and houses, but 
 without Mr. Goschen's important qualification that the expres- 
 sion '* taxes on real property" is not a convertible term with 
 " taxes on income from real property." An examination ot 
 the figures, based upon the latter consideration, shows that Mr. 
 Baxter's estimate of the amount of Imperial Taxation borne by 
 real property is both inaccurate and excessive. The following 
 are the figures from Mr. Goschen's report, which Mr. Baxter 
 substantially adopts : — 
 
 Imperial Taxation on Lands and Houses. 
 
 Land Tax £1,082,000 
 
 House Tax 1,062,000 
 
 Income Tax, 4d 1,785,000 
 
 Succession Duty ,. 571,000 
 
 Stamps on Deeds, fths 1,033,500 
 
 Probate Duty, 1-1 0th 143,500 
 
 Total on Land and Houses £5,677,000 
 
 The argument that this sum conststutes a burden of nearly 5-3 
 per cent, upon the annual value of land and houses, which 
 pervades the whole of this portion of Mr. Baxter's observations, 
 is a serious fallacy, in the only sense in which the words can be 
 understood, viz., that it is a charge upon the income derived from 
 such property. The land tax is, without question, such an 
 impost, nnd is the very inadequate representative of the old feudal 
 obligations which attached to the tenure of landed property. 
 The less the landowners say about this tax the better ; it is neither 
 
 c 2 
 
20 MR. n. DUDLEY JiAXTEll 
 
 more nor less than a rent cliarge reserved by the State, and would, 
 if assessed according to the plain meaning of the Act of Parlia- 
 ment by which it was imposed, bring in a much larger revenue. 
 The house tax is, however, iu no sense a tax upon real property ; 
 it is paid by the occupier, falls upon the occupier, and is not 
 recovered from the landlord in any shape. It is as much a tax 
 on expenditure, common to every class of income, as any duty of 
 customs or excise. Mr. Baxter admits as much with respect to 
 a considerable portion of this tax, which he says must bo 
 deducted from the taxes on land and houses, as being borne by 
 the tenants; but throughout his calculations he ignores this 
 admission, and includes the whole of this tax among the burdens 
 on land and houses. It amounts, however, to nearly one-fifth 
 of the total taxation assessed upon this class of property, and the 
 removal of * ' a considerable portion " of it, will materially affect 
 the per centage of taxation upon, real property. It is, moreover, 
 a tax about the incidence of which there is no question ; the 
 whole burden of it falls upon the consumei's of houses.* 
 
 If it could be admitted that any portion of it falls upon owners, 
 that portion must be added to the net rental before calculating 
 the percentage of taxation, as it is not deducted from rent actually 
 paid, but would merely be rent intercepted on its way to tlie 
 owner of the property. This is an important distinction which 
 Mr. Baxter completely ignores. With respect to stamps on deeds 
 a considerable portion falls upon the occupier ; in the case of 
 leases this is the usual course, and must therefore be included 
 among taxes common to all classes of income. In two important 
 items, therefore, Mr. Baxter's positive conclusions have broken 
 down, and his percentage of taxation on real property must be 
 considerably modified. It will no doubt be replied that his 
 figures are adopted from Mr. Goschen's report, but they are 
 adopted without any of the qualifications upon which Mr. 
 Goschen insists, and he bases his calculations upon a transparent 
 fallacy against which he was expressly guarded in that report. 
 
 Mr. Baxter estimates the total taxation of income from person- 
 alty at 5 per cent., basing his calculations upon a transfer of 
 such property every thirty years, that being the period estimated 
 by the Inland Bevenue department. The average rate of interest 
 upon, personalty is taken at 4J per cent., but when it is considered 
 that railway debentures, which are one of the best forms of 
 security, average only that rate, it is exceedingly probable that 
 it is not a fair average. He moreover makes no allowance for 
 
 * See Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations y M'Cullocii on Taxation, J, 
 Mill's Political Economy^ and other standard works on the subject. 
 
AND MR, GOSCHEX's IlEPOUT. . 21 
 
 property subject to probate and legacy duties, fron which no in- 
 come is derived. When all these qualifications are taken into 
 account, it will appear that the taxation of personalty is con- 
 siderably more than 5 per cent, upon the income derived from 
 it, while it has been already shown that the rate upon income 
 from land and houses is considerably less than his estimate of 
 5 per cent. 
 
 Railways, being subject to special taxation, ho treats separately, 
 and according to bis statement, they pay, in addition to the other 
 taxes levied upon personalty, " the railway duty of £500,000, on 
 £16,000,000 " of net revenue or 3 per cent, being a total of 8 per 
 cent.'' Unfortunately for his argument, it is not the case that rail- 
 ways pay the whole of the passenger duty, nor do they pay the part 
 which falls upon them out of their net revenue. The companies, 
 no doubt, endeavour to make it appear that this is invariably the 
 case ; some of the larger companies, however, have obtained 
 special powers to charge the duty to the passengers, and the same 
 course is frequently pursued by other companies, who have not 
 yet obtained such powers ; season-tickets frequently show, on the 
 face of them, the amount charged by the company for the ticket, 
 and the passenger duty as separate items. Mr. Lowe's proposal 
 of 1870 to commute the 5 per cent, upon first and second class 
 passengers into a tax of 1 per cent, upon gross receipts was 
 violently opposed by some of the large companies who, on the 
 face of the returns, would have gained considerably by the change, 
 on the ground that it Avas possible to recover a tax of five per 
 cent, upon first and second class traffic from the passengers, while 
 it would be quite impossible to recover 1 per cent, on gross 
 receipts from the public * The duty, moreover, is paid out of 
 gross revenue, and, in so far as it falls upon the shareholders, is 
 a deduction which they would otherwise have received, not a 
 charge upon their net income. It is therefore a fallacy, for two 
 reasons, to speak of the passenger duty as a tax of 3 per cent, 
 upon the net revenue of the lailway companies. 
 
 It appears, upon a review of Mr. Baxter's calculations of 
 imperial taxation, that he has fallen into errors quite as gross as 
 any that he has attributed to Mr. Goschen. He includes among 
 the burdens " ultimately borne by lands and houses" a cousi- 
 derable sum, which is paid entirely by occupiers, and is ** common 
 
 * This was the case with the London and North Western Railway, 
 which paid, in the year l{iG9, £84,^54, and would apparently have 
 saved £18,306 by the change as under Mr. Lowe's proposal they 
 would have paid 6n\y £66,048 (Return Railway Duty, No. 169, 1870j. 
 The directors, however, knew better, and were strong opponents of 
 the change. 
 
22 MR. U. DtDLEV BAXTEH 
 
 to all incomes/' The same objection applies to his estimate of 
 taxation on railways ; he calculates the pressure of taxation on 
 lands, houses, and railways upon an entirely erroneous basis, 
 taking net income for the percentage of taxation paid out of gross 
 receipts ; he takes no account of the income accruing to land- 
 owners from rents and royalties not assessed under Schedule A ; 
 his calculation of the taxation on personalty makes no allowance 
 for dead capital, such as furniture, &c., and there are grounds 
 for believing that he takes a high average rate of interest ; and 
 lastly, he makes no attempt whatever to apportion £31,288,000 
 of taxation out of a total of £46,976,000, his version of ** non 
 mi recordo '^ being that it is " common to all incomes," an expla- 
 nation which leaves the matter exactly where it was. His 
 promises, when criticising Mr. Goscheo, were mighty, but he 
 fails completely to establish his case. 
 
 The fallacy of Mr. Baxter's estimates becomes much more 
 apparent when they are examined in connection with local 
 taxation. He appears to concur in the opinion that " for land 
 " the greater portion of the rates falls on the owners, and for 
 *' houses on the occupiers,'' and proceeds to argue, " we cannot, 
 " therefore, be far wrong in taking half the total rates on lands 
 *' and houses, or £7,500,000, as falling upon their owners, and 
 " the other half upon the occupiers." This is, in fact, one of the 
 very cases in which it is easy to go wrong, especially if we argue 
 positively on imperfect data; it is necessary to ascertain the 
 respective taxation of lands and houses before an accurate con- 
 clusion can be arrived at. A return already referred to (No. 
 437, 1870) gives the total taxation in the 512 rural unions for 
 the year 1868 as £7,705,260, while the total taxation of the 155 
 town unions for the same year, was £9,023,588. The foimer, 
 however, are partly urban and partly rural, while the latter are 
 purely urban. It is obvious, therefore, that a considerable 
 deduction must be made from the rural unions in order to 
 ascertain the amount of local taxation on land. Mr. Baxter 
 admits that these unions contain about £20,000,000 rateable 
 value of houses and otker property, and the towns which are 
 located in them, in many instances municipal boroughs, have to 
 provide for all the extra town expenditure, from which the rural 
 parishes are free. It is evident that more complete returns are 
 necessary in order to arrive at a definite conclusion as to the 
 respective taxation of the owners and occupiers of lauds and 
 houses. 
 
 There is the widest possible distinction between the incidence 
 of taxation assessed upon the rent of land, and the incidence of 
 taxation assessed upon the rent of houses; subject to a consideration 
 
ANi) MR. GOSCHEN*S REPORt. 23 
 
 subsequently referred to, taxation on the rent of land, falls mainly 
 upon the owner, in the shape of a diminution of the income that 
 he would otherwise receive ; any increase that occurs during a 
 tenancy falls upon the tenant, but the incidence is again adjusted 
 upon the termination of the tenancy. In the case of houses, the 
 incidence of local rates is entirely different ; they fall upon the 
 occupier when used purely as dwellings, but when employed as 
 business premises, they form pait of the trade expenses, are 
 included in the profit and loss account, and are recovered from 
 the general public. Owners of land have no just ground of com- 
 plaint, as they have inherited and purchased their property 
 subject to these burdens ; it is the occupiers in towns, where the 
 owners of the soil escape any contribution out of their large 
 profits, that have the real grievance in respect to local taxation. 
 
 For these reasons, Mr. Baxter's estimate, that one half the 
 local rates are ultimately borne by lands and houses, cannot be 
 accepted as even approximately accurate. But, granting for the 
 sake of argument that it is, he falls info an error in estimating 
 the percentage of local taxation upon that class of property. He 
 estimates the local taxation ultimately borne by lands and houses 
 at £7,500,000 on £107,000,000 annual value, or 7 per cent. 
 If he had adopted more accurate phraseology, and said *' ulti- 
 mately paid out of income from land and houses", he could not 
 have committed such a blunder. No portion of the local rates 
 is paid out of the income received by the owner; the £7,500,000 
 never formed any portion of the £107,000,000 net annual value 
 of that description of property. If rates upon farming land are 
 a burden upon the rental of the owners, they are one in the 
 sense admitted by Mr. Baxter in his work on the " Taxation of 
 the United Kingdom " (p. 60), where he says that they 
 ** diminish the rent that would otherwise be paid." It is quite 
 certain that the £7,500,000 has not been paid out of the rent 
 received by owners of property ; the calculation that it is a 
 burden of 7 per cent, upon the total income of £107,000,000 is, 
 therefore, an illusion. The purchaser of such property buys it 
 upon a valuation of its net rental, exclusive of local burdens ; 
 any relief, therefore, which he might obtain at the expense of the 
 general public would simply be an addition to his property for 
 which he had given no consideration. 
 
 With respect to the local taxation upon railways, canals, &c., 
 Mr. Baxter ^falls into similar errors. The rates upon railways 
 are paid out of gross income, and can be nothing more than a 
 diminution of the amount of income that would otherwise be 
 received. It is therefore a grave error to calculate the percentage 
 on net income, us though they were paid out of that fund. The 
 
 ^^ 
 
 Lrnr^ 
 
24 ^IK. ]J. DUDLKY J',.\XTEll 
 
 local rates on mines, ironworks, and similar undertakings, form 
 part of the trade expenses, and are recovered from those who 
 purchase the productions of such undertakings. 
 
 The hurden of Mr. Baxter's complaint appears to he the heavy 
 taxation of lands, houses, and railways. The 'outcome of his 
 calculations and manipulations is given in the following tahle : — 
 
 •'Total iMPEniiVi and Local Taxation. 
 " (Ultimately paid by incomes from) 
 
 Lands and houses 12 per cent. 
 
 Eailways 12 „ 
 
 Canals and other rateable property „ 
 
 Personalty 5 „ 
 
 Industry (paying income tax) ._ 3 „ 
 
 Besides imperial and local taxation common 
 
 to all the classes of incomes i^43,000,000. 
 
 So that, out of a total of £67,000,000 (p. 84), Mr. Baxter 
 accounts for £24,000,000, leaving £43,000,000 unaccounted for ; 
 he entirely fails to complete the task for the nonperformance of 
 which he passed such severe strictures upon Mr. Goschen. 
 
 In addition to this important error of omission, it has been 
 shown that he falls into serious errors of commission. His 
 estimate of the value of income from real property does not 
 include rents and royalties of mining and similar properties, and 
 he argues as though the house tax and local rates were paid out 
 of the net income received by owners. It is upon such a basis 
 that he arrives at the result that *' real property pays 12 per 
 *' cent, ot its income." The only taxes, imperial or local, paid 
 out of the income received by owners are the land tax, income 
 tax, succession dut}', stamps on deeds, and part of the probate 
 duty, amounting, according to his estimate, to £4,614,000, or 
 4*31 per cent, upon the £107,000,000 which he assumes to be 
 the net income of owners of land and houses. The house tax is 
 paid by and falls upon occupiers, and is not a burden upon either 
 land or houses, while the portion of the local rates which falls 
 upon owners, whether £7,500,000 or, as it probably is, much 
 less, is not paid out of their incomes, but is intercepted on its 
 way, and cannot, in any sense, be considered a charge upon their 
 net revenue of £107,000,000. ^ 
 
 He falls into similar errors in calculating the burden of taxa- 
 tion on other kinds of property, and fails entirely to recognise 
 the facts that part of the taxation paid by railways is recovered 
 from the public, and that local rates paid by occupiers of mining 
 properties, ironworks, and business premises generally, are a 
 trade charge, which is recovered from the consumer in the price 
 of commodities, and hence is a widely distributed burden. 
 
AND Mil. GOSCHEN*S REPORT. 25 
 
 It is evident from this examination of Mr. Baxter's calculations 
 that he has not finally disposed of the question, and that his 
 facts and figures are not ** in the main unassailable." On the 
 contrary they are founded upon fallacies which completely vitiate 
 the results at which he arrives. His condemnation of Mr. 
 Goschen's col elusions, in which he says that their " erroneousness 
 ** makes the whole report wrong and misleading for legislative 
 " purposes," is far more appHcable to his own calculations, for he 
 speaks with confidence where Mr. Goschen introduced many 
 qualifications, and the astonishment which he feels in contem- 
 platinfjj Mr. Goschen's alleged series of errors might well have 
 been directed to his own fallacies. 
 
 With respect, moreover, to the incidence of rates upon land, 
 there appears a probability that the increase of recent years has 
 not fallen either upon the owner or the occupier. This feature of the 
 questionis discussed by Professor Leslie in an article in the Fort- 
 nujhthj Eevieio for February, 1874, in which he argues from the 
 high prices of farm produce on the one hand, and the low price 
 of labour on the other, that the farnaers have been able to shift 
 the burden upon the shoulders of consumers and labourers. He 
 observes, in reference to evidence given before a Parliamentry 
 committee, which he quotes : — 
 
 '^We find here the explanation of a difficulty which seems to 
 " have puzzled both members of the Committee of the House of 
 ** Commons on Local Taxation (1870) and witnesses. It was 
 " argued, on the one hand, that the great increase of rates must 
 *' have come out of the pocket of the farmer, since rents had 
 '* not fallen ; and, on the other hand, that it must have come out 
 " of the landlord's pocket, since agricultural profits had not fallen. 
 ** It seems not to have occurred to either landlord or farmer that 
 " a rise in the price of farm produce, without a corresponding rise 
 *' in farm wages, reconciles the two statements respecting profit 
 " and rent, and proves at the same time the incidence of the rates 
 " on consumers and labourers." 
 
 It will no doubt be urged that prices are regulated by foreign 
 competition, but Mr. Leslie observes in respect to this considera- 
 tion, that ** foreign competition really presents no insurmountable 
 " obstacle to a rise in the price of a great part of farming produce, 
 " such as fresh meat, milk, butter, eggs, and sundry vegetables; the 
 ** price of corn itself depends a good deal on the domestic supply." 
 There is much force in these observations, which open up a new 
 phase of the question, and make it appear very probable that, to 
 some extent, local rates are transferred in the case of agriculture, 
 as they are in the case of other trades, from the producer to the 
 consumer. 
 
26 MR. li. DUDLEY BAXtEll 
 
 It is worthy of notice that the same solution appears to have 
 been adopted by the Commission upon the local taxation of the 
 State of New York, of which that eminent financier, Mr. David 
 A. Wells was the head, as they say, " a tax imposed upon an 
 ** article or service of prime necessity to a community, like land 
 " or buildings for example, becomes, in effect, a tax upon all 
 " without the vexations of infinitessimal application.'^ 
 
 TAXES ON EEAL PEOPERTY AT HOME AND 
 ABROAD. 
 
 Many of the considerations already adduced apply to Mr. 
 Baxter's criticisms oi Mr. Goschen's estimates as to the com- 
 parative taxation of real property in England and Wales and in 
 some foreign countries. It has been shown that he includes 
 among burdens on real property a considerable amount of taxa- 
 tion, which falls upon all classes of income, and thus aggravates 
 the apparent pressure of taxation upon land and houses. The 
 same fact, no doubt, applies in the case of the statistics of other 
 countries ; a more exhaustive enquiry is therefore necessary in 
 order to arrive at the truth. The statement in Mr. Goschen's report 
 *' that for most purposes the comparisons which have been made 
 '' between the burdens on real property in England and in foreign 
 " countries, are too general to be conclusive or of practical applica- 
 " tion " is a perfectly accurate representation of the case. 
 
 Mr. Baxter complains that Mr. Ooschen gives .no information 
 as to what proportion real property forms of the total property in 
 foreign countries, and adds *' if English real property is a much 
 " smaller proportion of the total English property than French 
 " real property of total French property (as is really the case), 
 " equally burdened English real property must, of course, pay a 
 '* smaller proportion of total taxation ; and conversely English 
 " real property that pays an equal proportion of total taxation 
 '' must be more heavily burdened than French real property." 
 
 In support of this argument Mr. Baxter adduces no figures ; 
 he is in that respect equally at fault with Mr. Goschen, but he 
 commits a most extraordinary blunder in comparing the assess- 
 ment of real property in England and France. He says : — 
 
 " In the table at page 170, Mr. Goschen states the English 
 " real property at the extreme total of £143,872,000, and its 
 '' taxes as £21,900,000, giving a rate in the pound of 3s. 0|d. 
 " He states the French real property (on the authority of 
 '* D'Audiffret as £160,000,000, and its taxes as £23,528,000, 
 
AS'D MR. GOSCHEK^S REPORT. 27 
 
 " giving a rate in the pound of 2s. lljd, so demonstrating to his 
 '* own satisfaction their practical equality, and obtaining what 
 " appeared a weighty argument against British grumbling. But 
 " unfortunately Mr. Goschen failed in his perusal and extracts 
 ** from the great French statistician, De Parieu, to observe that 
 '* the Contribution Fonciere valuation is only on lands and houses, 
 " and that railways, canals, &c., are valued only at the agri- 
 " cultural rentals of the land which they occupy (De Parieu, i. 
 '* 236). Consequently, for this comparison we must take the 
 *' English valuation also for only lands and houses, which, on 
 " the net income tax assessment, is £107,000,000, instead of 
 '' £143,000,000 annual value.'' 
 
 Unfortunately, also, Mr. Baxter has equally failed to discover 
 another important element in the question, viz., that the Contri- 
 bution Fonciere is not a tax upon rent, but upon agricultural 
 produce. De Parieu (vol. i. p. 235) thus describes the mode of 
 assessment : — From the gross produce is deducted the expenses of 
 cultivation, seeds, harvest, and maintenance, according to the 
 nature of the property, including the expenses of irrigation in the 
 case of meadows, the expense of the wine-press for vines, the 
 expense of watching and replanting for woods. There is deducted 
 beyond this, in order to obtain the net produce of vines, a fifteenth 
 of the gross produce, in consideration of the expenses of decay, of 
 partial planting, and of work to be done during the time that 
 each fresh planting is unproductive. The system is very accu- 
 rately described by M'CuUoch ('* Taxation," p. 87) in the 
 following words : — " It consists of a certain proportion of the net 
 " produce of the land ; that is of its produce, exclusive of the 
 " expenses of cultivation, but inclusive of rent." 
 
 Railways, canals, &c^, moreover, are not valued at the " agri- 
 cultural rentals " of the land they occupy ; but at the assessment 
 of the best arable lands of the commune. In both cases, whether 
 of agricultural land or railways, canals, &c.,Mr. Baxter confuses 
 net produce with agricultural rental. 
 
 The Contribution Fonciere, being a tax upon net produce, 
 includes, so far as land is concerned, ^vhat is paid in England by 
 owners of land under Schedule A, by occupiers under Schedule 
 B, and by market gardeners, nurserymen, &c., under Schedule 
 D. This is a very important qualification of Mr. Baxter's con- 
 clusion as to the heavier taxation of real property in England as 
 compared with France, and completely upsets the calculations 
 upon which he bases his estimate. The want of accurate details 
 renders it impossible to arrive at an exact comparison but there 
 can be no doubt that Mr. Baxter's correction of Mr. Goschen is 
 vitiated by a most important error. 
 
28 MR. K. DIjDLKY BAXTER 
 
 Mr. Baxter endeavours to support his allegation as to the 
 excessive taxation of real property in England and Wales by the 
 following inferences : — 
 
 " It stands to reason that the immense landed property of 
 " France, 130,000,000 acres, and the houses and other real pro- 
 " perty of 38,000,000 inhabitants, must in 1868 have been very 
 *' much more valuable than the 37,000,000 acres of England and 
 " Wales, and the houses and other real property of 21,650,000 
 ^* inhabitants." 
 
 Why, does it not also stand to reason that the personal pro- 
 perty of the larger population is very much greater than that of 
 the smaller? Mr. Baxter stops at real property because it 
 supports his view of the incidence of taxation. Is there not, 
 however, some proportion between the growth of personal and 
 real property ? Is it not the case that in a country of great 
 commercial activity the value of real property will increase in 
 ratio exceeding that of personalty? The gross assessment of 
 land and houses to the income tax in 1842-3 was £77,000,000, 
 and in 1867-8 it was £115,000,000, an increase of £38,000,000, 
 which at iifteen years' purchase represents a capital of 
 £570,000,000, mainly created by the growth of trade and 
 manufactures. 
 
 The size of a country and the number of its inhabitants are 
 not, moreover, the only, or even the chief elements to be taken 
 into consideration in the value of its real property. If it were, 
 it might be said that " it stands to reason'' that the 20,800,000 
 acres, and the houses and other real property of 5,400,000 
 inhabitants of Ireland must, in 1868, have been very much more 
 valuable than the 75,490 acres of the metropolis, and the houses 
 and other real property of 2,800,000 inhabitants. But the 
 proposition is absurd, the valuation for Ireland for the years 
 1867-8 having been £13,000,000 and for the metropolis 
 £16,900,000. In like manner the real property of a manufac- 
 turing and industrial community may equal, or even exceed, that 
 of a much larger population, whose main resource is agriculture. 
 
 There is another view of the question which is worthy of con- 
 sideration. The octroi duties of the continent are far more 
 prejudicial upon land, in their ultimate effects, than the direct 
 assessment v/hich prevails in this country. The market for agri- 
 cultural produce is largely restricted by such imposts, and serious 
 loss is thus inflicted upon the agricultural population. Adam 
 Smith says (" Wealth of Nations," Book v.. Chap, ii.), that 
 ** freedom of interior commerce, the effect of the uniformity of 
 ** the system of taxation, is perhaps one of the principal causes of 
 '* the prosperity of Great Britain ; every great country boing 
 
AND Mil. GOSCJIKN's IIEPOIIT. 29 
 
 " necessarily the best and most extensive market for the greater 
 " part of the productions of its own industry." Looked at from 
 this point of view, many of the aheged burdens upon land are 
 really no burdens at all ; but the means of securing a better 
 market for agricultural produce and higher prices, than would be 
 attainable under other conditions. There are no greater impedi- 
 ments to freedom of internal commerce than octroi duties, as 
 they raise barriers at the gates of every town, which prevent the 
 free interchange of commodities between the town and rural 
 districts. They are oxcessively oppressive upon the town popu- 
 lation, and, in their economic effects, a serious burden upon the 
 land. 
 
 The comparative pressure of taxation upon real and personal 
 property and upon industrial incomes in different countries is a 
 question of considerable interest, but no sufficient information 
 appears as yet to be accessible in order to arrive at a correct con- 
 clusion. This fact is clearly admitted by ISlr. Gfoschen, while all 
 that Mr. Baxter can say is that, when the figures are produced, 
 we shall no doubt be able to show that English land pays much 
 more taxation in proportion to its real share than land in other 
 countries. The serious errors that have been shown to exist in 
 Mr. Baxter's figures both as respects English and foreign taxation, 
 blunt the edge of his criticism, and it may be said in reply to his 
 conclusions, in the words he uses with respect to Mr. Goschen, 
 *' Anyhow," Mr. Baxter's " proof fails completely." The only 
 conclusion at which he has arrived upon the question is founded 
 upon the hypothesis that the facts, when ascertained, will favour 
 his views, an assumption which is perfectly unwarranted by 
 anything that is already known upon the subject. 
 
 HEREDITARY OR PRESCRIPTIVE BURDEI^S AND 
 THE TENURE OF LAND. 
 
 Questions of far greater magnitude than the respective per- 
 centages of taxation imposed upon lands, houses, and other pro- 
 perty, are raised by recent discussions of the alleged grievances of 
 the landed interest. It was no doubt in reference to this 
 fact, which was pointed out by Mr. Stansfeld during 
 the debate on Sir Massey Lopes' motion of 1872, that the 
 majority of. 100, by which that motion v/as carried, was described 
 by the Times newspaper as a " suicidal victory." Important 
 principles, which might otherwise have remained embalmed iu 
 
30 MR, R, DUDI-EY BAXTER 
 
 treatises on Political Economy, or been discussed by the select 
 few who take an interest in abstract propositions, have been forced 
 upon the public attention and have become practical questions. 
 
 In connection with this aspect of the subject, Mr. Baxter 
 devotes a special chapter to the consideration of an objection 
 raised to his conclusions by Sir R. Torrens, in a letter to the 
 Standard newspaper, respecting which he says : — 
 
 " It is allowed that the figures of the taxation have been fairly 
 *' given, and that real property very probably pays 12 per cent, of 
 " its income to the t»x-gatherer, against personalty paying 5, and 
 ** industry 3 per cent. But it is denied that these figures prove 
 •* real property to be more heavily taxed than personalty or 
 " industry, since * hereditary burdens ' have to be allowed for." 
 
 A reference to the letter, which Mr. Baxter reprints, shows 
 that Sir E. Torrens made no admission of the kind ; it was Mr. 
 Baxter*s figures, not his inferences, which were assumed to be 
 correct. The following is the portion of the letter to which Mr. 
 Baxter refers, and of which he gives so erroneous a summary : — 
 
 " Assuming, as I do with perfect confidence, on the authority 
 '* of Mr. Baxter, the general accuracy of his figures, my reply 
 " must nevertheless be in the negative, and for the following 
 ^^ reasons : — 
 
 " Mr. Baxter's tables of comparison blend together ' realty ' 
 " (that is fee simple estate) and * personalty,' which includes 
 " leasehold interests, and especially leaseholds of house property, 
 " the burdens on which, whether in the shape of imperial taxes 
 " or rates, are borne by all classes, and therefore these tables can 
 " afford no answer to the case put by me on the occasion referred 
 *' to. My argument ^vas that, as upon transmission by will or 
 *' upon intestacy, a heavy tax, in the form of probate, legacy, or 
 *^ succession duty, was imposed upon personalty, from which fee 
 " simple is exempt (a fact distinctly recognized in Mr. Baxter's 
 " figures), this should be borne in mind whenever the adjustment 
 *' of local and imperial taxation is under consideration." 
 
 It is quite clear that, while admitting the general accuracy of 
 Mr. Baxter's figures, Sir R. Torrens disputes the conclusion that 
 real property pays 12 per cent of its income to the taxgatherer, 
 on the ground that the tables upon which that conclusion is based, 
 include ^^ leaseholds of house pro]^erty the hurdens on ivhich, 
 " whether in the shape of imperial taxes or rates are borne by all 
 classes.'* In the face of this divergence of opinion as to the 
 incidence of a considerable portion of the 12 per cent, burden, 
 which Mr. Baxter alleges is borne by real property, Sir E. 
 Torrens is claimed as a witness in support of Mr. Baxter's con- 
 clusions, although he had most positively expressed his dissent. 
 
AND MR. GOSCHKN's REPORT. 31 
 
 It is difficult to understand how Mr. Baxter can have fallen into 
 so grave an error. 
 
 He manifests equal inaccuracy in stating the doctrine laid 
 down hy Mr. Mill, which he is endeavouring to refute. He says, 
 " the doctrine of Mr. Mill is well known that taxes of old 
 " standing on real property ought to he regarded as no taxation 
 " at all, but as a share in the property reserved hy the State." 
 This may be Mr. Baxter's understanding of Mr. Mill, but it 
 certainly is not the doctrine laid down by Mr. Mill himself, in 
 his " Principles of Political Economy."* 
 
 The principle upon which Mr. Mill insists is part of a larger 
 argument in favour of a departure from equality of taxation in 
 the case of the rent of land, because it ** is a kind of income 
 *' which constantly tends to increase without any exertion or 
 '' sacrifice on the part of the owners ; those owners constituting 
 '* a class in the community, whom the natural course of things 
 * * progressively enriches, consistently with complete passiveness 
 " on their own part." Mr. Mill contends that, "in such a case 
 '^ it would be no violation of the principles upon which private 
 " property is grounded, if the state should appropriate this 
 " increase of wealth, or part of it, as it arises. This would not 
 " properly be taking anything from anybody ; it would merely be 
 " applying an accession of wealth, created by circumstances, to 
 " the benefit of society, instead of allowing it to become an 
 " unearned appendage to the riches of a particular class." He 
 argues that it would be unjust to apply the principle to the past 
 on the ground that society has waived the right, but sees no 
 objection to declaring that the future increment of rent should be 
 liable to special taxation. 
 
 He then adds : — " Whatever may be thought of the legitimacy 
 " of making the state a sharer in all future increase of rent 
 " from natural causes, the existing land tax (which in this 
 ^* country unfortunately is very small) ought not to be regarded 
 " as a tax, but as a rent charge in favour of the public ; a por- 
 " tion of the rent, reserved from the beginning by the state, 
 '^ which has never belonged to or formed part of the income of 
 •^ the landlords, and shuuld not therefore be counted to them as 
 " part of their taxation, so as to exempt them from their fair 
 " share of every other tax." He adds, moreover, that the prin- 
 ciple is only applicable to the land tax, "in so far as it is a 
 " peculiar tax, and not when it is merely an equivalent of what 
 " is taken from other classes." 
 
 "With respect to local rates, he says, in a note, " the same 
 
 • Bjiok v., Chap, ii., § 5, 6. 
 
32 MR. II, DUDLEY 15AXTER 
 
 " remarks obviously ajDply to those local taxes, of the peculiar 
 ** pressure of which on landed property so much has l)eeii said 
 ** by the remnant of the Protectionists. As much of these bur- 
 " dens as is of old standing ought to be regarded as a prescrip- 
 " tive deduction or reservation, for public purposes, of a portion 
 " of the rent.'' 
 
 It is evident that Mr. Mill's doctrine only applies to special 
 taxation on the rent of land. Mr. Baxter, moreover, is equally 
 unfortunate in his statement of the grounds upon which the 
 doctrine is based. He says : " The grounds for this doctrine are 
 *' stated by political economists as follows : When a tax is 
 " imposed for a long time on any kind of property it diminishes 
 " the selling value, and the purchaser does his best to obtain the 
 " property for a price smaller by the capitalised value of the tax. 
 *' It is argued that he succeeds in his endeavour, and gets his 
 " purchase free of tax.'' There is not one word about the 
 peculiar character of landed property, which is the real ground 
 upon which the principle is defended; it is simply ignored. 
 This iS; no doubt, an easy way of evading a difficulty, but it 
 will not stand the test of examination. 
 
 In addition to the land tax and rates of long standing, Mr. 
 Baxter, in an argument based upon his erroneous statement of 
 Mr. Mill's doctrine, extends its application to the house tax, the 
 minimum income tax, and the succession duty. But his argu- 
 ment is founded upon a series of fallacies. The substitution of 
 " any kind of property " for landed propeVty makes a great dif- 
 ference in the argument. Mr. Dudley Baxter has simply laid 
 his own ghost. 
 
 About the land tax there can only be one conclusion, that the 
 prescriptive burden is miserably small and inadequate as a 
 compensation for the abolition of the obligations imposed upon 
 the land by" the system of feudal tenures. With respect to local 
 rates, only that portion which is a deduction from rent that 
 would otherwise be paid to landowners, is an hereditary burden 
 upon land, and it forms no portion of the rental upon the 
 capitalised value of which estates are bought and sold. The 
 house tax falls exclusively upon occupiers ; the income-tax is paid 
 by all classes of income, excepting such as are already heavily 
 taxed by customs and excise ; and the succession duty is an in- 
 adequate equivalent lor the legacy duty levied on personal pro- 
 perty. iNoue of the three additional taxes, which Mr. Baxter 
 endeavours to include among the hereditary burdens on land, 
 comply with the conditions laid down by Mr. Mill, and they are 
 therefore inadmissible into that categor3\ 
 
 Mr. Baxter urges at some length that the doctrine is abo 
 
AND MR. GOSCHEN's REPORT, 33 
 
 applicable to personal property and industrial incomes, but his 
 entire argument is based upon his original fallacy. The con- 
 ditions do not apply to income other than that derived from rent 
 of land. He first constructs a caricature of Mr. Mill's theory, 
 and then arrives at conclusions, which are rendered worthless by 
 such a mod© of reasoning. No special taxation is levied upon 
 personal property or industrial incomes ; neither of them increases 
 spontaneously, without the neoe-ssity for care or anxiety on the 
 part of their owners ; and their origin and character are entirely 
 different from that of property in land. It is false logic to argue 
 that the theory of hereditary burdens, which is applicable only 
 to one class of income on the ground of its peculiar character, 
 should be extended to other incomes in the case of which the 
 necessary conditions are wanting. Such an application of the 
 doctrine may support the erroneous conclusion at which Mr. 
 Baxter arrives, but we may very fairly ask, in his own words — 
 *' Could there be a greater caricature of Mr. Mill's doctrine, or a 
 *' more serious perversion of the principles of political economy?" 
 
 Mr. Baxter adduces the heavy taxation of real property in 
 France as a refutation of Mr. Mill's theory and a proof that it 
 breaks down completely. He omits, however, to notice that such 
 taxation is not special, but part of a system towards which other 
 property also contributes. Mr. Mill has himself refuted Mr. 
 Baxter, by anticipation, in the following words : — " In France, 
 " for example, there are peculiar taxes on other kinds of property 
 ^' and income (the moUlier and the patente), and supposing the 
 *' land-tax to be not more than equivalent to these, there would 
 ** be no ground for contending that the State had reserved to 
 '* itself a rent-charge on the land." It is Mr. Baxter's misrepre- 
 sentation of the theory that breaks down, not the theory itself. 
 
 He further argues that the theory is fallacious, on the grounds 
 that a tax is always revocable, and that taxes are imposed to 
 meet a particular liability. Taxes on property, he asserts, are 
 the quota which the property is to pay for the State's protection. 
 In this contention the whole question of the tenure of landed 
 property is raised. It is well known that the land of the country 
 was held for centuries, on condition that its holders should pro- 
 vide for the defence of the realm and for the wars of the Sove- 
 reign. That condition was shamelessly violated by the Conven- 
 tion Parliament of Charles the Second, when the landholders 
 converted themselves into landowners, and threw the burdens, 
 upon condition of which they held their estates, upon the people, 
 in the shape of duties of excise.* This is the historical aspect of 
 
 * The Queen's Taxes. Longmans and Co., 1870. Chapter xvi.. 
 
 D 
 
34 MR. K. IJUDLEY BAXTER 
 
 the question. Upon economic grounds no just complaint can be 
 urged against any of tlie existing burdens whicK specially affect 
 land. They are far less onerous than might with justice have 
 been imposed when the present tenure of land was created. Mr. 
 McCulloch — no friend to taxes upon rent of land — was compelled 
 to admit that a land-tax corresponding in amount to the feudal 
 tenures, abolished in 1660, would have benefitted the landlords 
 by substituting a fixed and equal for a fluctuating and uncertain 
 burden, while it would not have been iujurious to anyone else. 
 He then adds — " But instead of being commuted in the way now 
 " stated, it was decided, at the passing of the above-mentioned 
 " Act (12 Chas. II., cap. 24), that the deficiency in the heredi- 
 " tary revenue, caused by the abolition of wardships and other 
 " feudal incidents, should be made good by imposing, and assign- 
 ** ing to the Crown in perpetuity, certain excise duties on beer, 
 " ale, and other liquors, and on licenses. So that what had pre- 
 ** viously been a burden affecting the landlords only, was thus 
 " dexterously transferred from their shoulders to those of the 
 " community in general.* " Professor Newman also argues that 
 a tax on rent (say of 50 per cent.), if it had been enacted in 
 England 400 years ago, would now be unexceptionable and by 
 far the best of taxes.f For a burden of singular moderation, 
 in comparison with either of these estimates, the landowners of 
 the kingdom have possessed themselves of the fee simple of the 
 entire land of the country, except the small portion of the Crown 
 estates that has survived the jobbery of previous Sovereigns. 
 
 Mr. Baxter alleges that it is not true in practice that a pur- 
 chaser gets a full deduction for the capitalised value of the taxes, 
 and that where there is great competition for property, the pur- 
 chaser gets no deduction at all, but has to bear the full amount 
 of the tax as completely as the first taxed owner. One obvious 
 answer is that, in such cases, the purchaser pays a high price 
 because it is his interest to do so ; he has therefore no just 
 ground of complaint. No one compels him to buy the property. 
 There is, however, a most amusing fallacy in Mr. Baxter's 
 argument, as, with the exception of the land tax, amounting to 
 £1,000,000 a year, the whole of the special taxes on land are 
 paid by the occupier, and form no element whatever in the 
 calculation of the saleable value of the property, which is based 
 upon the net rental received by the landlord. This is the same 
 fallacy which enters so largely into Mr. Baxter's erroneous 
 calculations as to the rate of taxation upon real property. 
 
 * Taxation aud the Fuiidiag System. Longmaus and Co., 1845, pp. 56-68. 
 t Lectures on Political Economy. John Chapman, 1851, p. 211. 
 
AND Mil. (30SCHEN's REPORT. 35 
 
 When Mr. Baxter proceeds to consider the theory of hereditary- 
 burdens, as applied to rates, he becomes obscure and incompre- 
 hensible. The following is the passage in which he disposes of 
 that portion of the question : — 
 
 ** Lastly, there is a peculiar- difficulty in making the theory 
 " attach to rates. A prescriptive burden requires a tax of in- 
 '* variable amount, and steady in its incidence. But rates are 
 " particularly variable in amount, and of uncertain incidence. 
 " Where rents are above rack-rent they fall chiefly upon the 
 " owner ; where below rack-rent, upon the occupier. The 
 " incidence may vary in the same property froni one year to 
 *' another. How can we lix a prescriptive burden on either 
 " class of tax-payer ? " 
 
 Wliat is the meaning of the statement that rates fall chiefly 
 upon the owner where rents are above rack-rent, and upon the 
 occupier where below rack-rent ? It may have been intelligible 
 to Mr. Baxter, but " there is a peculiar difficulty " about it 
 which renders it incomprehensible to others. Rack-rent is 
 described by Dr. Johnson as *^ rent raised to the uttermost.'' 
 The Imperial Dictionary, edited by Dr. Ogilvie, on the basis of 
 Webster, as " an annual rent of the full value of the tenement, 
 *' or near it/' In his work on the Taxation of the United 
 Kingdom (p. 130), Mr. Baxter appears to interpret the word as 
 the actual amount received by the owmer, " with no allow^ance for 
 " repairs, insurance, cost of management, or abatement of rent.'' 
 It is difficult to see, if these definitions are accurate, how anyone 
 can pay a rent in excess of the full rent of the property, or in 
 excess of the amount received by the owner ; and it is still more 
 difficult to see how the rates, which are paid by the occupier, can 
 in that case fall upon the owner. The only instances in which 
 owners can be said to receive more than the raok-rent, under- 
 standing by the term the full value of their property, are when 
 the rates are* paid in the first instance by the landlord, as in the 
 case of small tenements, but in such cases the rates are recovered 
 from the tenant, and do not fall upon the owner ; he is merely 
 the medium through whom they are collected. 
 
 Apart from this knotty problem, the difficulty raised by Mr. 
 Baxter, as to the variable nature of local rates, may be a very 
 good reply to his ingenious caricature of the doctrine of " here- 
 '•ditary burdens," but cannot be accepted as a refutation of the 
 doctrine itself. No one argues that the portion of the rates 
 which falls upon occupiers is a '* prescriptive burden," but merely 
 that portion which is of old standing, and forms a deduction from 
 rent, which would otherwise have gone into the p'jckets of the 
 land-owners. They have never paid these rates ; the additional 
 
 D 2 
 
36 MR. R. DUDLEY BAXTER 
 
 value that would have been conferred upon their property, if there 
 had been no rates, .has never entered into their calculations, either 
 for sale, purchase, or inheritance, and that portion of the rates in 
 question, which answers to Mr. ^Mill's description, may very fairly 
 be described as a " prescriptive deduction, or reservation for public 
 '*' purposes, of a part of the rent," that rent moreover being 
 created by the common industry of the whole people. There may be 
 difficulty in ascertaining the exact portion of the rates to which, 
 this description is applicable, but the difficulty is not insurmounl- 
 able, and for practical purposes settles itself, as the incidence of 
 local rates is adjusted upon every change of tenancy. There 
 never yet was a true principle in the application of v/hich there 
 was not some " peculiar difficulty." If such an argument is to 
 prevail, there is an end at once to all improvement, for every 
 measure of reform is invariably attended by its peculiar difficulty. 
 
 The fact that many local rates are raised for purposes directly 
 beneficial to owners of real property, is generally overlooked in 
 discussions upon local taxation. Highway, drainage, embank- 
 ment, and improvement rates render rent a possibility. If there 
 were no roads the difficulty of getting produce to market would 
 soon diminish rent. There would be no rent at all, in many 
 instances, but for the expenditure, to defray which such rates 
 have been imposed. In what sense can these be considered 
 burdens upon land other than similar expenses, which in towns 
 are burdens upon the traders of those towns ? Even the poor 
 rate is not without its beneficial effect upon the value of real 
 property. This has been pointed out in a small volume on the 
 subject of taxation, which well deserves perusal. The author, a 
 large landed proprietor, says, " I am sure that the practical re- 
 " cognition of the principle that we hold our estates subject to 
 " the right of the people to live, and the consequent general 
 ** acquiescence in the rights of property by the multitude, has 
 " greatly strengthened the validity of our titles to tliem, and so 
 " augmented their value. Depend upon it, we receive an ample 
 *' equivalent in divers ways for every penny the poor laws take 
 " out of our pockets." * There is much sound wisdom in 
 these words, and they may be well commended to the considera- 
 tion of all landed proprietors. 
 
 Mr. Baxter admits that the theory of hereditary or prescriptive 
 burdens has exercised great influence over the public mind, but 
 evidently considers that it has received its death-blow at his hands. 
 His arguments are, however, based upon an entire misappre- 
 hension, both of the doctrine itself and of the principle upon 
 
 * Dialogues on Taxation. By the late W. Pollard Urquhart, M.P. 
 Aberdeen : Wyllie and Son. 1867, 
 
AND MR. GOSCHEN S REPORT. 67 
 
 which it is based ; it follows, therefore, that his conclusions have 
 no practical value. The theory he has been combating is not the 
 one advocated by Mr. Mill, but a phantom of his own creation. 
 The real arguments in favour of the doctrine are unnoticed in his 
 pages, and it remains in all its pristine vigour and vitality. It is 
 destined to exercise still greater influence over the public mind in 
 the future than it has in the past, being founded upon a sound 
 and equitable basis, and the growth of that influence will be 
 accelerated by every effort that is made to relieve landowners from 
 their legitimate burdens at the expense of the rest of the community. 
 Mr. Baxter affords another illustration of the fact, mentioned 
 by Professor Cairnes in a note to his essay on " Political Economy 
 and Land," that "the discussions which have arisen on this 
 " proposal of Mr. MiiFs have, by the flagrant weakness of the 
 " arguments employed against it, brought into strong light the 
 " essential soundness of Mr. Mill's position." * 
 
 SUMMARY OF ME. DUDLEY BAXTEE'S EEEOES. 
 
 From this. examination of Mr. Baxter's work it will be seen 
 that he falls into errors, both of omission and commission, 
 which deprive it of practical value as an authority upon the 
 important question with which it deals. In noticing the increase 
 of the poor rates he fails to call attention to the greater increase 
 of Imperial burdens under the system of indirect taxation. 
 Throughout his work he ignores the fact that poor rates in rural 
 districts are a rate in aid of wages, and fall with retributive 
 justice upon the rent which is created by the industry of tenants 
 and labourers. He commits a serious error in his estimate of the 
 comparative taxation of towns and rural districts, and denies the 
 ])atent fact that there has been a considerable relief to the latter 
 l)y migration to the towns.. He includes taxes which fall ex- 
 (,'lusively upon occupiers, and are paid out of every class of income, 
 among the burdens upon land and houses, and makes an erroneous 
 calculation of the percentage of taxation placed upon that class of 
 property. He makes no allowance for income from land, which 
 is assessed under Schedule D, and fails completely to arrive at any 
 detinitc conclusion as to the respective taxation of real property, 
 
 * Essays in Political Economy. Macmillan and Co. 1873. 
 
38 MR. R. DUDLEY BAXTER 
 
 personalty, find industrial incomes, although he passed severe 
 strictures upon Mr. Goschen, for having acknowleged the problem 
 to be insoluble. He argues as if rates paid by the tenants are 
 paid out of the net income received by the owners of property, 
 and bases many of his important conclusions upon erroneous 
 assumptions, not upon actual facts. His comparison of English 
 and French taxation upon land is disfigured by a blunder of con- 
 siderable magnitude, and his attempt to refute the theory of 
 hereditary burdens is based upon a caricature of that doctrine. 
 Throughout his work he endorses every exploded fallacy respect- 
 ing peculiar burdens upon land that has been made the pretext for 
 protective duties, and peculiar privileges and exemptions. The 
 words which he has used with respect to Mr. Goschen's report 
 are even more applicable to his own criticisms of that document 
 — " he falls into an extraordinary series of fallacies which lead 
 " him into very erroneous conclusions. '' Mr. Goschen^s report too, 
 it will be remembered, was confessedly imperfect with respect to 
 many of the points upon which it has been criticised, while Mr. 
 Baxter, on the other hand, speaks in the most positive manner, 
 and without indicating the shghtest suspicion that there is any 
 room for entertaining a shadow of doubt as to any of his con- 
 clusions, although they may be very correctly described in his 
 own words " as thoroughly fallacious and misleading." 
 
 There is one feature in connection with the present system of 
 local taxation which Mr. Baxter does not notice in any portion of 
 his work, although it is a material element in the case. A 
 writer on taxation, whom he must have considered to be an 
 authority of some weight, says, in reference to local rates, that 
 ** they have the great practical merit of keeping down expendi- 
 " ture, and of saving millions which would be spent under a 
 " more pleasant mode of taxation." This is a very important 
 consideration, and appears to indicate that the transfer of local 
 charges to the Consolidated Fund may not, after all, be of real 
 advantage to ratepayers. The writer who expressed this opinion 
 was no other than Mr. Baxter himself, in his work on " The 
 " Taxation of the United Kingdom." That the proposals of Sir 
 Massey Lopes with respect to local taxation will not lead to 
 economy has been persistently urged by his opponents. It is 
 therefore gratifying to find that this objection has been supported 
 by so able a champion of the landed interest as Mr. Dudley 
 Baxter. The admission is very valuable, and fully confirms one 
 of the principal grounds upon which Conservative proposals with 
 respect to local taxation have been resisted. The relief obtained 
 by ratepayers, whether owners or occupiers, from a transfer of 
 local burdens to the imperial revenue will be merely apparent, 
 
AND MR. GOSCHEN's REPORT. 39 
 
 while the actual pressure, although concealed, will be considerably 
 augmented by the removal of existing checks upon extravagance, 
 for which result the adoption of a " more pleasant mode of taxa- 
 •** tion " will be a very poor and inadequate compensation. 
 The general body of taxpayers may therefore well pause before 
 giving their sanction to proposals for the relief of local burdens 
 which will have the direct tendency to relieve . property at the 
 expense of industry, and to throw a larger proportion of the 
 public expenditure upon those by whoso industry the rentals of 
 landed proprietors have been mainly created. 
 
41 
 
 THE GLADSTONE GOVERNMENT 
 
 AND 
 
 LOCAL TAXATION. 
 
 IT has long been the aim of a considerable section of the 
 representatives of the landed interest to obtain relief, at the 
 expense of the rest of the community, from local burdens, which 
 they have inherited with their estates. The determination and 
 perseverance with which this policy was pursued, during the 
 whole of the last Parliament, renders the subject well deserving 
 of serious consideration by those whose taxation would be thereby 
 increased — especially is this the case now that the Conservative 
 Ministry, which in opposition supported the claims of the land- 
 owners, has made an important concession in that direction, and 
 appears to contemplate such an extension of the system of 
 Government subventions as cannot fail to increase extravagance 
 and augment the pressure of taxation. 
 
 The Parliament of 1868 had not met for the dispatch of 
 business more than eight days, when Sir Massey Lopes in- 
 augurated the campaign by moving for the appointment of a 
 Iloyal Commission to enquire into the amount, incidence, and 
 effect of local taxation. After alluding to the interest taken in 
 the question by the numerous chambers of agriculture, that had 
 been recently established, he revived complaints respecting the 
 incidence of taxation that had been repeatedly urged upon the 
 attention of Parliament by distressed landowners, during the era 
 wf protective duties, but which had for some time been allowed to 
 lie dormant, and based his claim for redress upon the ground that 
 the possessors of land had received no compensation for the 
 losses they had sustained in consequence of the adoption of a 
 Iree trade policy. 
 
 There is the true protectionist ring about this portion of the 
 speech in which he introduced his motion ; the iniquitous Corn 
 Laws having been repealed, and the owners of the soil having 
 
42 THE GLADSTONE GOVERNMENT 
 
 thereby been deprived of the power of HmitiDg supply and en- 
 hancing price, compensation was, forsooth, to be awarded thein 
 for the loss of this unjust privilege. If the contention were true, 
 it w^ould be impossible to allow a claim for compensation upon 
 such grounds ; what reply then can be given to the demand 
 when the losses thus ostentatiously paraded are purely imaginary ? 
 Have the farmers suffered from a diminution in the price of their 
 produce? The experience of consumers bears powerful testimony 
 to the contrary.* Have the possessors of land found their 
 incomes diminished by a general fall in their rentals ? Quite the 
 reverse ; it is well known that rent of land has considerably 
 advanced, and that it is more regularly paid than it was during 
 the regime of protective duties.f Has the capital value of landed 
 property decreased during the last thirty years ? Every sale of 
 such property affords ample evidence that it has, year by j^ear, 
 steadily augmented in value. For landowners to talk of losses in 
 the face of facts to the contrary which are patent and indisputable, 
 betokens a considerable beKef in the ignorance and credulity of 
 the public. 
 
 Sir Massey Lopes declared, moreovei', that before the year 1846 
 the possessors of land derived some advantage from the protective 
 duties. In what did these advantages consist ? "Were they to 
 be found in the fact that between 1820 and 1836, when protection 
 was in full operation, no fewer than eight Parliamentary enquiries 
 were instituted into the depressed condition of agriculture, and 
 that distress among owners and occupiers of land was a constant 
 topic of discussion in Parliament ? The advantages derived 
 by the landed interest from protective duties may be fairly paired 
 off with the losses they have sustained in consequence of free 
 trade ; both are equally non-existent. Innumerable facts afford 
 the most conclusive demonstration that the real and permanent 
 prosperity of modern agriculture had its origin in the removal of 
 that protective system, which for so long a period had crippled 
 the energies and weakened the resources of the Englisli people. 
 So marvellous is the change, that we now find county Conserva- 
 tive Members of the House of Commons eulogising '* the blessings 
 "offree trade." J 
 
 * See "National Finance," Longmans & Co., pp. 243-251, for statistics 
 as to tlie recent advance in prices of all kinds of agricultural produce with 
 the solitary exception of wheat. 
 
 t See " National Finance," pp. 195-201, for statistics as to the increase 
 of rent and augmented value of land. Also " Fiscal Legislation — 1842- 
 1865." Longmans & Co. 
 
 X Mr. Sturt's speech on horses. See " Hansard's Debates," 3rd Series, 
 vol. 223, p. 1718. 
 
' AND TXif.'AL TAXATION'. 43 
 
 Although compensation was not required to meet losses occa- 
 sioned bv free trade, it was granted in anticipation, and a ready 
 answer is afforded to the question propounded by the hon. baronet. 
 "When the Corn laws were repealed, a number of local charges 
 were transferred, either wholly or in part, from the pates to the 
 consolidated fund, and a measure was passed empowering the 
 government to lend money for the improvement of land at a low 
 rate of interest. ]N"o such privilege is enjoyed by merchants, 
 manufacturers, artisans, or peasant proprietors. Owners and 
 occupiers of land were further compensated by the removal of 
 protective duties from every article of foreign origin which they 
 required for their use or consumption. In this respect they re- 
 ceived precisely the same compensation as the manufacturers ; 
 both were enabled to buy commodities of every kind at the 
 natural market price, and both had the advantage cf an improv- 
 ing market for their procluctions, and of a steadily increasing 
 demand, consequent upon the growth of national prosperity. 
 
 Having disposed of the question of compensation for alleged 
 losses, the mover of the resolution finally enquired — have the 
 possessors of land any exclusive privileges or exemptions ? To 
 this the reply is equally easy. Among exemptions, land 
 is not subject to probate duty, and is assessed to the 
 succession duty at a lower scale than personalty. The 
 large possessions of the wealthy landowner are entirely 
 exempt from probate duty, while the savings of the 
 struggling tradesman, invested in his business or in personal 
 property, cannot pass to his descendents v/ithout first contributing 
 to the public revenue. Up to the year 1853, there was no 
 succession duty upon the transmission of landed property, and 
 when imposed, in that year, its assessment was fixed at the life 
 interest of the person suceeeding and payment was allowed by 
 ins 'raiments, while the legacy duty upon personalty is assessed at 
 the full value and has to be paid at once.* This inequality, which 
 Sir Massey Lopes ignored, was justified on the ground that real 
 property was subject to local taxation.f As respects occupiers of 
 land, they have the privilege of being assessed to income tax upon 
 
 * For practical illustrations of the effect of this arrangement, see 
 "Bright's Speeches," vol. ii., pp. 404-8; also *'The Queen's Taxes," pp. 
 99-101. 
 
 •?• See Mr. Gladstone's Financial Statement for 1853. In this argument 
 the whole question of the incidence of local taxation is involved, and it 
 becomes an interesting enquiry whether there is any justification in facts 
 for the difference in the methods pf assessing the legacy and succession 
 duties. If the burden of local taxation falls mainly upon owners, there 
 may bo a reason for the difference ; if it rests mainly upon occupiers, the 
 heavier taxation of personalty is incapable of defence. 
 
44 THE GLADSTONE GOVERNMENT 
 
 a fixed proportion of their rental, with the additional advantage 
 that they can claim to be assessed upon actual profits, if they 
 can show that they do not reach that amount ; there is, 
 however, no provision for extra assessment should their 
 profits prftve to be more than the requisite proportion of 
 their rents. Landlords, whether of land or houses, have more- 
 over the exclusive privilege of recovering the whole of their 
 rent in cases of bankruptcy, while traders have to be content 
 with such dividends as the residue of the estate will afford. 
 Lastly, the landed interest enjoys the peculiar and exclusive 
 privilege, inseparable from the nature of their property, that its 
 value is constantly being augmented by the general industry of 
 the community, independent of any care or effort on their part. 
 The vast estates of the Duke of Bedford, the Duke of Portland, 
 the Duke of Westminster, Lord Portman, Lord Carnarvon, 
 Lord Holland, and Lord Southampton in London, of Lord Derby 
 at Liverpool, Manchester, and other parts of Lancashire, of Sir 
 John Pamsden at Huddersfield, and the Marquis of Bute in 
 South Wales, afford ready examples of the spontaneous growth 
 of rent. 
 
 These are privileges of no ordinary character, with which the 
 landed interest might well have been content, but it is now sought 
 in addition to confer further benefits upon this class by a revision 
 of local taxation, based, according to the declaration of the leaders 
 of the movement in Parliament, upon the old familiar principle 
 of protection. Unable to tax the food of the people, com- 
 pensation is sought in another way. It is well that this should 
 be clearly understood, especially when a Ministry is in power, 
 the prominent members of which clung to the last to the delusive 
 chimera of protective duties, and have ever been the advocates of 
 "vested interests" and special privileges. In so far as the 
 present Ministry has any policy of its own with respect to tax- 
 ation, it will most probably be found that they will fulfil the 
 function recently ascribed to one of its most prominent members, 
 by Sir Charles I)ilke,,and will " look after the spoons" ; in other 
 words maintain class interests. 
 
 The motion was met by the Government with an announce- 
 ment that they intended to take up the question themselves, and 
 could not agree to shift the duty of enquiry upon another and 
 less responsible agency. Mr. Ward Hunt congratulated Sir Massey 
 Lopes upon the result of the debate, and the motion was with- 
 drawn upon his recommendation. With reference to the general 
 subject, Mr. Hunt said tbat wherever he went it was not 
 imperial, but local taxation that was complained of. This may 
 have been the case, but does not prove that the latter was more 
 
AND LOCAL TAXATION. 45 
 
 burdensome ihan the former, or that it is more unequal in its 
 incidence. The simple facts are, that imperial taxation is mainly 
 levied by a system which deceives and hoodwinks the taxpayer, 
 while the payment of local rates is open and apparent, especially 
 in the metropolis, where the demand-note details each • item and 
 the rate in the £ for each. 
 
 Early in the Session of 1870, Mr. Goschen moved, on behalf of 
 the Government, for a Select Committee, to enquire whether it 
 was expedient to divide local charges, as already is the case in 
 Scotland, between owners and occupiers, and what changes 
 in the constitution of local bodies should follow such division. 
 The appointment of the Committee was opposed by Sir Massey 
 Lopes, on the ground that it would divert the House from the 
 real question, and was calculated to disturb the good feeliug 
 existing between owners and occupiers of land. He also declared, 
 ignoring the fact that owners of income from personal property 
 pay rates, that, until the principle of taxing income arising from 
 personal property for local burdens was conceded, he would never 
 consent to further impositions upon the rates for any object what- 
 ever, and moved an amendment postponing the appointment of 
 the Select Committee until the Government measure, promised 
 last Session, was announced. In reply, Mr. Gladstone said he 
 could not accede to the amendment on the ground that tbe 
 Government were taking the question in its natural order. He 
 then added the warning tbat, if personal property was to be 
 assessed to local burdens, it was impossible to continue the 
 exemptions, now enjoyed by real property, in respect to imperial 
 taxation. 
 
 The Committee was appointed ; it examined many witnesses, 
 and in its report, recommended that owners should be made 
 directly liable for a certain proportion of the rates, and should in 
 consequence be directly represented in the local bodies whicli 
 administered them. It also urged the importance of securing 
 uniformity and simplicity of assessment and collection as well as ' 
 economy of management, and recommended the consolidation of 
 all local rates, collected within the same area into one rate ; and 
 concluded by expressing the opinion of the Committee that other 
 considerations, besides those submitted to their investigation, 
 should be taken into account in any general measure, giving 
 effect to these recommendations. 
 
 In the following session Sir Massey Lopes brought forward a 
 resolution (February 28, 1871) that it was the duty of tho 
 Government forthwith to inquire into the incidence of imperial 
 as well as local taxation, and to take such steps as would insure that 
 every description of property should equitably contribute to all 
 
46 THE GLADSTOISE GOVERNMENT 
 
 national burdens. Tho previous question was moved by Mf. 
 Goschen on the ground that the Governraent had prepared a bill 
 which would be introduced upon the first favourable opportunity, 
 and that they had collected full information which would bo laid 
 before Parliament. After a long debate there was a division, in 
 which Sir Massey Lopes was defeated by a majority of 46 in a 
 House of 436 members. The promise of the Government was 
 fulfilled on the 3rd of April, when Mr. Goschen introduced tho 
 Kating and Local Government Bill, and prefaced his statement 
 by an admirable description of the existing condition of local 
 administration, which ho correctly described as " a chaos 
 as regards authorities, a chaos as regards rates, and a 
 worse chaos than all as regards areas.'^ The magnitude of the 
 subject was shown in the fact that in England and Wales 
 £16,500,000 was raised by local rates, and, including indirect 
 local taxation, Government subventions, sales and rents of pro- 
 perty, loans, and other receipts, the amount administered by local 
 bodies was £30^000,000 ; including England, Scotland, and 
 Ireland, it reached £36,000,000. These funds were under the 
 management and control of twenty different local authorities, 
 some of which, however, were maritime authorities, having 
 control of harbours, &c. The number of local bodies representa- 
 tive of ratepayers was sixteen, elected upon different principles, 
 proceeding in an entirely different manner, and standing in very 
 little relation to one- another. It is obvious from these facts 
 that a preliminary to any effective measure dealing with local 
 taxation must be a reform of local Government, and this was one 
 of the main objects of the bill introduced by Mr. Goschen. The 
 Government acted upon the sound principle that no mere transfer 
 of local burdens would afford actual relief to the ratepayer, so long 
 as the existing chaos of administration, with all its follies and 
 extravagances, was allowed to cumber the ground. It therefore 
 proposed to deal with the question in a thorough and compre- 
 hensive manner. 
 
 The chief features of the Government bill were the consolida- 
 tion of all existing local rates into one rate, to be collected by a 
 paid official, the receipt shewing the amount required for each 
 separate purpose. Along with this important reform it was also 
 proposed to have one consolidated audit of all local government 
 accounts, a measure conducing to eiiiciency and preventing the 
 possibility of sums struck out of one account being included in 
 another. One of the most difficult questions to be dealt with 
 was the selection of the area best adapted to form the basis of an 
 improved system of local administration ; an investigation of the 
 various areas already existing led to the adoption of the parish as the 
 
AND LOCAL TAXATION. 47 
 
 one most readily available. In each parish a local board was to be 
 elected, with a chairman at its head, who would be the medium of 
 communication with the central authorities in London. The duties 
 of these boards were to be purely executive, the powers of the 
 vestry of the whole parish being maintained so far as the adop- 
 tion of permissive Acts of Parliament was concerned. Another 
 important proposal, that would have been productive of consider- 
 able economy, was the election of all parish officers upon one day, 
 at one election, the voting to be by ballot. It is self-evident 
 that this would have been a very great improvement upon the 
 the existing methods. The establishment of county financial 
 boards, a measure long urged upon Parliament by radical 
 reformers, and among others by that veteran economist Mr. 
 Joseph Hume, formed another of the provisions of this bill. 
 Upon these boards elected representatives of the ratepayers were 
 to act along with an equal number of representatives elected by 
 the justices, thus securing the joint action of occupiers and 
 owners. One important question of administration remained, 
 the constitution of areas and of authorities for sanitary purposes. 
 Although the parish was considered the most suitable area for 
 general administration, there appeared to be special reasons for 
 making an exception in this instance. Sanitary requirements 
 were mainly deficient in the suburbs of towns and in rural districts. 
 For many years corporations and local boards, in some places 
 under special acts, and in others under the general sanitary laws, 
 had accomplished much valuable work. In the districts requiring 
 the greatest attention the parish appeared to be inadequate as an 
 area, and it was therefore proposed to adopt the Poor Law Union, 
 and to make the Board of Guardians the Sanitary Authority. 
 
 Such were the proposals of this important and comprehensive 
 measure, with respect to the constitution of the local bodies to 
 whom the administration of the various measures specially affecting 
 localities wore to be entrusted. It cannot be denied that it was 
 a statesmanlike attempt to educe order out of the existing chaos 
 and conflict of authorities, to diminish waste and extravagance, 
 and to promote efficiency and economy in the conduct of that 
 local government, which men of all parties uphold as the security 
 for the liberties of a free people. In order to complete the 
 administrative portion of the measure and to provide for the more 
 harmonious working of the department of the Imperial Govern- 
 ment charged with the supervision of local afl'airs, it was further 
 proposed to concentrate in one central department of the Govern- 
 ment all the functions in connection with local government 
 previously dealt with by the Home Office, the Poor Law Board, 
 and the Privy Council ThU vdiorm was subsequently carried 
 
 !^tSEUP/?. 
 
48 THE GLADSTONE GOVERNMEKT 
 
 out in the same session by the Bill constituting the Local 
 Government Board, of which Mr. James Stansfeld was the first 
 President. 
 
 The administrative proposals of the Government having been 
 explained, Mr. Goschen addressed himself to the question, which 
 had been productive of so much controversy, and had been so 
 persistently brought forward by the representatives of the landed 
 interest, the relief of local taxation. The simple and easy 
 expedient of throwing an increased charge upon the Con- 
 solidated Fund met with no favour from the administration 
 of Mr. Gladstone. The objections to such a course are 
 numerous and weighty, both on the ground of its dis- 
 turbance of the incidence of taxation as affecting property 
 and labour, and in respect to the incentive to local extravagance 
 that would be its inevitable result. In dealing with this branch 
 of the measure the claims of localities containing Government 
 establishments were first considered, and it was proposed to remove 
 a long standing grievance by abolishing the exemptions from local 
 rating hitherto enjoyed by such property. Next it was proposed 
 to extend the area of rateable property by including metalliferous 
 mines, timber, rights of way, canals, and game ; property which, 
 under the existing system of local rating, was fairly liable, but 
 had hitherto escaped taxation. In this course of action the 
 Government proceeded upon the wise plan of reforming within the 
 limits of the existing system before proceeding to extend liability. 
 A reform of local taxation conducted upon this principle may be 
 objectionable to those who seek an unfair advantage at the 
 expense of the rest of the community, but it is one the wisdom of 
 which will be fully admitted, the more thoroughly the prin- 
 ciples upon which taxation should be based are understood. 
 Having dealt with the question of Government property and 
 exemptions from rating, Mr, Goschen next proceeded to consider 
 the incidence of local rates. He called attention to the fact that 
 improvements in large towns, which during the last ten years had 
 been very numerous and costly, although mainly beneficial to the 
 owners, had been made exclusively at the cost of the occupiers, 
 without the owners contributing a single shilling towards the 
 expense. This he described as manifestly unjust, and therefore 
 proposed that the plan, already in existence in Scotland and 
 Ireland, should bo adopted in England, and the rates should be 
 divided between owners and occupiers, due provision being made 
 for existing contracts and for the representation of owners upon 
 local governing bodies. This proposal had been already recom- 
 mended by two Select Committees of tjie House of Commons, but 
 did not meet with much favour from the House itself, composed 
 
A^-D LOCAL TAXATION 49 
 
 as it is mainly of owners of property, who felt instinctively that it 
 would operate in a manner directly the reverse of tbe plan 
 for which they had been so clamorous. They were as little pre- 
 pared to do justice to the general body of taxpayers, in 
 this respect, as they ha^l previously shown themselves to be with 
 regard to the repeal of the Corn Laws. One question remained, 
 the relief to be afforded by the Government in aid of local taxa- 
 tion. Mr. Goschen examined the various proposals that had, at 
 different times, been made to secure an adjustment of local 
 burdens. The fair assessment of a tax on personal property had 
 been proved to be impracticable both here and in the United States, 
 although in the latter country its legal existence had always been 
 maintained, along with the corresponding tax on real estate ; a 
 local income tax was equally impossible, as it would be a matter 
 of insuperable difficulty to apportion income to locality ; and, 
 lastly, the Government could not encourage the extension of 
 grants from the Consolidated Fund on account of the impetus 
 they would give to waste and extravagance. These plans being 
 rejected, they offered to meet the difficulty by the surrender 
 of the house tax to the local authorities. 
 
 Such were the leading features of the bill introduced by Mr. 
 Goschen for the reform of local government and taxation. Al- 
 though it did not realise the wishes of the protectionist party, 
 who had been clanaorous for relief from the Consolidated Fund 
 on the ground of the imaginary losses they had sustained from 
 the adoption of Free Trade, it aimed at the settlement of the 
 question by introducing an administrative reform, not inferior to 
 that which formed the basis of the new poor law. The con- 
 solidation of local government would have tended towards 
 economy, and the apportionment of rates between owners and 
 occupiers would have been a real relief to existing ratepayers, 
 and would have rendered property directly liable for a contribution 
 towards additions to the rates, incurred to a very large extent for 
 the permanent advantage of its owners. The weak point of the 
 scheme was the proposed surrender uf the house tax, which ought 
 rather to be made available for a further reform of the present 
 costly and wasteful system of imperial taxation. The measure 
 was not destined to pass beyund its initial stage, being with- 
 drawn shortly after the lir.st jeading, in consequence of the pressure 
 of more urgent business. The army regulation and the ballot bills 
 claimed precedence. 
 
 In the Session of 1872, Sir Massoy Lopes changed his ground 
 and proposed a resolution in favour of transferring certain 
 charges, cither wholly or in part, to the Consolidated Fund. This 
 proposal was seconded by Col. Amcotts, usually a supporter of 
 
50 THE GLADSTONE GOVERNMENT 
 
 the ministry, and was met by an amendment, moved by Sir 
 Thomas Acland, in favour of a division of rates between owners 
 and occupiers. The debate was mainly characterised by a repe- 
 tition, on the part of the supporters of the motion, of the fallacies 
 which had long formed the burden of their complaints against 
 the incidence of local taxation. The result, it will be remem- 
 bered, was a majority of 100 against the Government, a majority 
 composed of the Conservative part)'', some Whig landlords, and 
 a few representatives of large towns, who appeared to think that 
 a pull at the Consolidated Fund would be advantageous to their 
 constituents. The victory of the landowners was described by 
 the Tmes ixs ''suicidal,'*' and there can be no doubt that the 
 transfer of burdens contemplated by the majority will open up 
 questions that they would be well content to leave in abeyance. 
 The Government were pressed by the victorious leader of the 
 allied forces in this raid upon the Treasury to take immediate 
 action to carry out the objects of the resolution, but wisely 
 declined to do so, until they saw an opportunity of dealing with 
 all the questions that were raised by the motion. The introduc- 
 tion of any further measure upon local taxation was therefore 
 deferred till the following session. 
 
 In 1873, three measures were introduced by Mr. Stansfeld ; 
 the rating (liability and value) bill, which proposed the repeal of 
 certain existing exemptions, so as to enlarge the area of rateable 
 property ; the Valuation of Property Bill, for the purpose of 
 making uniform, for both rating and taxation, the valuation of 
 property over the same areas ; and the Consolidated Eate Bill, 
 for the purpose of simplifying the collection of rates by their con- 
 solidation into one rate. Mr. Stansfeld, admitted that in these 
 bills he only touched the fringe of the question, and that the 
 measures then introduced merely dealt with the practical reform 
 of the existing system of local taxation. Upon a future evening 
 he would ask for the appointment of a select committee to 
 enquire into parish, union, and county boundaries, for the pur- 
 pose of preparing the way for the greater and more difficult 
 branch of the question — the subject of local government itself. 
 The three measures now introduced were, in fact, portions of 
 the larger scheme proposed in 1871 by Mr. Goschen. Since 
 that year the Government had arrived at the conclusion 
 that it was more in accordance with the wishes of the 
 Eouse that they should proceed, in a cautious manner, 
 in their treatment of the great and complicated questions 
 that had been raised by the discussions of the last few years. 
 They had therefore resolved upon the present method of proce* 
 dure, although it might not be so logical and complete as the one 
 
AND LOCAL TAXAllOX. 51 
 
 they had previously adopted. It was not to be expected that 
 this course would saUsi'y Sir Massey Lopes aud his followers; 
 what they required was a subvention in relief of real property, 
 reform of local taxation being with them a secondary considera- 
 tion. They protested strongly agair.st the line of action proposed 
 by Mr. Stansfeld, and alleged that, instead of affordiui? relief, it 
 would intensify their grievance. The intrinsic merits of the three 
 measures were, however, so evident, that thoy were accepted in 
 principle with general concurrence, although the details of the 
 Eating Bill were contested clnuse by clause during the six nights 
 that it was in Committee. It was finally passed by the Commons 
 on the 21st July, but rejected by the Lords, on the ground that 
 it was sent up to their House at too hite a period of the Session 
 to ensure its full consideration. The other two bills were with- 
 drawn in the Commons, so that the labours of the Session, so 
 far as these measures were concerned, ended in no practical 
 result. The Select Committee on boundaries was appointed on the 
 12th of May, and, after examing a number of witnesses, made its 
 report on the 17th July. It recommended that the following powers 
 should be conferred upon the Local Government Board : — To annex 
 detatched parts of parishes to some adjoining parish or parishes, 
 or to constitute any such detached part into a separate parish ; to 
 unite parishes having less than 100 population with adjoining 
 parishes, for civil purposes ; when parishes overlap county bound- 
 aries, to include the whole or part of any such parish in one of 
 the counties in which it is situate, either on the application or 
 with the consent of the Quarter Sessions of the counties in which 
 such parish is situate; to divide parishes partly within and partly 
 without urban sanitary districts into separate parishes, or to 
 annex them to other parishes within the same sanitary area, and 
 to make similar divisions in the formation of new urban districts; 
 to annex detached parts of counties to the counties by which each 
 such part is surrounded. These recommendations were to be 
 carried into effect by provisional orders to be confirmed by 
 Parliament. It was also recommended that the Local Govern- 
 ment Board should have power to dissolve Unions for the purpose 
 of forming more convenient areas of administration, and the 
 concluding paragraph of the report confined the whole of its 
 recommendations to England and Wales. 
 
 Thanks to the action of the House of Lords, in throwing out 
 the Rating Bill of 1873, the work of the Parliament of 1868 
 with respect to local taxation was confmcd to the task of venti- 
 lating the question. The various debates brought out very clearly 
 the views of the two political parties. On the one side were the 
 (I'onservatives, reinforced upon this point by some Tiiberal county 
 
 E 2 
 
52 THE GLADSTONE GOVERNMENT 
 
 in embers and a few town representatives ; on the other were the 
 Government and the bulk of the Liberal party. The Con- 
 servative policy was the simple and easy plan of obtaining grants 
 from the Consolidated Fund ; while it was the aim of the 
 Liberal Ministry to reform local government, to widen the basis 
 of rating, to throw a portion of the burden, now wholly borne 
 by occupiers, upon owners, and when this was done to consider 
 what appropriation of general revenue should be bestowed in 
 relief of local burdens. There can be no question which of the 
 two policies was the most statesmanlike and beneficial. The 
 real grievance, with respect to the pressure of local burdens, is 
 not on the part of owners, but on the part of occupiers of 
 rateable property ; the cost of every improvement is thrown upon 
 the latter, although a very large portion of modern local outlay 
 is for purposes directly beneficial to owners of propertj^ It is, 
 moreover, the occupiers exclusively who bear the pressure 
 of any increase of the existing rates ; they are paid out of the 
 income of the community and are altogether outside of the rent 
 received by the owners of real property. Two select committees 
 of the House of Commons have reported in favour of dividing 
 the payment of rates between owners and occupiers. It is well 
 known that large revenues are received by owners of the free- 
 holds upon which cities and towns are built, but out of these 
 revenues nothing is contributed towards local rates ; the vast 
 incomes of these fortunate lauded proprietors have been created 
 entirely by the industry and enterprise of the community ; as 
 commerce has expanded building sites have become more and 
 more valuable, and the owners of the soil have received vast 
 additions to their income for conceding the privilege of erecting 
 houses and places of business upon their property. The right to 
 exist upon the soil, which was created by the Almighty for the 
 use of man, has been made the occasion of exacting tribute by 
 a class which has done nothing to render their property available 
 for the purposes which have rendered it so valuable a source of 
 revenue. Landowners have also received large sums from 
 railway and other public companies, as compensation for 
 compulsory sales of portions of their property, for purposes 
 which have largely increased the value of the remainder, they 
 have drawn a considerable revenue for the privilege of working 
 minerals under the surface of their estates, and it is shown by the 
 Income-tax returns of Schedule B that their rental of land for 
 agricultural purposes, despite the quantity withdrawn for building 
 sites and converted into market gardens, the profits of which are 
 assessed under Schedule D, shows an increase since 1855 of close 
 upon £10,000^000. The attempt, under such circumstances, to 
 
AND LOCAL TAXATION. 53 
 
 relieve property from any portion of its burdens, at the expense 
 of industry, opens up a very wide question which will not be dis- 
 posed of by a successful raid upon the Consolidated Fund. The 
 right to levy a special tax upon the unearned increment of rent 
 is a doctrine of political economy of which the last has not been 
 heard ; nothinjj; will have a greater tendency to make this doctrine 
 popular than the success of tho policy in respect to local taxation 
 which, during tho last Parliament, was advocated by the Cou' 
 servative party. That policy is based upon the • erroneous 
 assumption that real property bears the entire weight of local 
 taxation, and that incomes of every other kind contribute nothing 
 towards the relief of the poor or any other local charges. It is 
 hardly credible that such a statement shuuld have been made the 
 basis of a demand for a readjustment of local burdens in the 
 interest of the landowners; it is still less credible that if. should 
 have been repeated year by year, notwithstanding its complete 
 and frequent refutation. Such, however, was the case under the 
 leadership of Sir Massey .Lopes, now conveniently located at the 
 Admiralt3% and under the patronage of Mr. Disraeli and his 
 immediate political friends. At some future period it will, no 
 doubt, be matter for astonishment that it was possible to found a 
 serious argument upon so flimsy and transparent a delusion, and 
 that a majority in the first Parliament elected under an extended 
 suffrage should have endorsed a proposal, which would have the 
 effect of relieving a privileged class, already bearing an insuffi- 
 cient proportion of the public burdens, at the expense of the 
 remainder of the community. 
 
PARLIAMENTAEY FALLACIES, 
 
 Extradecl from the Debates upon Local TaxatioUy with a demon- 
 stration of the errors and delusions ivhich have been made the 
 basis of a claim on behalf of the landed interest for a further 
 modicum of out-door relief at thr expense of the National 
 Exchequer. 
 
 DEBATE ON SIE MASSEY LOPES' MOTIOiV, 
 
 Feb, 28, 1871. 
 
 " That inasmuch as many of the existing and contempLated charges 
 " on the Local Eates are for national purposes, and that it is 
 " neither just nor politic that such charges should he levied 
 " exclusively from one description of property (viz. — houses 
 " and land), this House is of opinion that it is the duty of the 
 *' Government to inquire forthwith into the incidence of impe- 
 '• rial as well as local taxation, and take such steps as shall 
 " insure that every description of property shall equitably con- 
 *' tribute to all national burdens." 
 
 w 
 
 Sir Massey Lopes. 
 
 E thought he might most forcibly illustrate the mag- 
 nitude and importance of that subject by comparing 
 '• the different amounts of wealth levied and expended 
 " in one year by the imperial and the local taxation. He 
 '* might be allowed to preface that comparison by reminding 
 " the House that the total estimated annual income of England 
 " and Wales at the present time, amounted in round numbers 
 " to £700,000,000 ; that £300,000,000 of that amount was 
 " assessed to the income-tax ; that £100,000,000 was the 
 *' amount of the rateable value of the real property in this 
 " country ; and that that £100,000,000 bore the whole 
 " weight of our local taxation. In other words, £6 
 " out of every £7 of the annual aggregate income of the 
 " country escaped local burdens, and contributed nothing 
 " towards the relief of the poor, and the various other national 
 " burdens." 
 
 In order that an illustration of the subject may be forcible it 
 must be accurate ; it is necessary therefore to test Sir Massey 
 Lopes' statements, and ascertain bow far they arQ ba^ed upon 
 
6Q PARLIAME>"|AHy FAIJ-ACIES. 
 
 facts. He argues that the whole weight of local taxation is borne 
 by one-seventh of the annual income, because the assessment of 
 local rates is based upon rental^ a most remarkable example of 
 the confusion of ideas which pervades the speeches and writings 
 of the school of taxation reformers to which Sir Massey Lopes 
 belongs. It is one thing to assess local rates upon rental ; it is a 
 very different thing to place the burden upon the rental received 
 by the owners of real property. If one-seventh of the income of 
 the country bears the whole weight of local taxation, and the 
 remaining six-sevenths contribute nothing, it follows that the 
 one-seventh is reduced before it reaches its owners by tbe whole 
 amount of the local rates. 
 
 *' He thought he might say witliout exaggeration that the amount 
 " raised by local taxation in England and Wales was, in round 
 " figures, £20,000,000. He could vouch for the correctness 
 " of that statement. Well, if so, one-seventh of the annual 
 " income of En.cjland and Wales discharged all the obligations 
 *' of local taxation — one-third only of that which paid income- 
 •* tax ; but 82 per cent, of the annual aggregate income value 
 *' of the country was exempt altogether from local taxation." 
 
 If the £100,000,000 rental bears the whole weight of local 
 taxation, it must be reduced thereby to the sum of £80,000,000, 
 and that this is the argument is evident from the assertion that 
 other income is exempt altogether from local taxation. The 
 mere statement of the case is sufficient for its refutation. Rates 
 are paid by the occupier, without power, excepting in some few 
 cases and to a limited amount, of recovery from the owner. They 
 are chiefly paid out of the 82 per cent, of income, which it is 
 alleged is altogether exenipt. 
 
 ** in other words, one-fifth of the total annual income of real property 
 " was paid every year in local hurdens, or every five years they 
 *' paid in local burdens the whole amount of the aggregate 
 " income of real property, and exactly one- eighth of its value 
 " in poor rate assessment alone." 
 
 What then? Nearly one-half the total value of the corn 
 imported in 1871, thrice the value of the coals exported in 1871, 
 and one-third the value of the cotton manufactures exported in 
 1871, and four-fifths of the net traffic receipts of the railways in 
 1871, were paid in that year in local burdens, and these facts 
 have as much bearing upon the incidence of local taxation as the 
 one adducea by Sir Massey Lopes. The assertion that one-fifth 
 
sill MASSKY i.orKs. 57 
 
 the total income of real property is paid in local rates is only 
 calculated to mislead, and might be skilfully framed for that 
 purpose. 
 
 " If his statements were correct — and he challenged the right hon. 
 " gentleman to prove thoy were not — then the exceptional 
 ** exactions to which the owners of real property were subjected 
 " were monstrous, intolerable, and almost incredible." 
 
 The statements are not correct in any respect. The 
 £100,000,000 assessed does not bear the whole burden of local 
 taxation, which is paid from a fund outside the assessment. In 
 the case of land, the payment, so far as the burden is of long 
 standing, is a deduction from rent that would otherw^ise have 
 been received, not from rent actually paid. In the case of houses 
 it is, "according to the opinion of political economists, from Adam 
 Smith downwaids, a payment made by the occupier which he 
 does not recover from the landlord. It is not ** almost," but 
 altogether incredible that anyone should be misled by fallacies so 
 transparent. It would be as accurate to assert that customs 
 duties were paid exclusively by the importers of taxed commo- 
 dities, and that the remainder of the community contributed 
 nothing towards the revenue derived from these impost?. 
 
 *' The poor, the labouring classes, had no reason to complain of our 
 '• impeinal taxation, but the dissatisfaction and discontent with 
 " regard to local taxation were keenly felt. More than that, 
 " in proportion to their means the poorer classes had to bear a 
 *' vastly larger share of our local burdens than the more opulent 
 " classes." 
 
 The poor have reason to complain of imperial taxation, which 
 presses upon them wdth great severity. Why, moreover, should 
 they be dissatisfied and discontented with local taxation, if its 
 whole weight falls upon the income of the owners of real 
 property ? According to a previous statement, all other income, 
 including of course wages, contributes nothing towards local 
 taxation ; now we are told that the poor boar a vastly larger share 
 of local burdens than the more opulent classes. Which state- 
 ment are we to believe ? One refutes the other, and the alleged 
 grievance of the landowners is disposed of by bir Massey Lopes 
 himself. 
 
68 PAPiLIAMEXTAUY FAT.LACIES. 
 
 '• Certain privileges that bad formerly been conferred on the owners 
 " of real property, in consideration of the exceptional burdens 
 " they were called on to bear, had been removed, and there 
 " had been imposed on them a multitude of new and excep- 
 " tional burdens, for which they had received no corresponding 
 '' or compensating advantages." 
 
 Again an expression of regret for the loss of protection, though 
 not so plain and outspoken as in 1868. A strange privilege, 
 indeed, was that of starving the people, increasing the lates, 
 and depreciating the value of every kind of property ! The new 
 and exceptional burdens referred to have been imposed upon 
 occupiers and not upon owners. In the towns they remain there, 
 and in the case of land the burden is only shifted as tenancies 
 fall in, and rents are adjusted. It is not owners but occupiers 
 that have occasion to complain. 
 
 " Since 1840 Parliament had annually passed an Exemption Act, 
 '' and what was its object? To exempt personal property from 
 ^'"the payment of what was legally due from it ; but they had 
 *' actually placed the burden thus withdrawn from personal 
 " property as an additional load on real property." 
 
 Here is a charming piece of mystification, the simple fact 
 being that no burden whatever was withdrawn from personal 
 property by the Acts of 1840 and subsequent years. By the Act 
 of Elizabeth the profits of stock in trade and other personal 
 property were to be assessed to the poor rate. It was, however, 
 found impracticable at a very early period, and, by tacit consent, 
 the assessment was confined to real property. A case having 
 been brought before the courts of law it was decided that stock 
 in trade was liable^ but its assessment being impracticable the 
 statute to which reference is made \^ as passed. It made no 
 transfer whatever of any burden from personal to real property, 
 and merely confirmed a practice that had existed from the very 
 earliest days of the poor law. ]N"o additional load was placed 
 on real property by this transaction. 
 
 " KSince 1846, when ihe repeal of the Corn Laws was carried, 
 *' j£5 1,000,000 of imperial taxation had been remitted, while 
 *' £31,000,000 had been imposed, leaving a balance of 
 " £20,000,000 on the side of remission." 
 
 Certain taxes have been repealed and reduced while others 
 have been increased, but there has not been any remission in the 
 total taxation levied. On the contrary, in 1846-7 the gross 
 
SlU MASSEY LOPES. 59 
 
 revenue was £58,300,000; in 1871-2 it was £74,700,000, an 
 increase of £16,400,000. The remissions of special taxes that 
 have taken place, although highly heneficial to every class, 
 including landowners, have practically resulted, so far as taxation 
 itself is concerned, in something analagous to the well known 
 trick of " ringing the changes," the chief burden remains where 
 it was, upon the shoulders of labour. 
 
 ** Well, what relief had been given to local taxation] Not a single 
 " iota. On the contrary, while all other interests had liad 
 ** remission, real property had been actually burdened in reverse 
 '' proportion to theii- remissions. Ho was doubtful wli ether 
 " Sir Eobert Peel had not remitted a small portion of their 
 '' prosecution expenses since that time ; but lie challenged the 
 " right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen) to name any- 
 *' thing else." 
 
 The hon. baronet's memory was somewhat at fault. "When 
 the Corn Laws were repealed Sir Eobert Peel proposed, as com- 
 pensation to the landowners, to consolidate the management of the 
 highways ; to improve the law of settlement ; to advance money 
 at low interest for agricultural improvements; to throw the main- 
 tenance of prisoners lu county gaols, part of the cost of prosecu- 
 tions, the whole cost of the Irish police, the charge for salaries 
 of schoolmasters in unions, and half the charges for medical 
 relief upon the Treasury. In the year 1870-71 the total con- 
 tributed by the Treasury towards local expenditure was above 
 £2,000,000. 
 
 " Parliament was victimising one class for the benefit of the com- 
 " munity, and imposing national obligations and responsibilities 
 *' exclusively on one description of property." 
 
 It has been already shewn that there is no foundatiou for this 
 assertion ; every class of the community contributes to local 
 taxation. The country is divided into three classes — owners, 
 occupiers, and lodgers. The burden of new and increased rates 
 falls upon occupiers and lodgers, the former paying directly in 
 their rates, and the latter indirectly in the increase of their rent, 
 beyond tlie amount it would stand at if there v/ere no rates. It 
 may be a qut-stion whether any of these classes, and which, pays 
 more than its share, but there is none as to the fact that all 
 three contribute to local burdens. 
 
60 PAKLTA-MEXTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 " Fates were encroacliing things ; they were adhesive ; they stu ik ; 
 " they had a tendency to crystallise and become separate pro- 
 '' perty ; they became rent charges in perpetuity." 
 
 Taxes are equally encroaching and equally adhesive, and 
 when indirect are far more pernicious, being secret in their 
 operation, and, according to the opinion of the late Lord Derby, 
 the great aids and abettors of a war policy. The tendency of 
 rates to become rent charges removes all ground of complaint so 
 far as such burdens are of long standing. This has been clearly 
 shown by Mr. J. S. Mill, but is denied by Mr. Dudley Baxter. 
 Sir Mass.\y Lopes, however, appears to agree with Mr. Mill as to 
 the fact that rates do become rent charges, although it does not 
 seem to remove any portion of his grievance. 
 
 '^ He would now analyze and cldssify this large sum of £20,000,000 
 ^' (local taxation), and, fertile sake of perspicuitv, divide it into 
 « parts, viz., £11,800,000, or, in round numbers, £12,000,000, 
 '' raised for imperial purposes, and £8,000,000 for local pur- 
 *' poses. The distinction was essential, because, in the first 
 " place, the £12,000,000 were raised for the benefit of the 
 " whole community, but the £8,000,000 was raised for the 
 • " benefit only of those who paid them, and who resided in the 
 '' locality where they were raised. In the next place, the 
 " object of the £12,000,000 was universal ; the levy direct and 
 /'compulsory: and, in the third j^lace, it was made absolute 
 " and arbitrary by Parliament. But the purpose of the 
 " £8,000,000 was local, the object limited, the levy voluntary ; 
 " it was indirect, and, what was of more importance, it was 
 " controlled by local decision. He did not conceive tha"; the 
 " owners of real property had any claim on the Imperial 
 '• Exchequer for the £8,000,000, and, therefore, he should not 
 " further allude to it; his observations would only refer to the 
 *• £12,000,000, the amount levied for national purposes." 
 
 Here, then, Sir Massey Lopes disposes of two-fifths of his 
 previous grievance at one blow. It is now only £12,000,000 of 
 which he complains, not £20,000,000. There is one reason 
 given for his dislike of the £12,000,000 and his affection for the 
 £8,000,000 that is worthy of notice-— the former is direct, the 
 latter indirect. The statement is not quite accurate, for only 
 £3,000,000 of the^ £20,000,000, according to the statistical 
 abstract, is levied indirectly. The animus is, how^ever, clearly 
 bhown. Where local taxation is indirect it is to be maintained ; 
 where it is direct, it is to be transferred to the imperial revenue 
 — an attempt on a small scale to perpetrate another fraud upon 
 
sill MASSEY LOriiS. 
 
 61 
 
 the people like that of the Convention Parliament of Charles the 
 Second, when feudal tenures were abolished, and the landowners 
 transferred obligations — upon the fulfilment of which the tenure 
 of their estates had previously depended — to the general com- 
 munity in the shape of duties of excise. Before any further 
 local charges aie transferred to the IsTational Exchequer, the 
 incidence of taxation, both imperial and local, requires careful 
 investigation. A complete inquiry Avill demonstrate that owners 
 of property have no legitimate ground of complaint. 
 
 ** He had deemed it to be his duty to analyse the expenditure, of 
 " £12,000,000, and he would endeavour to particularise it 
 " under three heads. Ihere was, in the lirst pl'ace, £7,500,000 
 " of the amount levied under the poor rate assessment 
 " expended solely for the use of the poor ; secondly, there was 
 '' £1,000,000 levied under the poor rate assessment, but 
 " expended for purposes unconnected with the support of the 
 " poor; while there was, lastly, £3,300,000 annually collected 
 *' by means of the county rate, and which was likewise ex- 
 " pended for purposes unconnected with the poor." 
 
 The removal of these charges from local to imperial revenue 
 would be a fruitful source of extravagance and waste. A general 
 scramble would ensue among the local authorities of different 
 districts as to which of them should have the best pull at the 
 public purse ; and an army of Government officials would be 
 requisite, which would vastly increase expense, would encroach 
 upon the p^-actice of local self-government, and would eventually 
 lead to its destruction. The privilege of local administration 
 cannot be divorced from the responsibility of providing the funds 
 necessary for its maintenance. This is fully admitted, as respects 
 the poor law, by Mr. Corrance in the draft report he submitted 
 to the Local Taxation Committee of 1870. It is equally true in 
 regard to the other items of expenditure referred to by Sir Massey 
 Lopes. 
 
 ** Of late years we had become more humane and charitublo in 
 '•' administering the old law of Elizabeth. 'We sympathised 
 " more with the privations and necessities of our fellow- 
 "men ; and rejoicing at this change, he was willing and 
 " anxious to pay his fair quota towards it. But what right had 
 " the owners and representatives of personal property in this 
 *' House to take any credit for this improvement 1 What 
 *' sacrifices had they made to obtain it ? They had been phi- 
 *' lanthropic and generous at the expense of the owners of 
 
62 ^PARLIAMENTARY fALLAClI':?. 
 
 " real property. Justice ought to precede generosity. They 
 " had not contributed one fraction towards the improvement 
 *' effected in the administration of the Poor Law." 
 
 Here we have the broad and sweeping assertion that the in- 
 creased Poor Law expenditure has been provided for by owners of 
 real property exclusively, whereas the whole of it has been paid by 
 occupiers, either directly, or, when paid by owners, as in the case 
 of small tenements, recovered by an increase in the rental. It 
 is only when leases fall in and tenancies expire, that any portion 
 of this increase can possibly fall upon owners, and w^hen it is 
 considered that land in this country is a huge monopoly, it is by 
 no means clear that the tenant is, even then, able to throw the 
 whole increase upon the landlord. Will Sir Massey Lopes 
 adduce an instance, in recent years, where a diminished rent has 
 been received, upon a new tenancy, in consequence of the increase 
 of local burdens ? The whole poor rate, less that levied in the 
 towns, is a rate in aid of wages in the rural dis-tricts. The 
 extravagant statement at the close of this extract can only be 
 described as a piece of heedless rhetoric, unsupported by " one 
 fraction " of evidence, and quite opposed to facts, which are com- 
 pletely antagonistic to Sir Massey Lopes. Perhaps he thinks 
 with the oft-quoted Frenchman, *' so much the worse for the 
 facts," The answer is the same in the case of other additions to 
 local taxation ; they fall upon occupiers, not upon owners — upon 
 the millions, not upon the thousands of the population. 
 
 " There were more offences against personal property than real, and 
 " that was a reason why personal property should pay its 
 '* proportion of the expense." 
 
 Possessors of personal property live in houses and occupy other 
 buildings, for which they are rated, and in that way contribute 
 towards the expense of the police and administration of justice. 
 Local rates are, as respects houses, a house-tax, an impost which 
 Mr. McCulloch describes as " among the least exceptionable that 
 can be devised.'^ Adam Smith says, " a tax upon the rent of 
 houses, so far as it falls upon the inhabitants^ must be drawn 
 from the same source as the rent itself, and must be paid from 
 their revenue, whether derived from the wages of labour, the 
 profits of stock, or the rent of land." Mr. John Stuart Mill says, 
 " A house tax, if justly proportioned to the value of the house, is 
 one of the fairest and most unobjectionable of all taxes. No part 
 of a person's expenditure is a better criterion of his means, or 
 bears, on the whole, more nearly the same proportion to them." 
 
SIR maSsey lopes. t'3 
 
 Upon the question of taxing personal property for local purposes, 
 the report of the Commissioners appointed to revise the laws for 
 the assessment and collection of taxes in the State of New York, 
 after a long examination into the modes in which the taxation of 
 personalty was evaded, says, " The lesson of all these examples 
 is, that if we are to have an effective and equitahle system of 
 taxation, the State must not attempt to tax property which from 
 its very nature is intangible, incorporeal, beyond control, and 
 whose situs is a matter about which the laws conflict rather than 
 agree." The Chairman of this Commission was that eminent 
 authority Mr. David A. Wells. If Sir Massey Lopes and his 
 friends have a plan by means of which they can accomplish a 
 task in which so many able financiers have failed, it is most 
 desirable that it should be produced. 
 
 " It was argued that if property was increased the rates ought to 
 ** be increased also ; but he would not admit that land had 
 " increased in value — ( Oh, oh !) — or, at least, though land in 
 *' the immediate neighbourhood of large towns had increased 
 *' in value, the general value of land throughout England had 
 *•' only increased to a very small extent." 
 
 It may be the case that rent of agricultural land has not been 
 increased to any great extent, but this arises from the fact that 
 great landowners have kept down their money rents, looking for 
 compensation to the exercise of that political power which has, 
 for so many centuries, been associated with the possession of 
 land. Tested by actual sales, when offered by auction, the 
 increase in value is very remarkable. The income tax returns 
 show an increase in the assessment of land under schedule A of 
 £7,700,000 for England alone, between 1855 and 1872, and this 
 return is fully corroborated by that of schedule B, making, at 
 thirty years' purchase, an addition to its value of £231,000,000.* 
 Can this be accurately described as an increase " to a very 
 limited extent ?" 
 
 *' It was the smallness of the amount of capital invested in land 
 '- which pie vented the resources of the land from being 
 *' properly developed. Legialation had made it penal to invest 
 '^ capital in laud, because capital avoided heavy exactions and 
 " exceptional imposts, and being a most sensitive and delicate 
 "thing to deal with, it was easily driven abroad." 
 
 It is not the pressure of taxation upon land, but the absence 
 
 * See National Finance, Longmans and Co., p. 196. 
 
 r V ' •'. '"'' '^ 
 
64 I'AKLIAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 of security for capital invested in agriculture that prevents the 
 investment of capital in laud.* It was very justly remarked, 
 in reply to this portion of the hon. baronet's speech., by Mr. W. 
 Fowler, one of the Members for the Borough of Cambridge, that 
 " a still greater discouragement to the application of capital to 
 the land arose from the character of our laws as to land. The 
 plan of tying up land in strict settlement operated as a greater 
 discouragement of that kind than any rates in the world. If a 
 man was only tenant for life, and subject to all the charges the 
 hon. baronet spoke of, how was he to lay out money on the 
 property ? He must have a very large surplus income if, as 
 tenant for life, he was to lay out money on cottages that would 
 not pay ; whereas, if he was an owner in fee simple he could 
 sell part of the estate to improve the rest, or borrow money upon 
 the property. Again, a tenant from year to year had not the 
 inducement he ought to have to expend capital on land ; and 
 the reason why rents were higher in Scotland than in England, 
 for the same qualities of land, was because the Scotch farmers 
 had the security of leases for what they laid out." In the last 
 Parliament Cambridge had two Members, who were authorities 
 upon the land question, but, from the result of the general 
 election, the electors of that constituency seemed to be tired of 
 the distinction. 
 
 Mk. Pell. 
 
 '' As a member of the Local Taxation Committee, he elicited 
 " that in Scotland a tenant may fearlessly, at the com- 
 " mencement of his lease, raise the annual value of the 
 " property by improvements, and, according to the law and 
 " the practice, the assessment would not be raised until the 
 " rent was raised on the termination of the lease. How much 
 " of the improvement of Scotch agriculture was due to this 
 " practice ? He further ascertained that in Ireland the valua- 
 " tion lasted for fourteen years, that recent improvements, 
 " except buildings, were not assessed to the tenant, and that 
 " there were exemptions in favour of draining, agricultural 
 *' buildings, and reclamations, which were not allowed in 
 '* England." 
 
 These facts are no doubt an argument in favour of assimilating 
 the practice of the three countries, and it would be well for 
 English landlords to follow the example of Scotch landlords, and 
 
 * See The Land Question^ by Jokn Macdonnell, Macmillan & Co., pp. 
 161-170, for examples of the injustiee that has been perpetrated under 
 the present state of the law. 
 
MR. PELL AND MR. C. S. READ. 65 
 
 grant leases. They would then place themselves in a position to 
 urge such a modification of the law. 
 
 " Country people felt the pressure of the rates more than towns- 
 " people, for in the towns rates were wrapped up in rent ; and 
 *' when a landlord levied a distress for rent the proceeding 
 *' was all the more obnoxious because rates were substantially 
 " included in the rent for which the seizure was made." 
 
 Again the doctors differ ; representatives of towns hold that 
 their constituents feel the pressure of the rates more severely 
 than those who reside in the country. The wrapping up of rates 
 in rent is only true to a limited extent, and in respect to the 
 houses of weekly tenants. In all other cases the rates are paid 
 direct by the occupier. It is moreover a fallacy that the con- 
 cealment of a burden is any relief, on the contrary it is an aggra- 
 vation, which although unseen is none the less onerous. 
 
 Mr. C. S. Eead. 
 
 " The House had been told that the heavy burdens upon land 
 " were counterbalanced by its exemption from imperial taxes, 
 *' but Mr. Cobden's warning** was uttered when the land had 
 
 * Mr. Cobden's warning, quoted during the debate by Mr. W. Fowler, 
 was as follows : — 
 
 "I warn ministers, and I warn landowners, and tbe aristocracy of this 
 ' ' countrj', against forcing upon the attention of the middle and indus- 
 " trious classes the subject of taxation. For, great as I consider the 
 •' grievance of the protective system — mighty as I consider the fraud 
 *' and injustice of the corn-laws. I verily believe if you were to bring 
 *' forward the history of taxation in this country for the last 150 years, 
 " you will find as black a record against the landowners as even in the 
 " corn-law itself. I warn them against ripping up tbo subject of taxa- 
 *' tion. If they want another league, at the death of this one — if they 
 •' want another organisation and a motive— for you cannot have these 
 " organisations without a motive and principle — then let them force the 
 '* middle and industrious classes to understand how they have been 
 ** cheated, robbed, and bamboozled upon the subject of taxation ; and 
 *' the end will be (now, I predict it for the consolation of Sir Eobert Peel 
 " and his friends), if they force a discussion of this question of taxation 
 " — if they make it understood by the people of this country how the 
 "landowners hero, 150 years ago, deprived the sovereign of his feudal 
 ** rights over them ; how the aristocracy retained their feudal rights over 
 "the minor copyholders; how they made a bargain with the king to 
 " give him 4s. in the pound upon their landed rentals, as a quit charge 
 " for having dispensed with these rights of feudal service from tliem — 
 *^ if the country understand, as well as I think I understand, how after- 
 *' wards this landed uristccracy passed a law to make the valuation of their 
 " rental final, the bargam originally being that they should pay 4s. in 
 
66 PARLIAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 " special privileges and could bear special burdens. Land 
 " escaped, in a measure, legacy and probate duty. But take 
 " the case of two men, aged 21, one of whom was left an 
 " estate valued at £10-,000, from which he derived an income 
 " of X300 a year, and the other £10,000 in cash. The latter 
 *' would pay £100 legacy duty and £200 probate, making 
 " £300 ; while the former would, if his estate were clear, pay 
 " only 50 guineas for succession duty. That might be said to 
 " be a gross case of inequality, leaving £250 to the debit of 
 *' the man who inherited the cash. But assuming that the 
 •* first man paid rates to the moderate amount of 2s. 9d. in the 
 " pound upon his assessment of £300, he would, in 30 years, 
 *' pay £1,200, so that, instead of paying £250 less, he would 
 *' have paid £950 more than the other to whom the cash was 
 " bequeathed." 
 
 The protectionist wail once more ; " the special privileges '* 
 referred to were a fruitful cause of pauperism and of high poor 
 rates. The gross inequality which exists between real and 
 personal property in the assessment of the probate, legacy, and 
 succession duties cannot be justified; neither is it rendered more 
 equitable by the fact that the former is assessed to local rates. 
 They are not paid out of the rental received by the owner ; the 
 £300 a year from the land is the net result, after the rates have 
 been paid by the occupier, and does not itself contribute towards 
 the rates. Real property has been bought, sold, and inherited, 
 subject to these burdens, for many generations, and they have 
 become a rent charge reserved for public purposes, and inflict no 
 hardship upon owners. It is a great delusion to suppose that 
 rates are paid out of rent because it forms the basis of assessment. 
 In some cases local rates are a deduction from rent which the 
 landlord would otherwise receive, but rent m nubibus forms no 
 
 " the pound of the yearly rateable value of their rental, as it was worth 
 " to let for, and then stopped the progress of the rent by a law, making 
 " the valuation final ; that the land has gone on increasing tenfold in 
 " many parts of Scotland and fivefold in many parts of England, while 
 ** the land tax has remained the same as it was 150 years ago ; if they 
 ** force us to understand how they have managed to exempt themselves 
 " from the probate and legacy duty on real property ; how they have 
 " managed, sweet innocents, that taxed themselves so heavily, to transmit 
 " their estates from sire to son without taxes or duties, while the trades- 
 " man, who has accumulated by thrifty means his small modicum of 
 " fortune, is subject at his death to taxes and stamps before his children 
 •* can inherit his property ; if they force us to understand how they have 
 " exempted their tenants' houses from taxes, their tenants' horses from 
 "taxes, their dogs from taxes, their draining tiles from taxes, if they 
 " force these things to be understood, they will be making as rueful a 
 *• bargain as they have already made by resisting the abolition of the 
 " Corn Laws."— Cohdeii's Speeches. Macmillan and Co., Vol. 1, p. 344. 
 
MR. C. S. READ AND MR. LIDDBLL. 67 
 
 portion of the assessment of real property to the succession duty- 
 The £'300 in Mr. Read's example is net rent, after farmers' 
 profits and local rates have been paid ; it cannot, therefore, be 
 said that the £1,200 of local rates levied during 30 years would 
 come out of the income of £9,000 derived from the rental of the 
 estate during that period ; the whole case built up upon this 
 fallacy falls to the ground, and the fact remains that the owner 
 of the real property would pay £250 less than the owner of the 
 cash. 
 
 " But, suppose he improved his estate, and borrowed £2,000 to 
 " improve it with, he would then have to pay 4 per cent, for 
 '' the money, and 2s. 9d. in the pound on the annual value of 
 " these improvements as long as he lived." 
 
 If he improved his estate he would receive an increased rental 
 to reimburse him for the outlay ; and upon that increase the 
 occupier would be assessed to the local rates. In like manner 
 tenants of houses and buildings in towns pay an increased assess- 
 ment upon the extra rent they pay in consequence of improve- 
 ments effected by their landlords. In both cases, however, it is 
 the tenant who pays the addition to the rates. 
 
 " Take the case of the farmers. In spite of all the promises made 
 " when free-trade was passed, they had not been relieved from 
 ^' one single burden." 
 
 It is well that the distressed farmer exists only upon paper, 
 and in speeches of hon- members. The statement as to non- 
 relief from a single burden is not quite accurate ; but let that 
 pass. Does Mr, Read mean to say that free trade has injured 
 the farmers ? If not, what possible claim have they to compen- 
 sation for an imaginary grievance at the expense of the rest of 
 the community ? 
 
 Mr. Liddbll 
 " Had heard this question discussed out-of-doors with great 
 " ability, and he never heard an answer attempted to be 
 " given to the simple question, why real property, houses and 
 ** land only, should be subjected to the whole weight of local 
 " taxation." 
 
 The answer to- the question is very simple, and something like 
 the celebrated chapter " On owls in Iceland," which consisted of 
 
 F 2 ' 
 
68 PABLIAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 the sentence, " There are no owls in Iceland." Land and houses 
 are not subjected to the whole weight of local taxation. This 
 has been already demonstrated. The question, moreover, opens 
 up a very wide subject — the nature of landed property, its 
 distinctive character as compared with personalty, the right of 
 the State to a rent charge and to the spontaneous increase of 
 value. These are questions which are becoming more and more 
 prominent as topics of political discussion, and will be forced upon 
 public attention by every effort that is made to relieve land- 
 owners from their existing burdens by transferring tliem to the 
 general body of taxpayers. 
 
 DEBATE ON SIR MASSEY LOPES' MOTION, 
 April 16, 1872. 
 
 That it is expedient to remedy the injustice of imposing taxation 
 " for national objects on one description of property only, and 
 " therefore that no legislation with reference to local taxation 
 " will be satisfactory, which does not provide, either in whole 
 '^ or in part, for the relief of occupiers and owners in counties 
 " and boroughs from charges imposed on ratepayers for the 
 " administration of justice, police, and lunatics, the expenditure 
 " for such purposes being almost entirely independent of local 
 " control." 
 
 Sir Masset Lopes. 
 
 ** The grievance complained of was essentially a ratepayers 
 " grievance, alike entertained and shared in by owners and 
 " occupiers of real property — houses and land — that tliey and 
 " the property in which they were interested paid an unfair 
 " proportion towards the national burdens, over which, at the 
 " same time, they exercised only a nominal control, and in 
 " which the whole community were interested equally with 
 " themselves." 
 
 Inasmuch as the whole community occupy houses and land, the 
 grievance is one that affects the whole community, "Who are the 
 fortunate people that escape local taxation ? Not lodgers, for 
 they pay an enhanced rental in consequence of the local burdens 
 imposed upon householders. Are there any favoured individuals, 
 living in balloons or elsewhere, that Sir Massey Lopes is desirous 
 
SIR MASSEY LOPES. 69 
 
 of reaching, or does he wish to levy taxes for local purposes upon 
 women and children ? If there is any grievance, it is that of a 
 class ; let the hon. baronet then speak out plainly, and say what 
 class it is on whose behalf he makes such persistent complaints. 
 If for " ratepayers " we read ** landowners/' the change will not 
 be very wide of the mark. 
 
 " He did not propose to weary the House with many figures ; hut 
 " it was necessary for him to remind the House of the 
 " enormous amount raised annually by local taxation. In 
 *' 1870 the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Goschen) told us that 
 " the total amount raised in the United Kingdom was 
 "£30,000,000. In 1871, his estimate for the same year 
 " was £36,000,000." 
 
 Mr. Goschen said nothing of the kind ; his figures were those 
 of local expenditure, not taxation. The returns show that the 
 following were the sources of revenue from which the expenditure 
 of the years 1870-71 was defrayed : — 
 
 Local Taxes. 
 
 Direct, levied by Rates £21,202,400 
 
 Indirect, from Tolls Dues, &c 4,211,700 
 
 Total Local Taxes £25,414,100 
 
 Other Eeceipts. 
 
 From Sales or Rents of Property «.. 1,638,600 
 
 „ Government contributions ... 2, 11 7,500 
 
 „ Loans 5,530,800 
 
 „ Miscellaneous Sources 3,050,100 
 
 Total Receipts ... £37,751,100 
 
 It appears, therefore, that the amount of local taxation was, 
 not £36,000,000, but £25,400,000, and of this only £21,200,000 
 was raised by rates upon owners and occupiers. 
 
 " In the four years that had elapsed since 1868 the cost of Poor Law 
 " relief had increased £750,000 ; there had been an augmenta- 
 " tioQ of the number of Local Boards ; there had been outlay 
 *' for fever hospitals, and education rates had been introduced; 
 " and he was prepared to prove that local taxation, instead of 
 « being £36,000,000, now exceeded £40,000,000." 
 
 Mr. Goschen's estimate of £36,000,000 local expenditure, not 
 taxation, was for the year 1870-71, not for the year 1868, and 
 the assertion that local taxation was £40,000,000 in 1872 was 
 
70 PAHLTAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 extravagant and outrageous. It could not be true even of ex- 
 penditure unless there had been a growth in a few months of 
 about £3,000,000. The confusion which appears to exist in the 
 hon. baronet's mind between taxation and expenditure is some- 
 thing truly hopeless. 
 
 " He would compare the amount respectively raised by imperial 
 " and local taxation. The amount raised by imperial taxation 
 " in this country in 1870— the last year for which they had 
 " statistics— was£68,000,000; andafterdeducting £27,000,000 
 " — the amount of the interest of the National Debt — there 
 " was a remanet of £41,000,000 raised by Imperial taxation 
 " as against £40,000,000 raised by local taxation." 
 
 Again taxation and expenditure are mixed np in the most 
 extraordinary fashion. If a comparison of taxation is intended, 
 why deduct the interest of the National Debt, which is defrayed 
 out of imperial taxation ? In his estimate of local taxation, Sir 
 Massey Lopes includes sales and rents of property, loans, mis- 
 cellaneous revenue, and even government contributions, which 
 also appear under the head of imperial taxation. Every possible 
 device is resorted to in order to increase local and diminish 
 imperial taxation. The cause that needs buttressing in this 
 fashion cannot be very sound. The true 'comparison of imperial 
 and local taxation, for the year 1870-71, is as follows :— 
 
 Imperial Taxation. 
 
 Customs 
 
 Excise, Licenses, &c. 
 
 Stamps 
 
 Taxes 
 
 Income Tax . . 
 
 Total Imperial 
 
 Local Taxation 
 Direct from Tolls ... 
 Indirect from Eates, Dues, &c. 
 
 je20,191,000 
 
 22,788,000 
 
 9,007,000 
 
 2,725,000 
 
 6,350,000 
 
 £61,061,000 
 
 £21,202,400 
 4,211,700 
 
 £25,414,100 
 
 • Total Local 
 
 In the above table of imperial taxation the revenue from the 
 crown lands, the post office, the telegraphs, and the miscellaneous 
 receipts, are not included as these amounts are not raised by 
 taxation. For the same reason, similar items are omitted from 
 the local taxation table. It appears, then, that the amount of 
 imperial taxation is not £41,000,000 but £61,000,000, while on 
 the other hand local taxation is not £40,000,000 but £25,000,000, 
 
SIR MASSFA' LOPES. 71 
 
 of which only £21,000,000 is raised in the manner complained 
 f hy Sir Massey Lopes. 
 
 *' How very careful were we as a nation in jealously guarding our 
 " imperial taxation, but how entirely indifFereni-and apathetic 
 " about our local taxation. Our accounts of the former were 
 '' clear and explicit, while with regard to the liatter we were 
 " quite in the dark." 
 
 Looking at the great increase of imperial taxation, this alleged 
 jealous carefulness does not appear to have produced much fruit. 
 This increase, moreover, is borne with great patience, while the 
 smaller increase that has taken place in local taxation has given 
 rise to great complaints and prolonged discussions, a striking 
 proof of the advantage of direct taxation in promoting economical 
 views. At one time we are told that everyone complains about 
 the pressure of local rates, at another we hear of nothing but 
 apathy and indifference respectiog them. The accounts of local 
 taxation and expenditure published in each district are quite as 
 clear and explicit as thosj of the Imperial revenue, which are 
 laid before Parliament. Recent revelations at South Kensington 
 and the Post Office afford evidence that Imperial expenditure is 
 tery far from being under efficient control. 
 
 '' Every item of imperial taxation was carefully scanned in Com- 
 " mittee of that House, while we were totally ignorant of 
 " questions of local taxation." 
 
 The proceedings of the House in Committee on the estimates 
 are generally regarded as somewhat farcical, and the absence of 
 any real control over expenditure is a \vell known fact. If in 
 addition the scrutiny of the details of local taxation is to be un- 
 dertaken, the work of Parliament will be very materially increased, 
 and its legitimate functions seriously. interfered with. The con- 
 trol of local taxation should be entrusted to local representative 
 bodies, and the attention of Parliament should be confined, as far 
 as possible, to the consideration of Imperial concerns. 
 
 *' The Government boasted last year, just before the introduction 
 *' of the Budget, that during the time they had been in office 
 " they had remitted something like £5,000,000 of imperial 
 " taxation ; but what portion of local taxation had been 
 *' remitted ? The remission of the £5,000,000 of imperial 
 *^ taxation was a relief to the whole taxpaying commu^ity ; 
 
72 PARLIAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 " but he contended that during tlio time in wliich tlie impciial 
 " taxes had been remitted to that extent the Government had 
 *' imposed upon us £2,500,000 of local t;\xation by means of 
 '* the education rate, cost of vaccination, and so forth ; and tliis 
 *' £2,500,000 had been added to the burden of ratepayers 
 *' alone, who represented only one-seventh of the annual 
 " income of the country." 
 
 The acknowledgment that Mr. Lowe's remissions of taxation 
 were a relief to the whole community is a noteworthy admission, 
 especially when it is considered that they wero denounced in tho 
 previous year, by Mr. Disraeli, as wanton, unnecessary, and of 
 slight benefit. It is true certain taxes were repealed, but tho 
 aggregate of taxation was not diminished. This fact should 
 always be borne in mind when remissions of taxation are under 
 discussion. With respect to the growth of local taxation, that 
 depends upon expenditure. If more money is spent more money 
 must be raised, either by direct assessment or indirect taxation. 
 Experience has abundantly demonstrated that the latter is the 
 most costly, wasteful, and extravagant process, and that in tlic 
 interest of all classes the direct and honest payment of taxation 
 is the wisest course. What does Sir Massey Lopes mean by 
 saying that ratepayers represent only one- seventh of the annual 
 income of the country ? If he intends to convey the idea that 
 increased local charges come out of that portion of the national 
 income, nothing can be further from the truth. If he does not 
 mean this, what does he mean ? The expression is evidently used 
 for the purpose of creating a grievance. 
 
 " The total estimated income in England ami Wales was 
 " £700,000,000 j but this was a very low estimate, and ho 
 " believed that in reality the amount was £800,000,000. 
 '' The total amount of income assessed to income-tax was 
 " about £340,000,000, and the total rateable value was 
 " about £100,000,000, or, according to the last estimate, 
 " £105,000,000. It these figures were correct, it was obvious 
 ** that only one-seventh of the total income-ability of the 
 ** country was paying towards our local obligations, and 
 " almost the whole of the £30,000,000— taking the right hon. 
 " gentleman's (Mr. Goschen's) own figures — was raised from the 
 " £100,000,000 of income from rateable property alone." 
 
 The rates appear to have grown with marvellous rapidity ; in 
 1871 Sir Massey Lopes fixed the local taxation of England and 
 Wales at £20,000,000, in 1872 he tries to make it appear that 
 the amount raised by rates alone is £30,000,000, and endeavours 
 
SIR MASSEY LOPES AND MR. C. S. READ. 73 
 
 to fix the statement upon Mr. Goschen, who said nothing of the 
 kind. His figures were the amount of expenditure, not taxation. 
 The amount raised by rates in England and Wales in the year 
 1870-71 was £17,406,300, and by tolls, dues, &c., £3,344,500. 
 The other sources of revenue were sales or rents of property, 
 £1,153,100; government contributions, £955,400; loans, 
 £5,222,200 ; miscellaneous sources, £2,862,200. Total from 
 rates, tolls, dues, and all other sources, £30,943,700. It is no 
 doubt very ingenious to take the gross revenue and call it a 
 burden upon £100,000,000, but the assertion is easily disproved. 
 The amount raised by assessment upon the £100,000,(;00 or 
 £105,000,000 is £17,406,300, and^ it has been already shown 
 that it is a great fallacy to call this an exclusive burden upon 
 the income from rateable property, when it is paid out of the 
 gross incomes of occupiers of lands and houses. 
 
 " He proposed that the Consolidated Fund should bear the whole 
 " of the cost of the administration of justice, half the char^^e 
 " on account of police, and half the charge on account of 
 " lunatics. '^' * '-'' The total of the grant that he would 
 '* ask from the Consolidated Fund for England and Wales, 
 " Scotland and Ireland, was precisely £2,037,000." 
 
 The remedy appears very inadequate for the disease. The 
 House is told, in one part of the speech, that £30,000,000 or 
 £40,000,000, both sums being used indiscriminately, is an ex- 
 clusive burden upon income from real property, all other kinds of 
 income contributing nothing. It is alleged that £6 out of every 
 £7 of the aggregate income of the country escaped and evaded all 
 local burdens, and the remedy proposed is to throw a charge of 
 £2,000,000 on the Consolidated Fund. Unless the proposal is 
 intended as " the thin end of the wedge,'' it favours the idea that 
 the grievance has been considerably magnified, in order to enable 
 the country gentlemen to have a pull at the national exchequer. 
 
 Mr. C. S. Read. 
 <* The hon. gentleman (csir Thomas Acland) went on to say that 
 " the rental which a man paid was a fair criterion of his 
 *' income ; but that was a view from which he entirely dis- 
 *' sentod. He had quoted Mr. Stuart Mill on the subject of 
 " houses ; but in a speech which had been made the other 
 '* day at Norwich by iMr. Tillett, vfho was formerly a Member 
 '* of the House, he compared the income of a man livinf^ out-* 
 * ** side the city, in a villa residence, and paying £50 a year 
 *' rent, with the income of the shopkeeper paying- the sama 
 
74 PARLIAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 " amount, and contrasted the different amount of the rates 
 " paid by each of those two individuals. Bnt when they 
 " came to the question of land and the occupation of house?, 
 " he maiutained that the amount of a man's rental was no 
 *' criterion whatsoever as to his income. Let him take the 
 " case of a manufacturer who paid a rental of X300 a year ; 
 " he would pay rates on that amount, but he could, in all 
 " probability, make £3,000 a year by his business ; while the 
 " farmer who held a farm at a rent of £300 a year, and paid 
 " rates on that sum, Avould have an income of probably not 
 " more than £160 a year." 
 
 It is possible to dissent from au opinion because it is not 
 understood, and this appears to bo the case with Mr. Read. Mr. 
 John Stuart Mill said, '* No part of a person's expenditure was a 
 *' better criterion of a man's means, or bore most nearly a propor- 
 " tion to them " than a house-tax, " if justly proportioned to the 
 '* value of the house." It must be remembered that it is of a 
 house-tax that Mr. Mill speaks, not a tax upon land, or upon 
 business premises, but a tax upon a house occupied as a residence. 
 There is a great fallacy in Mr. Tillett's example ; he compares a 
 house used as a residence with a house used as business premises. 
 The rates of the former are paid out of the income of the 
 occupier, but this is not the case with rates levied on business 
 premises, they form part of the trade charges, and are recovered 
 from the pubhc along with rent and other expenses that are 
 incurred in the management of the business. They form part 
 of the " profit and loss account," the balance of which is the basis 
 upon which profits are assessed to the income tax. The rates of 
 the man in the villa residence are paid out of his income, the 
 rates of the shopkeeper are paid out of his trade expenses, not 
 out of his net income ; there is no analogy in the two 
 cases, and consequently, the comparison is of no value. 
 Next comes the case of the farmer ; his rates, with the exception 
 of any increase that may arise during his tenancy, are a deduction 
 from rent that would otherwise be paid to the landlord. The 
 real incidence of direct taxation upon the rent of land is upon 
 the owner, and it is, therefore, a fallacy to compare the assess- 
 ment of a farmer with that of a manufacturer. The latter, 
 moreover, takes the rates of his business premises into account 
 when calculating his trade expenses ; they are not a deduction 
 from his net profits, which arise after all the expenses of his 
 business have been allowed for. It is house rent that is the 
 test of income, not the rent of business premises or of land. If 
 there were no rates the farmer would pay an increased rental", and 
 it is difficult to see in what way he would benefit. The relief 
 
MR. C. S. HEAT). 75 
 
 would be appropriated by the landowner, who is already an in- 
 adequate contributor to the public burdens. 
 
 " The leader of the House (Mr. Gladstone) made a speech in 1850, 
 " in -which he said, in answer to some taunts of Mr. Cobden 
 " to the effect that land inherited the poor rates, that he had 
 " no right to argue in that way, because all protective duties 
 " had been abolished. The right hon. gentleman added 
 '* that— 
 
 " * The maintenance of the poor had been recognised, not only by 
 " * the dictates of political prudence, but as the fulfilment of 
 ** * a religious duty ; and, if so, it was a duty which applied 
 " * equally to all property. As a matter, therefore, of essential 
 " 'justice, there was nothing more clear than that it was 
 " * desirable that property should be in some manner liable to 
 *^ ^ the support of the poor.' — (3 Hcmsard, cviii. 1208.) 
 
 " Those were the words of the present Prime Minister in 1850, and 
 '* the best way to make all property liable to be rated in the 
 '' way suggested by the right hon. gentleman, was to ask for 
 " contributions from the Consolidated Pund towards those 
 " national objects which were now maintained by local rates." 
 
 Mr. Read appears to misunderstand entirely the character of 
 the late Mr. Cobden, who was not a man to indulge in " taunts," 
 but relied on the soundness of his arguments. His statement was 
 well considered ; it was not uttered as a mere taunt to the landed 
 interest, but as an exposition of a gigantic grievance which that 
 interest had inflicted on the community. The quotation from 
 Mr. Gladstone was, moreover,, incomplete, and should have 
 included the following words : — *^ But they were met with the 
 " objection that it was impi acticable to levy the rate upon 
 " personal property. So it was. Let them continue their annual 
 " Bill until they had passed a permanent law recognising that 
 '* as impracticable which was impracticable, and you put an end 
 " to all further discussion on the subject." Upon that occasion 
 Mr. Gladstone supported the motion, which was for a Committee 
 to take into consideration such revision of the laws providing for 
 the relief of the poor, as may mitigate the distress of the 
 agricultural classes. He was followed by Mr. James Wilsou, an 
 old free trader when Mr. Gladstone was still a believer in the 
 errors of protection, who disposed of the allegation relied upon 
 by the protectionists of that perigd, and still employed by their 
 successors, in the following words : — 
 
 "He would now come to another point, which had been much 
 " relied upon by the right hon. gentleman and by other hon. gentle- 
 
76 PARLIAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 *' men. . It was said that if landed property inherited those charges, 
 " it inherited them along with a protective duty. Here again he 
 " must join issue with the right hon. gentleman, he must deny that 
 ** that protection was an advantage to the landowner. . . . 
 " There had been deeper distress and greater ground for alarm on 
 " the part of the agricultural interest under protection, which it was 
 " said had been made the compensation for the poor rate, than could 
 " be shown at the present moment." Results have proved the 
 soundness of Mr. Wilson's opinion, and yet we h»ve representa- 
 tives of the agricultural interest admitting at agricultural gather- 
 ings, that under a free trade regime they are more prosperous 
 than under protection to which they do not wish to revert, and in 
 the House of Commons claiming a readjustment of local burdens 
 upon the ground that they have been deprived of protection. 
 Further, they now seek to transfer burdens from property to the 
 Consolidated Fund, a very large proportion of which is provided 
 by heavy taxes upon the scanty incomes of those who have no 
 property but their labour. This policy, carried out to any con- 
 siderable extent, would be as suicidal in the interest of real pro- 
 perty itself as the system of protective duties. It would, more- 
 over, render more necessary even than at present, a complete 
 readjustment of the incidence of imperial taxation. 
 
 Mr. Liddell. 
 
 " The hon. baronet (Sir Thomas A eland) told the house, in the 
 *' tone of an agitator rather than a calm debater, that the 
 ** county police were extensively employed for the preservation 
 " of game. Some time ago,, one of the greatest sources of crime 
 " in this country was the collection at night of large gangs of 
 " armed men in public houses, whence, under the influence of 
 " drink, they started on poaching expeditions, which led to 
 *' scenes of murder and violence, such as he had once witnessed 
 " under the windows of his father's house. The vigilance of 
 '' the police had prevented these aggregations of violent and 
 *' reckless persons, and in that sense had checked night poach- 
 ** ing ; and in doing this the police were discharging their 
 " proper functions." 
 
 Mr. Liddell confirms Sir Thomas Acland, and justifies the 
 conduct of those who opposed the County PoHce Bill, because it 
 was a mere addition to the staff of game keepers. If it is the 
 proper function of the police to act in that capacity, it is the pros- 
 per function of those, in whose behalf they are thus employed, to 
 pay them* If the amusements of the gentry of England give 
 ris3 to scenes of murder and violence, which necessitate a strong 
 
MR. LIDDELL AND MR. DISRAELI. 77 
 
 preventative police force, the gentry of England ought to bear 
 the expense. 
 
 *' They had heard a great deal about the aggregate growth of the 
 " local rates. They must not, however, forget what a large 
 ** contributor the metropolis was to the growth of those rates. 
 " The recent increase of the valuation of property assessed for 
 " the purpose of poor rates was greatest in the poorest dis- 
 " tricts. The tax collector was not so just as * Death ;' we 
 '^ could not say of him — 
 
 " * ^quo pulsat pede pauperum tabemas 
 " * Regumque turres.' " 
 
 What is the proposal made to remedy this state of things ? 
 A pull at the Consolidated Fund, the taxes to provide which are 
 mainly raised by imposts upon what the poor eat, drink, and 
 consume. How would this give them any relief? Unless 
 imperial taxation were at the same time re-adjusted and made 
 more equitable, the pressure of the burden upon the poor would 
 be increased. The proposal is an apt illustration of the 
 dangerous and insidious character of all indirect taxation. 
 
 '' The application for a subvention in aid of the local rates from the 
 " National Exchequer was one, he thought, of a wise and prac- 
 " tical character ; it did not at all involve the relaxation of * local 
 " control,' and the House might proceed with the utmost 
 " security in that direction." 
 
 If the National Exchequer dropped from the clouds it no doubt 
 would be wise to get as large a subvention as possible, but, as it 
 is mainly replenished by a costly, wasteful, and extravagant 
 method of taxation, the wisdom is not so apparent. The relief 
 to any class, except owners of real property, would be a delusion, 
 while its danger, as a provocative of expenditure, would be a 
 reality. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli. 
 It (the question of local taxation) has now been for a quarter of 
 " century before our consideration ; and the original ground on 
 " which the attention of Parliament was called to the incidence 
 " of taxation in this respect was founded upon a fact, which is 
 *' not denied — that a certain amount of taxation is levied for 
 ** national purposes, and levied only from a small portion of 
 " the national property. Now it is all very well to talk of 
 " statements of that kind as being generalizations, and as if it 
 
78 PARLIAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 " were expedient to avoid them ; but generalization is the 
 " result of the experience by mankind of a great amount of 
 " facts, and they must express their opinion in a general 
 " manner." 
 
 Every reminiscence of Mr. Disraeli's " historic conscience " is 
 valuable and interesting, and this will, upon examination, prove 
 peculiarly so. Fov a quarter of a century owners of real pro- 
 perty have been suffering from a great grievance, of which, 
 however, there are no outward indications. Despite their hard- 
 ships, they appear to have enjoyed an unusual degree of pros- 
 perity. Twenty five years ; that period takes us back to the year 
 1849, when, in consequence of the sudden death of Lord George 
 Bentinck, Mr. Disraeli had risen from the position of confidential 
 relationship with the leader of the Protectionists to the leader- 
 ship itself, at all events in the House of Commons. In that year 
 he moved a series of three resolutions, afiirming first, that local 
 taxation fell, mainly, if not exclusively, on real property, and bore 
 with undue severity on the occupiers of land ; secondly, that the 
 hardship of this apportionment was aggravated by the malt tax ; 
 and thirdly, that the House would resolve itself into a Committee 
 for the purpose of considering measures for the removal of these 
 grievances. 
 
 The speech in whicb these resolutions were moved was a com- 
 pound of the various fallacies that have since been current on 
 the subject of local taxation, and a jeremiad on the evils that 
 were coming on the country through the abolition of protective 
 duties. In his opening remarks, Mr, Disraeli condemned his 
 proposals as inadequate to remove the existing distress, and said — 
 
 " I still believe that there is but one way to extricate the 
 *' country from the calamities which it now experiences and those 
 " which are impending, and that is by the frank adoption of the 
 " principle of reciprocity as the fundamental principle of your com- 
 " mercial code ; and that the only means to be pursued against 
 " hostile tariffs are countervailing duties.'' 
 
 Fortunately wiser counsels than those of Mr. Disraeli pre- 
 vailed, but this fact has not prevented him from claiming credit, 
 upon recent convivial occasions, for the success of the measures 
 which, at every stage, he opposed and denounced. 
 
 Upon the second night of the debate the proceedings were pre- 
 faced by the presentation, by Mr. Disraeli, of a petition from a 
 meeting held in the parish of St. George, Westminster, of owners 
 and occupiers of land from various places, signed by the Duke of 
 Richmond, as chairman of the meeting at which it was adopted. 
 The petition set forth the extreme distress under which the 
 agricultural classes then laboured, which distress was attributed 
 
MR. DISRAELI. 79 
 
 to recent le^slation. The petitioners asked for some mitigation 
 of their sufferings by the removal of local taxation, the repeal of 
 the malfc tax, and concluded by recommending the imposition of 
 a small import duty on all articles of foreign produce. 
 
 Further evidence of the protectionist origin of the resolutions 
 then moved is to be found in the conclusion of Mr. Disraeli's 
 reply, which was in the following words— 
 
 " I tell you that the only consequences of your rejection of these 
 " resolutions will be a proposition conceived in a severer spirit of 
 *' justice. Perhaps, by the combination of parties, you may 
 " extricate yourselves even from that embarassment, but do not 
 " suppose that the suffering landed interest, which for years you 
 " have been conspiring to injure — do not suppose, I say, that 
 ** the various classes of that interest will renounce for a moment 
 *' their resolve to obtain at your hands those measures of redress 
 " and compensation which you now refuse. 1 tell you that you 
 " will, before this session ends, if you do not do them justice, bo 
 " appealed to even a third time. You will bo appealed to like 
 " the unknown envoy in the Roman legend. We shall come a 
 " third time ; only one book will remain ; but on it will be 
 " inscribed — * Protected and regenerated England. ' " 
 
 The claim for a twenty-five years' continuity upon this question 
 is a proof that the old protectionist leaven is still working, and 
 the general public as distinguished from the landed interest may 
 well exclaim, although in more recent times the supposed interests 
 of town ratepayers have not been ignored, *' Timeo Danaos, et 
 dona ferentesJ^ 
 
 In 185u and 1851, similar resolutions were moved both by Mr. 
 Disraeli and Mr. Grantley Berkeley, and in 1852, owing to the 
 resignation of the Eussell administration, Mr. Disraeli had an 
 opportunity of descending from the region of generalization into 
 that of practical finance. , In his financial statement of that year, 
 he referred to the reduction that had taken place in the poor 
 rate since he first called attention to the subject, and 
 fttated that he was not prepared to recommend any change in the 
 system of raising the local taxation of the country, thus abandon- 
 ing in ofiice the grievance he had so loudly proclaimed in opposi- 
 tion. He proposed to reduce the malt- tax and hop-duty one 
 half, to reduce the tea- duty, and to provide the means by a 
 readjustment of the income-tax and an extension of the house- 
 tax. The general effect of these measures would have been, as 
 shown by Mr. Cobden in the House of Commons, to tax houses 
 at lOJ per cent, and land at 3 per cent. ; while, valuing the 
 former at 15 and the latter at 30 years' purchase, the tax on 
 houses would really be 21 per cent The defeat of this budget 
 
80 PARLIAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 led to the resignation of tlie ministry, which, during its hrief 
 tenure of office, agreed to a resolution affirming that the pros- 
 perity of the country was owing to the policy of free trade, and 
 abandoned the claims for a readjustment of local taxation, which 
 it had so urgently put forward before its accession to office. 
 
 *' The Consolidated Fund is spoken of as if it was to be shut up ia 
 '* a box and never used for any purpose ; whereas our duty is 
 " to see that it is used for purposes conducive to the public 
 " welfare." 
 
 The ingenuity of this statement is more apparent than its 
 accuracy. No one proposed to shut up the Consolidated Fund 
 in a box and never use it for au}^ purpose ; the objection to the 
 transfer of local rates to that fund is based upon very different 
 grounds. It is no doubt tbe duty of the House of Commons to 
 employ that fund for proper purposes, and it is equally its duty 
 to see that the necessary means are provided in a fair and 
 equitable manner. The objections to the resolution moved by 
 Sir Massey Lopes are, that the placing of local charges on the 
 Consolidated Fund would lead to extravagance, and that it 
 would add to the injustice of a system of imperial taxation which 
 already places the heaviest burden upon those who have the 
 smallest means. The question will not be settled by the use of 
 epigrammatic sentences however witty, nor is it finally disposed 
 of by the majority of 100, which Sir Massey Lopes secured for 
 his motion ; nor will it be by any measures that may be taken in 
 the direction indicated by Mr. Disraeli. The increased pressure 
 that will thus be placed upon the poor will strengthen the 
 demand for a complete revision of imperial taxation. 
 
 DEBATE UPON THE INTRODUCTION OF THE RATING, 
 
 VALUATION, AND CONSOLIDATED RATE BILLS. 
 
 May 5, 1873. 
 
 Sir Massey Lopes. 
 " He had always confined his grievance to the £11,500,000 to which 
 " his right hon. friend referred."* 
 
 * Mr. Stansfeld had said in his speech, " I find that in 1871 the rates 
 not directly remunerative amounted to £1 1,500,000, or little less ; while 
 the directly remunerative or property-improvement rates, which can 
 have no shadow of a claim to imperial contribution, amounted to some- 
 thing less than £6,000,000." 
 
SIR MASSEY LOPES. 81 
 
 It is satisfactory at last to have the extent of the grievance 
 which Sir Massey Lopes has so persistently brought forward 
 definitely named, and to find that it is so much smaller than his 
 previous statements would have led us to expect. Instead of 
 £30,000,000, £36,000,000, or £40,000,000, all of which sums 
 were brandished before the House in his rhetorical flourishes, it 
 is now only £11,500,000, or about one-fourth of the largest sum 
 he had previously named. 
 
 " He had been much misrepresented and misapprehended, with 
 "regard to what he asked; but ho had never asked for the 
 " local rating of personal property. It mipjht be just to rate 
 '' stock-in-trade, but he had never asked for it, feeling it to be 
 " impracticable of accomplisliment." 
 
 If Sir Massey Lopes has been misrepresented and misunder- 
 stood, the fault is his own. His constant grievance has been the 
 non-rating of personal property. Unless, therefore, it was his 
 intentioii to reach such property for local purposes, he appears to 
 have been in the position of the boy who cried for the moon. 
 
 " From local rates locally administered they had no claim for 
 " exemption, nor for what are termed hereditary burdens; but 
 " the grievance which he had endeavoured to urge was with 
 " reference to those new impositions which had been con- 
 ** tinually imposed in recent years." 
 
 This principle will considerably reduce the £11,500,000 which 
 is made the ground of complaint. If the portion of this amount 
 which is locally administered, and that which fairly comes under 
 the designation of an hereditary burden, are eliminated, the 
 grievance will be found to be very small indeed. The total 
 increase of the Poor Eate between 1859 and 1873 was 
 £5,000,000, of which sum £2,000,000 is the increase in expendi- 
 ture for other purposes than relief of the poor. The whole of the 
 increase has moreover been a burden upon occupiers, not upon 
 owners. 
 
 The Chancellor of the Exchequer boasted the other night that 
 " during the four years he had been in office he had remitted 
 " £9,000,000 of imperial taxation, but he (Sir Massey Lopes) 
 " was prepared to prove that during that time he had imposed 
 " burdens on the local taxpayers on one description of property 
 •* fully half that sum— namely, £4,500,000 of taxation." 
 
82 PARLIAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 A remission of £9,000,000 of taxes does not necessarily 
 involve a reduction of taxation ; in this case the gross amount 
 of imperial taxation was increased from £69,100,000 in 1868-9 
 to £72,800,000 in 1872-3. The statement that £4,500,000 had 
 been imposed upon ratepayers during the same period is one of 
 those charmingly vague assertions that have great force until 
 they are examined. The returns show that the total increase of 
 the rates levied during those years was £1,800,000, while the 
 total increase in local expenditure was only £2,450,000, of which 
 £492,000 was provided by an increase in the Grovernment grants^ 
 
 " He therefore asked for additional subventions for national pur- 
 '^ poses as the best, and easiest, and fairest way of meeting those 
 " rates which were levied for national purposes." 
 
 Additional subventions may be the easiest way of meeting the 
 views of the hon. baronet, but they are neither the best nor the 
 fairest way of adjusting the pressure of taxation. 
 
 Mr. Gregory. 
 
 " What they contended for at that side of the House was, that all 
 " property, real and personal, should be subject to the burden 
 " of local taxation. Why should persons be exempted who held 
 " property quite as fixed, as secure, and as valuable as real 
 *' property ] Take, for instance, the case of the mortgagee. 
 " His principal money was amply secured, and his interest 
 " was paid in priority to the demands of the owner ; yet the 
 " mortgagee contributed nothing in respect to that source of 
 " income to the local burdens. The fund owner in the same 
 ** way, and the holders of debenture stock held property as 
 " substantial security as real property ; but, so far as that 
 " property was concerned, contributed nothing whatever to 
 " local taxation." 
 
 It appears that Mr. Gregory is at variance with Sir Massey 
 Lopes, and does contend that personal property should be rated. 
 He may be a very good lawyer, but is a very bad economist, and 
 fails to see the inherent distinction between real and personal 
 property. No one made the land ; it is the gift of the Almighty 
 to mankind, and there is nothing unequal or unjust in attaching 
 certain conditions to the tenure under which it is held. This 
 principle has been acted upon in all civilised communities, and 
 formerly formed the basis of the imperial taxation of this country. 
 With respect to the mortgagee there are two answers ; first, he 
 must live somewhere, and contribute from his income towards 
 
SIR MASSEY LOPES, MR. GREGORY, AND MR. CORRANCE. 83 
 
 the local rates ; secondly, the attempt to tax money lent on 
 mortgages for local purposes in order to relieve real property 
 would recoil upon the owners of real property, by increasing the 
 rate of interest they would have to pay. At present the con- 
 ditions upon which money is lent upon real property include 
 freedom from local burdens, a change in one condition will 
 certainly lead to a change in another. The same argument 
 applies to the fund-holder, and the debenture holder, both 
 of whom have advanced their money upon well under- 
 stood conditions, which it would be unjust to disturb. If 
 any considerable burden is to be placed upon the owners of 
 stock, it will be taken into account in all future transactions. It 
 is not, moreover, in accordance with facts to assert that fund- 
 holders and debenture stockholders contribute nothing whatever 
 to local taxation ; they contribute upon the rental of the houses 
 which they occupy. In towns no contribution is levied upon 
 ground rents ; if there is any grievance at all it is that the large 
 incomes derived from this source are not assessed to local taxa- 
 tion, the whole burden of which is thrown upon occupiers. If 
 personal property is to contribute to local taxation, ships, jewels, 
 pictures, carpets, and the countless treasures in art which adorn 
 the mansions of the wealthy must be assessed, otherwise a great 
 injustice will be inflicted upon the small fundholder and holder 
 of personal property, which he is compelled to invest in order to 
 secure from it a profitable return. Are Mr. Gregory and his 
 friends prepared to meet the legitimate consequences of their own 
 argument ? 
 
 DEBATE ON SECOND EEADING OF THE EATING 
 
 BILL. 
 
 May, 22, 1873. 
 
 Mr. Corrance. 
 
 " He contended that the bill was not a just one. Its intention was 
 " that all property of all descriptions should be subject to a 
 " rate ; but the 13tli clause constituted it a bill of exemptions 
 " of the most serious character." 
 
 It never was the intention of the Bill to rate all property of 
 all descriptions ; the rating of personal property is impossible, in 
 
 g2 
 
84 PARLIAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 the opinion of all parties, wh}^ then do the agitators on the 
 question of local taxation continually revert to the exemption as 
 an example of inequality. 
 
 *• Eating of stock in trade might he said to he ohsolete and impracti- 
 '• cahle in England. But in France, in 1793, the first act of the 
 " convention was to sweep away all those personal taxes which 
 '* had proved so onerous, because they were confined to 
 " the lower classes ; and from that time every inhabitant of 
 ** France had paid, in lieu of any tax upon personal property, a 
 *' tax upon his rent or rental, which, in 1867-8, was fixed by law 
 " at one twentieth part of the rent paid by each resident upon 
 *' the portion he resided in." 
 
 If a tax on rent in France is, as Mr. Corrance appears to 
 believe, an equitable substitute for a tax on personal property, 
 Avhy is not a tax on rent in England in the same position ? Local 
 rates are taxes upon the occupier, and are therefore paid in Eng- 
 land, as taxes upon rent are in France, by every inhabitant. 
 Does Mr. Corrannce intend to convey the impression that there 
 is any analogy between the grinding exactions practised by the 
 aristocracy of [France upon the poor, and the hereditary burdens 
 which attach to real property in England ? 
 
 " And what was the case in America 1 There personal property 
 " had been taxed to an enormous extent, and no one ever 
 ** dreamed of exempting stock in trade from a personal tax. 
 " He had before him a return of the proportion of the taxation of 
 " real and personal estate in various states, cities, and counties 
 "of America ; and the ratio of personal to real varied from 
 '* 1 to 1.20 to 1 to 10.46. Commissioners who had been 
 " appointed to enquire into this sul^'ect, thus wound up their 
 " labours — 
 
 *' * That to tax one man for one species of property, because, 
 " * through his honesty, ignorance, or inab^hty to escape, he 
 " ' can be laid hold of, and to fail to tax another man because 
 " ' he is cunning and unscrupulous, and so cannot he laid hold 
 '' ' of, is not taxation, but arbitrary contiscation.' And again, 
 *' * In almost every community it is not so much the extent as 
 " ' it is the inequality which constitutes the burden of taxation, 
 " ' and the Commissioners have been much impressed with the 
 ** ' circumstance that, in conversing with the heaviest tax- 
 " * payers of the State, it has not been so much the burden 
 *' ' which is complained of, as it is that, while the individual 
 " * in question claims to pay, his neighbours and associates in 
 " * some way manage to escape.' " 
 
MR. CORRANCE. S5 
 
 The very report which Mr. Corrance held in his hand when 
 making this statement is an elaborate condemnation of the sys- 
 tem of taxing personal property in the United States. 
 
 The Commissioners ^' claim that they have demonstrated the 
 inconsistency, inexpediency, and unconstitutionality or illegality 
 of many of the existing laws imposing taxes directly on personal 
 property ; and also the uniform failure of the system as a whole 
 wherever it has been adopted." In accordance with this opinion 
 they not only "dream'' of exempting stock-in-trade from taxa- 
 tion, but actually propose to do so, substituting in lieu thereof an 
 assessment of occupiers based upon rent. 
 
 Neither of the extracts from the report of the New York Com- 
 missioners refers to the question of rating as affecting different 
 kinds of property, but to inequality of assessment as affecting the 
 same kind of property. They say, with respect to the general 
 question : — " It is an error to assume that all descriptions of 
 ' property should be subjected to taxation in order to insure equa- 
 ' lity and uniformity. On the contrary, all experience has shown 
 ^ — none better than that of the United States — that the more 
 
 * * concrete ' and less diffused a system of taxation can be made, 
 
 * the better for the people and the better for the state." 
 Again, " a tax imposed upon an article or service of prime 
 
 necessity to a community, like land or buildings, for example, 
 becomes in effect a tax upon all, without the vexations of infinit- 
 esimal application/' 
 
 Mr. Corrance's second extract is prefaced by the following 
 sentence, which is necessary to elucidate it. The two, in fact, 
 form a complete paragraph of the report : — " But while it is not 
 " necessary to tax all descriptions of property in order to insure 
 *' equality and uniformity, it is indispensable that no system of 
 " taxation should be adopted which will not act uniformly and 
 " equally upon all property of the same kind, or upon all persons 
 " owning the same class of property within the state ; inasmuch 
 " as if any one man is taxed, and another man exempted, on the 
 " same class or ■ description of property, the tax assumes the 
 " character of confiscation. In fact, in almost every community, 
 " it is not so much the extent," &c. 
 
 It is a flagrant perversion of the meaning of the two extracts 
 to use them as evidence in favour of the assessment of stock in 
 trade to local rates. The views of the Commissioners upon the 
 incidence of taxes upon rent, as expressed in the following 
 extract from their report, differ very materially from those of 
 Mr. Corrance : — 
 
 " The idea that owners or occupiers of land or buildings pay 
 *' exclusively the taxes upon such property is a fallacy long ago 
 
86 PAKLIAMRXTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 " exploded. If an individual occupies a building simply for the 
 " puqDOse of living, and derives his support from the income of 
 " invested property, he will undoubtedly find it very difficult to 
 *' transfer the taxes assessed upon such real estate to any other 
 ** person. But if the land and building are occupied for business 
 *' purposes — as for a farm, factory, store, or hotel — the rent and 
 "taxes become a part and parcel of the expenses of such business, 
 " and are paid wholly by the purchasers or consumers.'^ 
 
 The special grievance of owners and occupiers, which has been 
 so prominently put forward by county members during the 
 last few years, finds no support from Mr. David A. Wells, and 
 his fellow Commissioners, and the attempt to use them as 
 buttresses of the claims put forward by the landed interest is a 
 signal failure. When their report is examined it is seen that 
 it can only be made to favour the views of Mr. Corrance by the 
 use of isolated sentences, forcibly dislocated from their connection 
 with the general argument. 
 
 MU. SCOURFIELD. 
 
 " The position might be put in this way. There were two circles; 
 " one containing those who did not pay rates, and the other 
 ** those who did pay. The people of the last circle wished 
 " that those of the other one should contribute something to 
 '' the rates." 
 
 Here the old fallacy that some people don't pay rates is re- 
 peated. It would be well if speakers of this class would descend 
 to particulars, and let us know the size of the respective circles, 
 and of whom they are composed. 
 
 " Persons who did not pay rates were extremely energetic in forcing 
 " those who did to spend money, and were always ready to 
 " enlarge the expenditure. The non-ratepayers forced upon 
 *' the ratepayers a scale of expenditure which, to the latter, 
 " did not seem necessary. They also annoyed the ratepayers 
 " by constantly lecturing them upon what was supposed to be 
 " their duty." 
 
 What a numerous and powerful body the non-ratepayers 
 must be to enforce expenditure upon reluctant and unwilling 
 ratepayers. And yet it is difficult to find any considerable body 
 of non-ratepayers. Where are they ? Are the people who 
 lecture the ratepayers exclusively lodgers, or does the hon. 
 member refer to the wives of ratepayers ? Some explanation 
 
MR. SCOTJRFIELD AND MR. COLMAN. 87 
 
 should be forthcoming that the poor harassed ratepayers may be 
 able to resist their enemy. 
 
 Mr. Colman. 
 
 " Apart from the question of how far the taxes fall on the occupier 
 " or the owner, 1 want to put the question, why there is this 
 *' undue taxation at all on real property 1 Take the following 
 " case : —One man has £1,000 which he invests in real 
 " property — say in cottages — he i:)ays income tax of course, 
 " but beyond this that particular £1,000 is subject to heavy 
 " local rates, and I am putting them moderately, if I say £15 
 " per annum. 'Now take another £1,000, put, we will suppose, 
 *' into the shares of the London and Westminster Eank. It 
 *' pays income tax, but as to local taxes, practically nothing, 
 '' or at least only an infinitesimal portion of the rates' paid on 
 " the building in which the bank carries on its business. 
 
 It is impossible to give an answer to the question put by the 
 hon. member without taking into account the incidence of local 
 taxation. If rates upon dwellings fall upon the occupier, and 
 rates upon business premises form part of trade expenses and are 
 recovered from customers, there is an end of the grievance. 
 With regard to land, the taxation of personal property would 
 involve the taxation of farming stock in trade, and it is difficult 
 to see how the farmer would benefit by the change. The man 
 who invests his £1,000 in cottages does so with the full knowledge 
 of the local rates ; he takes them into account in making his 
 purchase ; they are paid by his tenants, not out of the income 
 he receives from his investment of £1,000 ; it is therefore a 
 fallacy to say that this £1,000 is subject to special taxation. 
 The man who has an income from investments in public com- 
 panies pays local rates out of his income from that source, and 
 it is not correct to say that the £1,000 thus invested contributes 
 nothing beyond a portion of the rates assessed on the bank 
 premises. 
 
 Sir Massey Lopes. 
 
 " He would like to illustrate their grievance in this way, let them 
 " suppose that in the time of Elizabeth personal property only 
 ** was rated, and that real property did not exist, that the 
 " relative portions of real and personal property had been 
 ** reversed, that personal property had then been the only or 
 " chief source of wealth, and that real property was compara- 
 " tively unknown, and that consequently the chief burden of 
 *' local taxation had been imposed on personal property 
 
88 PARLIAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 " instead of land and liouses. Would not the owners of 
 *' personal property liave agitated for the readjustment of those 
 " burdens, so that all property should pay alike 1 " 
 
 Sir Massey Lopes is perfectly at liberty to suppose an impas- 
 sibility, but others aro uot bound to follow him. Real property 
 becomes a source of wealth through the application of personal 
 property to its improvement and cultivation. Where would be 
 the rent of landowners but for the flocks and herds and the crops 
 of their tenants ? The assessment of land and houses exclusively 
 did net arise from the absence of personal property, but from the 
 impossibility of its assessment. The same difficulty is even now 
 felt in the United States, where the chief burden falls upon 
 land and houses, although personal property is equally liable. 
 It is impossible to tax moveable capital without drivmg it away 
 to more favoured localities, and thus inflicting far greater injury 
 upon owners of real property than the amount of rates which 
 they would escape. The theory that all property should pay 
 alike is very plausible, but in practice it is found to be impossible, 
 and if possible it would be unjust. There are essential dift'er- 
 ences in the nature of real and personal property which render it 
 perfectly equitable to place a heavier burden upon the former 
 than upon the latter, and it has been already shown that a con- 
 siderable portion of the local taxes, although assessed upon rent, 
 are paid out of incomes derived from trade, industry, and per- 
 sonal property. 
 
 RATING BILL.— ON MOTION FOR GOING INTO COM- 
 MITTEE. 
 
 June 10, 1873. 
 
 Mr. Soourfield. 
 " The Prime Minister on two separate occasions, in his memorable 
 " address at Liverpool and recently at the Literary Fund, 
 " had entered into elaborate calculations to show the vast 
 " increase that had occurred in our national wealth in the course 
 ** of the last 80 or 90 years. But the ratepayers at large said 
 *' that they had not participated in this prosperity, and they 
 •' complained of the tendency there was at the present day to 
 ** increase the rates." 
 
MR. SCOURFIELD AND SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE. 89 
 
 If the ratepayers at large have not participated in the increase 
 of wealth, who has, and by whom are the palatial residences, 
 which during the last twenty years have risen up in London and 
 other large cities, inhabited ? Has there been no increase in the 
 value of land ? Have manufacturers, ironmasters, and others, 
 all of whom pay rates, derived no benefit from the increase of 
 wealth — are fewer fortunes made by the rated shopkeepers of 
 Regent Street, and elsewhere — have the prices of agricultural 
 produce remained stationary ? If the ratepayers at large have 
 not participated in the prosperity, where are the favoured few — 
 non-ratepayers — by whom it has been absorbed, and how are they 
 to be reached by throwing a heavier burden upon imperial taxa- 
 tion which is mainly raised upon articles consumed by the poor ? 
 Ratepayers complain, no doubt, of increased rates, but it has 
 never yet been shewn that the plan advocated by Sir Massey 
 Lopes would afford them any real relief. The remedy, to be 
 effectual, must be more powerful and in an entirely different 
 direction. 
 
 WAYS AND MEANS.— FINANCIAL STATEMENT. 
 
 April 16, 1874. 
 
 Sir Stafford Northcote. 
 
 It would be a most inadequate view to say of those who urge 
 " upon us a reform of our system of local taxation, that they are 
 " actuated simply by a desire to get rid of certain burdens. 
 *' We ought to consider the position which the question really 
 *' occupies, not only in our financial, but in our whole social 
 " and political system. I said just now that we look back to 
 *' the year 1842 as in a certain sense the commencement of anew 
 " financial epoch ; and no doubt at that time a great revolution 
 *' was effected in the financial system — and in a most jmpor- 
 " tant branch of it — by the reform of our system of indirect 
 *' taxation effected by Sir Eobert Peel and his administration, 
 *' and carried on by the late Prime Minister. AVe are never 
 *' tired of praising the great work which has been done in 
 " these 30 years. There has been a great remission of taxation, 
 " mountains of taxes, I may say, have been removed from 
 ** the pressure put upon the consumers, and also upon the trade 
 
 
 rjr/i?L'- ^^^\ 
 
90 PARLIAMENTAKY FALLACIES. 
 
 " and industry of the country. We have done an amount of 
 " work, of which any nation may be proud, in the course of 
 " about one generation. But it now seems to us that there is 
 " another side to the questioii of finance, which stands as much 
 *' in need of attention and reform as did the side of indirect 
 " taxation in the days of Sir Robert Peel and in the year 
 " 1842, and that is the great question of our direct and especi- 
 " ally of our direct local taxation." 
 
 There is no evidence in the speeches of those who in the late 
 Parliament urged the question of local taxation upon the then 
 Ministry that they have ever regarded the question from the 
 enlarged point of view indicated by Sir Stafford Northcote. On 
 the contrary, the one burden of their complaint was the 
 undue taxation of owners of real property, and they have never 
 manifested any other desire than to throw a portion of these 
 alleged burdens upon the rest of the community. It was the 
 Gladstone administration which endeavoured to elevate the ques- 
 tion into the region indicated by Sir Stafford Northcote, and for 
 doing so they were soundly rated by those who profess to be the 
 peculiar representatives of the landed interest, who would be con* 
 tent with nothing short of a heavy subsidy from the National 
 Exchequer. It is an undoubted fact that local taxation is now 
 in need of attention at the hands of Parliament, but in a very 
 different direction from that contemplated by the disciples of Sir 
 Mas&ey Lopes. With respect to imperial taxation, it is satis- 
 factory that a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer should 
 have rendered so striking a testimony to the benefits of the fiscal 
 legislation inaugurated in 1812, and this eulogy may be accepted 
 as the final recantation of the opposition, which that policy 
 invariably encountered at the hands of the Conservative party. It 
 was, however, in 1846 that the real inauguration of the new 
 policy took place, when protective duties upon the food of the 
 people received their death blow, involving as a logical conclusion 
 the abandonment of protection in all its forms. It is far from 
 accurate to say that direct taxation now stands in as much need 
 of attention and reform as indirect taxation did in 1842, for our 
 system of customs and excise, as it then existed, was devised so 
 as to levy a twofold tax — one portion for the State and the second 
 and most oppressive portion for the monopolists, thus inflicting 
 upon consumers the maximum of burden, in order, so far as the 
 State was concerned, to secure the minimum of result. It was 
 a system which hindered trade, diminished employment, and 
 created pauperism ; while the utmost that can be said against 
 our system of local taxation is that it is unequal in its incidence, 
 
SIR STAFFORD NORTHOOTE. 91 
 
 but even ia this respect it is not so great an offender as indirect 
 taxation.* 
 
 " When you speak of all that has been done for the people, and all 
 " the relief that has been given to them, it is melancholy to 
 ^ " be obliged to look back upon the subject of the poor law, 
 " and to find that at the present time the amount expended per 
 " head of our whole population on poor relief is larger than it 
 *^ was before the year of Sir Eobert Peel's great reforms. I 
 " have here a statement drawn up in periods of 10 years, 
 ** beginning from the year 1834, the date of the passing of the 
 '^ new poor law. I find from it that for England and Wales 
 " in the first period of 10 years, extending from 1834 to 1843, 
 " the average amount per head of the whole population that 
 " was expended on poor relief was 6s. IJd., and that the 
 '^ amountis now, or was, in the last ten years, from 1864 to 1873, 
 " 6s. 4 Jd. per head. Therefore, while there has been this great 
 *' general improvement in the condition of this country, your 
 " poor rates, or the number of persons who come for poor 
 " relief, have not diminished," 
 
 The growth of the poor law expenditure has not arisen from 
 increased pauperism, but from other causes. There are no returns 
 showing the mean number at one time in receipt of relief for any 
 year earlier than 1849. In that year the number was 1,088,659, 
 and the amount expended, ;C5,792,963 ; in the year 1873 the 
 number of paupers was 883,688, or 204,971 fewer than in 1849, 
 while the amount expended in relief was ctI7,692,169. It is 
 clear that the increase in expenditure has arisen from other causes 
 than an increase in pauperism, and those causes well deserve a 
 searching enquiry. Compared with population there has been a 
 remarkable decrease in the extent of pauperism, the ratio per 
 cent, of paupers relieved on the population having been 6.2 in 
 1849 and 3.8 in 1873. It is an extraordinary circumstance that 
 Sir Stafford Northcote should have fallen into so flagrant an error 
 as to confound a growth of expenditure with a growth of 
 pauperism. 
 
 " What are the complaints we most commonly hear in regard to our 
 " system of local taxation ] I think they may generally be 
 " divided into three. It is said, in the first place, that there 
 ^* are imperial services which are charged exclusively, or in 
 *' undue proportion on local resources. It is said, in the second 
 
 * See *' National Finance." Longmans and Co. Chapter xv. — The 
 Incidence of Taxation, 
 
92 PAKLTAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 " place, that the area of rating is not fair, and that many 
 " classes of property, including the very important class of 
 " personalty, are exempted from the burdens which are borne 
 ■ '* for the benefit of all khids of property, the owners of personal 
 *' property among the rest. And there is also a third com- 
 " plaint — coming, perhaps, from rather different quarters from 
 " those from which we hear most of these complaints made — 
 " namely, that our system of local taxation is bad and unecono- 
 " mical, because we have a bad system of management, a 
 " bad system of administration, and an improper division of 
 " the country into local districts. I think there is trutli in all 
 " these complaints. They may each and all of them be exag- 
 *' gerated, but there is, no doubt, much truth in every one of 
 " them." 
 
 To the first of these complaints there is the obvious reply that 
 any addition to Imperial charges, which contemplates a transfer 
 of burdens from one class to another, should be accompanied by 
 an adjustment of Imperial taxation, which now presses heavily 
 upon iqcomes from trade and industry, while it leaves income 
 from real property comparatively untouched. With respect to 
 the second, it is a remarkable fact that no one, not even Sir 
 Massey Lopes, proposes to assess personal property to local taxa- 
 tion, but merely, by throwing additional charges upon the Con- 
 solidated Fund, to add to the burdens of the already overtaxed 
 consumers of commodities. It is moreover the case that the 
 heaviest portion, of the burden of local taxation rests upon occu- 
 piers in towns, and that the relief required is one which will 
 exact an adequate contribution from owners of real property. 
 Although personal property is not assessed to local rates, its owners 
 contribute towards them. Would the farmers find themselves 
 in a better position if their stock-in-trade were assessed, or have 
 wealthy landowners ever proposed to contribute in respect of their 
 valuable works of art and other articles of personal property, in 
 the enjoyment of which they are protected by the law. It seems 
 to be their main desire to throw an increased share of taxation 
 upon owners of small incomes ; at all events that would be the 
 certain result of every proposal they have yet made for the re- 
 adjustment of local taxation, with the solitary, exception of the 
 rating bill of 1874, which they adopted from the repository of 
 their predecessors. The third complaint, the inefficiency and 
 confusion of local administration, is the one which has most 
 foundation, and which requires immediate attention ; this griev- 
 ance, however, the strong administration of Mr. Disraeli appears 
 to be afraid to touch. 
 
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE AND SIR G. JENKINSON. 93 
 
 " One of the remarks which are made by complainants on the subject 
 *' of local taxation is as to the large quantity of personal pro- 
 '* perty which does not bear its due share of publie burdens, 
 *' which should be borne by all alike. Undoubtedly that is a 
 " complaint which, in the present position, of local taxation is 
 *' justly made." 
 
 The justice of the complaint is by no means obvious. So far 
 as real property bears the burden of local taxation it has been 
 bought, sold, inherited and held, for many generations, subject to 
 that burden, and the grievance of owners of such property is 
 purely imaginary. TKe increase falls upon occupiers, not upon 
 owners, and is thus distributed over the whole community in a 
 manner far more fair and equitable and at a much less cost than 
 by the mode in which the imperial revenue is raised. If Sir 
 Stafford Northcote thinks he can accomplish a task which all his 
 predecessors have acknowledged to be impossible — the assessment 
 of personalty to local taxation — let him make the effort ; if not, 
 let him hold his peace about this unsubstantial and fictitious 
 grievance. 
 
 '^^Having dwelt — I am afraid at too great length — upon the question 
 " of local taxation, I have only to say that it is a matter which 
 " wUl continue to engage our attention with' reference, not 
 " only to the question of burdens, but to the further very 
 " important question as to the improvement of administration, 
 " and the possible necessity of altering the present system, and 
 " of devoting some branch of general revenue for local purposes." 
 
 This being the case, there is also a necessity that the matter 
 should engage the attention of the ratepayers generally. When 
 a Government pledged to the changes in the incidence of local 
 taxation which are advocated by Sir Massey Lopes, contemplates 
 dealing with the question, there is every danger that the public 
 advantage will be made subservient to class interests, and that, 
 under the ostensible pretext of affording relief to the ratepayers, 
 heavier burdens will be placed upon their shoulders, with a view 
 to the relief of owners of real property, already insufficiently 
 taxed, both for imperial and local purposes. 
 
 Sir George Jenkinson 
 
 ** Thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the very kind 
 " manner in which he had taken notice of the subject of 
 " local taxation. It was their duty to be thankful for 
 " small mercies, and those which had just fallen to the 
 *' lot of the agricultural interest came within that category. 
 
94 PARLIAMENTARY FALLA.CIES. 
 
 " Ifc was commonly said that when a man had been kept from 
 " food for a Jong while, he should be fed carefully at first so as 
 " not to produce repletion, and this was the principle on which 
 " the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted. At the same 
 " time he had held out a promise of doing something more in 
 '' the future." 
 
 Here we have the real animus of those who have made the 
 great outcry about local taxation. It is the agricultural interest 
 that, in their opinion, requires relief, and the fact that the chief 
 benefit of Sir Stafford Northcote's adjustments of local taxation 
 falls where its burden is most oppressive gives little satisfaction 
 to the landed interest. Although at present disappointed, they 
 live in hope, and expect at some future time to obtain a relief 
 from some of their burdens by means of additional subsidies from 
 that imperial revenue which, to so large an extent, is a tax upon 
 the expenditure of the poorest of the population. 
 
 Sir George Bowter. 
 
 " The whole country benefited by improved asylums, better regu- 
 " lated poor-houses, and a more efficient police, and yet hitherto 
 " it was the land upon which all the expense had fallen. The 
 " same might be said of schools. Great expense was gone to 
 " in providing schools, especially where there were school 
 " boards ; and landowners were obliged to provide them, if they 
 " objected to school boards. All this entailed great burdens 
 *' on land, and the grievance had been admitted by oneGovern- 
 " ment after another ; but none had had the courage to deal 
 " with it, because there were persons in this country who 
 " seemed to think that land and the owners of land ought to 
 " be treated as harshly as possible, and these people were just 
 " now doing all they could to injure the landlord, making him 
 " pay higher wages to the labourer. The labourer, no doubt, 
 " was in solSie places not sufficiently paid ; but this system of 
 " agitation in his behalf was hurtful to the land, and if carried 
 " on and supported by those who ought to know better, the 
 " land would be unable to bear the pressure." 
 
 Another illustration of the '* habitual inexactness " (to quote 
 a phrase of Lord Palmerston's) very commonly employed in 
 speaking of this question. It is entirely inaccurate to assert that 
 the increased expenditure incurred for improved asylums, poor- 
 houses, and police, falls exclusively on the land, a very large 
 proportion is paid by occupiers in towns, and does not fall upon 
 either land or landlords, the system of leases protecting them. 
 The police, moreover, are partly defrayed out of the consolidated 
 
SIR G. JENKINSON AND SIR G. BOWYER. 95 
 
 fund. As to schools, they are provided by ratepayers, and the 
 owners ot* land merely contribute as occupiers, and there are, 
 moreover, such things as school building grants from the Com- 
 mittee of Council, paid out of the Imperial revenue. Is accuracy 
 as to facts an absolute impossibility in the representatives of the 
 landed interest ? The pathetic complaint of Sir George Bowyer 
 as to the alleged harsh treatment of land and its owners will have 
 little weight with the general public, when the facts are thoroughly 
 understood, and when it is clearly known that in . our financial 
 system, both Imperial and local, landowners are unduly favoured, 
 and have, for a considerable period, contrived to throw a con- 
 siderable share of their legitimate burdens upon the general com- 
 munity. It may be an additional grievance that agricultural 
 labourers should demand wages which will enable them to live in 
 decency and comfort, but there has never been any interest, whose 
 existence was not threatened in its own opinion, by such demands. 
 The country cannot afford that a large portion of its population 
 shall continue to exist upon the miserable pittance hitherto 
 accorded to its agricultural labourers ; the agricultural interest, 
 like every other branch of industry, will have to meet an altered 
 state of things, which, as labourers become more independent and 
 able to provide for themselves, will have a direct tendency to 
 reduce the burden of pauperism. If the agriculturists and land- 
 owners prefer low wages, they have no just cause to complain as 
 to the exceptional character of their poor rate. Notwithstanding 
 Sir George Bowyer's declamatory lamentations over the woes of 
 the landlords, those who have taken an interest in the agricul- 
 tural labourers' movement will continue their efforts, even though 
 it should end in a thorough revision of our land laws. 
 
 " Ho believed that when the whole system of finance should be 
 '* taken into account, it would be found that sorae further 
 *' alterations might be made to relieve the burdens on land 
 ^' without injury to any other interest or class of people in the 
 " country." 
 
 It is a pity that Sir George Bowyer was not more explicit, and 
 that he did not give any hint of the w^onderful panacea, which 
 is evidently fermenting in his mind. A practical proposal would 
 be worth whole volumes of conjecture. Again, it is the burdens 
 upon land that excite his compassion, and there is not one 
 word of sympathy for the over-burdened ratepayers, whose 
 labours have created much of the present value of landed 
 property, quite independent of any efforts of its owners, 
 
96 PARLIAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 Mr, Melly. 
 ''As regards the distribution of the surplus under the excellent 
 *' proposals of the Government, local taxation would be relieved 
 ^* of a charge of £1,000,000 without impairing the securities 
 " for economy." 
 
 At whose expense, and at what cost ? There can be but one 
 answer, the extra pressure will fall upon the class now most heavily 
 burdened, viz., the occupiers of houses in towns, who already 
 contribute very heavily to imperial taxation, while the transfer 
 of £1,000,000, from the direct but economical method of rating, 
 to the costly plan of indirect taxation, will involve a large 
 addition to the actual amount extracted from the public, at least 
 from 25 to 50 per cent.* When all these facts are taken into 
 consideration the excellence of this proposal is by no means so 
 clear as Mr. Melly assumes. 
 
 DEBATE ON THE SECOND READING OF THE 
 
 BUDGET RESOLUTIONS. 
 
 April 23kd, 1874. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone. 
 I should have been A^ery glad if it had been in the power of my 
 *' right hon. friend to bring tlie subject of the horso duty and 
 *' the other assessed taxes before the House — because it is im- 
 " possible to deny that there is a certain relation between 
 '• them — at a time when he felt himself competent to propose 
 " a fmal and determinated settlement of the question of local 
 " taxation. As I understand it, the strength of the case of 
 " those who have so eagerly advocated change in regard to 
 " local taxation, really lies in this : — They say — I fully admit 
 " with considerable force — * We lay exclusively on real pro- 
 " * perty in the country charges in which j^ersonal property 
 " * ought to share.' I have no sympathy with the advocates 
 " of change in local taxation, who seek to lay on labour the 
 ** taxes heretofore borne by property ; and I cannot refrain from 
 " saying two things — first, that the simple transfer to the Con- 
 *' solidated Fund of charges hitherto paid out of rates, whatever 
 " the immediate relief to the ratepayers at large of all classes, 
 " is indubitably, in the long run, a transfer of a charge from a 
 " fund supplied by property xo a fund jointly supplied by pro- 
 
 * See ** The Queen's Taxes," chap, xxiv.— The Cost of Collection of 
 Taxes. 
 
MR, GLADSTONE ON SUBVENTIONS. 97 
 
 ** perty and labour. " I am putting it thus, assuming what I 
 *' believe myself to be about the truth — though it is impossible 
 " to state it more than as conjecture — but I believe that one- 
 • ** lialf the general taxation of this country, and fully one-half, 
 ** is paid by the labour of the country. If that be so, when we 
 " remove a charge from local taxation and place it on the Con- 
 " solidated Fund, we are not simply relieving real property at 
 " the expense of property not real — about which I have no 
 " prejudice to prevent my concurrence — but we are relieving real 
 *' property of a charge of a sovereign, and placing 10s. of that 
 *' pound upon property more generally, and taking the other 
 " 10s. away. That is the first proposition I have to state with 
 " regard to this somewhat serious proposal ; and the second 
 ** proposition I have to state is this — I admit it is only a 
 '* matter of opinion ; but it is my firm and fixed opinion that, 
 *' not for the purpose of the moment, but for the purpose of the 
 " distant future — to which all true Conservatives ought to look 
 *' —among the many considerations they should have in view 
 '* when settling the principles of our financial system, there is 
 *' no one of such vital financial importance as this — that, on 
 *' the whole, you should make a fair and equitable distribution 
 *' of taxes as between property and labour." 
 
 The proposal to hand over the assessed taxes, now converted 
 into excise licenses, to the local authorities has been made upon 
 many occasions ; it was demanded by Sir John Thwaites for 
 L(mdon, and was suggested some years since by Mr. New- 
 raarch, at a meeting of the Statistical Society. If such 
 taxation is to be levied, there is an obvious propriety in making 
 it contribute directly towards the maintenance of highways. It 
 has, however, to be first ascertained whether such a mode of 
 raising funds for that purpose would be more equitable and 
 economical than by the present method. Jupiter sometimes 
 nods, and in this admission as to the force of the complaint 
 respecting the pressure of charges laid on real property, Mr. 
 Gladstone seems to ha\e overlooked the fact, noticed in Mr. 
 Ooschen's report, that a considerable portion of local taxation 
 does not fall upon income from real property, but is paid by, and 
 finally rests upon, occupiers. When the whole question is 
 thoroughly investigated, the grievance of owners of real property 
 becomesinfinitessimal,if it does not vanish altogether. It would pro- 
 bably be desirable that owners of personal property should be directly 
 nssessed upon it, for expenditure incurred by local authorities in 
 lis protection, but no plan of doing so has yet been devised, whilst 
 the rude expedient of transferring such charges to the Consoli- 
 dated Fund aggravates the burden upon those whose property is 
 tlieir Ifibour, The present Conservative majority may not be 
 
 II 
 
98 PARLIAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 amenable to the considerations urge'd upon their attention by 
 Mr. Gladstone, in this remonstrance against a policy which will 
 place increased burdens upon labour in order to advantage 
 wealth, but his protest against their proceedings will remain, and 
 at some future time, when the question is thoroughly understood, 
 the great body of the people will insist upon " a fair and equitable 
 distribution of taxes as between property and labour," both as 
 respects Imperial and local expenditure. When that important 
 reform is ripe lor solution (and it is surprising the labour advo- 
 cates do not take it up), it will be found that it involves questions 
 which the landed interest has no inclination to raise, but which 
 will not be overlooked by the overtaxed portion of the community. 
 Sir Stafford JN^orthcote may attempt to justify the Conservative 
 policy by saying — " When my right hon. friend talks about 
 transferring burdens from funds supplied by property to 
 funds supplied by property and labour, he is really carry- 
 ing us off into disquisitions which I think are altogether 
 wide of the mark ;" he may deny that the facts are as 
 represented, and may even justify such a policy by the 
 statement that " the object for which it would be made is the 
 benefit not of property, but of the country, and of the labour of 
 the country especially," but the working population will not be 
 satisfied with such an apology, they will demand a thorough 
 enquiry into the whole incidence of taxation, not forgetting the 
 important question of the spontaneous increment of rent, created 
 by their industry but under existing legislation appropriated ex- 
 clusively by landowners, in relief of whom an undue share of the 
 j)ublic burdens is thrown upon the small and precarious earnings 
 i»f labour. 
 
 DEBATE ON REPORT OF BUDGET RESOLUTIONS, 
 April 27th, 1874. 
 
 Mr. Pell 
 
 " \Va5? glad to learn tliat the proposals of the Gorernment in 
 "relation to local taxation were not confined to grants of 
 " money from the Imperial Exchequer. He understood they 
 '' were inclined to deal with the question of administration, 
 '* and there he looked for more important results than from 
 *' grants of money, for it was not to be expected that justice 
 
MR. PELL AND MR. BACKHOUSE. 99 
 
 " could bft done to the subject until the jumble and mess of 
 " the existing state of things should be m^t by a better system 
 '• of administration. He believed that millions of money raised 
 '' by local rates were lost through want of more intelligent and 
 " harmonious administration." 
 
 While the policy of grants from the Imperial Exchequer is 
 very questionable, there is no doubt that the reforms advocated 
 by Mr. Pell would be of great benefit ; but the late Government 
 did not receive much encouragement from the representatives of 
 the landed interest when they made proposals in that direction. 
 Nothing then would satisfy the landowners but subventions from 
 the Consolidated Fund. It still remains to be seen whether the 
 present Government will undertake the important task now 
 urged upon them, of iihproving and consolidating our incoherent 
 and chaotic system of local administration. 
 
 Mr. Backhouse 
 
 " Said he approved the aid proposed to be given by the central 
 " authority in the case of lunatic asylums ; but he wished 
 " chiefly to call attention to the subvention in aid of the police 
 "rate. With regard to the police force, there was a mini- 
 " mum of local control as compared with the expenditure 
 ** authorised for other local purposes. Yirtually, the state and 
 ** efficiency of the police depended upon the central authority. 
 " When the Government subvention amounted to one- half the 
 " expense of the force, he thought its efficiency should be 
 " thoroughly investigated. There might be fewer superior 
 " officers compared with the number of men in the different 
 " districts, and the whole charge and management of the police, 
 *' he thought, might be taken by the central Government. 
 *' Its efficiency would in that way be much improved." 
 
 Again, the fallacy that aid is given by the central authority, as 
 if that tody had any funds but what it extracted from the pockets 
 of the ratepayers in their capacity as taxpayers, but by a more 
 costly process than that employed for the collection of local 
 rates. The proposal to place the whole control of the police 
 under the central authority is an apt illustration of the danger in 
 which local government is placed by the principle of subvention. 
 The state and efficiency of the police force depends more upon the 
 way in which it is constantly managed by local authorities than 
 upon the annual inspection of the Government official. If paid 
 superintendence were substituted for that of magistrates and 
 watch committees, there can be no doubt that the expense 
 would be very materially increased, while the increased cost 
 
 H 2 
 
100 PARLIAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 would be attended by a weakening of the principle of local 
 government, and a danger to popular liberty. The people of this 
 country can have no desire to see the administration of their 
 police entrusted [to Prefets appointed by the central Government, 
 and the liberties of the whole nation placed at the mercy of a 
 Central Bureau sitting in London. 
 
 Sir Lawrence Palk 
 
 ** Said he was sorry that the Government had not devoted a greater 
 
 ** amount to the relief of local taxation, for he thought this 
 
 " was a time Avhen the agricultural interest might suffer very 
 
 *< much, not only from the price of labour, which was high, 
 
 " and still rising, but from the unions, which would paralyze, 
 
 ** if continued, the whole system* of agriculture in the 
 
 " country. Many burdens were about to be put on the 
 
 " agricultural community with reference to local government 
 
 " and sanitary improvement which it had not hitherto 
 
 " felt, among which were the maintenance of the highways 
 
 ** and the Sanitary Acts, which were still in the infancy 
 
 " of their operation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer slightly 
 
 " alluded to the labourer's dwelling. That was a ques- 
 
 " tion of the greatest importance, for it was only in a few 
 
 *' counties, and certainly not in that part of the country which 
 
 " he had the honour to represent, that cottages were in a fib 
 
 " state for the labouring population, and he expected that the 
 
 " Chancellor of the Exchequer would have grappled with that 
 
 , ** question. The erection of suitable cottages was a very 
 
 " expensive affair. There could be no return for the outlay, 
 
 '* and many estates were so tied up that it was impossible for 
 
 " the tenant for life to raise a fund for the erection of suitable 
 
 *' cottages. Acts had been passed to facilitate their erection, 
 
 ** but the whole machinery was so expensive that it had not 
 
 ** had that effect which was absolutelv necessary for the health 
 
 ** and prosperity of the labouring class. He thought it was 
 
 " absolutely necessary that the provisions of the Sani- 
 
 '* tary Acts should be put into operation, so as to 
 
 " shut up the cottages which were not fit for human habitation. 
 
 ■** Moreover, if cottages were not built in which labourers could 
 
 ** live in decency and comfort, it was natural they would become 
 
 *' members of Agricultural Labourers' Unions, and listen to 
 
 " agitators who would tell them that if they emigrated they 
 
 " would soon become rich and owners of property, and offer 
 
 " them inducements to separate themselves from their eni- 
 
 " ployers. It would be a bad day, in his opinion, for English 
 
 " agriculture when the relations between the labourer and the 
 
 '^ firmer, or the landlord, should be regulated simply by com- 
 
 '* mercial considerations. He was sorry that another year would 
 
SIR LAWRENCE PALK. 101 
 
 "be allowed to pass before the question of local taxation would 
 *' be dealt with. The agricultural population would not bo 
 " satisfied with the small boon that had been given to them, 
 " and he hoped that next year the right hon. gentleman would 
 " afford them that relief to which they thought they were 
 " entitled." 
 
 It is satisfactory that Mr. Disraeli was not able to provide 
 places for all the members of the Local Taxation Committee. Sir 
 Massey Lopes has been snugly located at the Admiralty ; but his 
 fellow Devonian, Sir Lawrence Palk, remains, and is not back- 
 ward to enforce the demands of the landowners upon the atten- 
 tion of Parliament. The burden of his lamentation appears to 
 be the unreasonableness of the labourers in demanding higher 
 wages. He admits that they have a claim for better dwellings, 
 but makes that a ground for a pull at the Imperial Exchequer. 
 It is possible that the introduction of commercial considerations 
 into the relations of landlord, tenant, and labourer would put an 
 end to the existing system of land tenure, which tends to the 
 aggregation of the soil iu few hands, and, according to Sir L. 
 Palk, places the unfortunate tenant for life in such a position 
 that he cannot possibly provide healthy dwellings for the labourers 
 on his estates. This is the outcome of our land system,, and, what- 
 ever landowners may think, it will in the long run prove its 
 destruction. When it is impossible for the peasantry to have 
 healthy dwellings, it is quite time for radical change. The diffi^ 
 culty will not be met by increased subsidies from the national 
 revenue, which merely involve an augmentation of the burden 
 upon the working classes, in order to remedy the neglect of those 
 .who ought to supply the deficiency. The axiom that property 
 has its duties as well as its rights appears to have little weight 
 with some landowners. Unless the labourers are provided with 
 houses in which they can live in decency and Cumfort, it is pro- 
 bable that their agitation will still continue. The patriarchal 
 relationship, so much eulogised by Sir Lawrence Palk, has not 
 hitherto done much for them, and, evil though, it may appear to 
 landowners, they will be inclined to try a system in which their 
 relations with the farmer and landowner bhall be governed by 
 "commercial considerations.'' Sir Lawrence Palk does not 
 specify the evils that would come upon us were this to be the 
 case. In this probably he is wise, for the terror that is excited 
 by vague, undefined anticipations of disaster would, in all pro- 
 bability, disappear were he to descend to particulars. There may 
 be landowners who express regret that the Government has been 
 able to do so little for them in the way of relief from local bur- 
 
102 PARLIAMKNTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 dens, but the great body of ratepayers have reason to be thank- 
 ful. Assisted by the present distribution of political power, the 
 minority, having a majority of representatives iu Parliament, 
 may perhaps in some future Session arrange matters to their own 
 satisfaction ; but the change, if effected, is one that will not last. 
 As soon as the towns see the full effect of any such readjustment 
 of taxation, they will insist upon its replacement by a more 
 equitable arrangement. It is a singular fact in connection with 
 this agitation that those who are most lightly burdened are the 
 loudest claimants for relief. 
 
 Sir Stafford Northcoie. 
 
 " Ife must tbank his lion, friend the member for ;South Leicester- 
 " shire (Mr. Pell) for his very judicious and friendly remarks 
 " on improvements in administration to which lie attached 
 " great importance. Much, no doubt, might be done by 
 ♦' improvement in administration, quite as much, perhaps, as 
 ** by subvention in aid of local taxation, and that was the plan 
 *' which the Government proposed to adopt." 
 
 If the Government attach such importance to improved 
 administration, it is a great pity they have not taken any steps 
 towards its attainment. Treasury subventions are no real 
 economy, while every reduction effected by improved adminstra- 
 tion is an actual saving to the ratepayers. Seeing that subven- 
 tions come from the pockets of the same people that pay rates, 
 the benefit of the process is open to question. Imperial taxation, 
 as at present levied, is mainly derived from industrial and trading 
 incomes, and it follows, as a natural consequence, that the prac-. 
 lical effect of subventions from the Consolidated Fund will be an 
 increase of the burden now placed upon trade and industry. 
 This is no doubt the object at Avhich the landowners are aiming, 
 but it will not meet the views of the trading and industrial com- 
 munity, neither will it satisfy the tenant farmers when the real 
 effect of the process is thoroughly understood. In any equitable 
 readjustment of taxation, whether imperial or local, it is property 
 that has to be I'eached ; but this is a mode of dealing with the 
 question hardly to be expected from the political party which has 
 made the supposed wrongs of landowners the burden cf its com- 
 plaint. Meanwhile we wait their efforts in the direction of im- 
 proved local government, and, according to present appearances, 
 it will be necessary to prepare for a considerable exhibition of 
 patience, if the country is doomed to depend upon their labours 
 for this most desirable reform. 
 
MK. SCLATER- BOOTH AND SIR L. TALK. 103 
 
 VALUATION OF rHOPEIlTY BILL. 
 ♦Second Eeading, May 21, 1874. 
 
 Mr. Sclater-Booth. 
 
 ** Neither on the part of the Government nor on his own part did ho 
 " put forward any claim to originality in this measure. Three 
 ** of its main proposals were included in the Bill of last year, 
 " which formed such an important feature in their discussions ; 
 ** and they embraced the three most urgent points which 
 *' remained to be dealt with in connection with the law of 
 *' rating." 
 
 It makes all the difference in the world by whom a measure is 
 proposed. That, which coming from the Liberals, is rejected as 
 insufficient and ill-advised, is passed with alacrity when proposed 
 by a Conservative administration. In his later days Mr. Disraeli 
 follows the example of feir Eobert Peel, whom he once described as 
 having caught the Whigs bathing and ran away with their clothes. 
 Upon the second reading of this measure only three Members 
 could be found to protest against such a course of procedure : — 
 Colonel Barttelot, who complained that Mr. Sclater-Booth had 
 nothing better to offer them than the rechauffe measure of the 
 right hon. gentleman opposite ; Mr. Scourneld, who would have 
 preferred a more comprehensive measure, and did not see any 
 reason for pressing the Bill forward at that time ; and Sir George 
 Jenkmson, who raised the old worn-out and exploded objection 
 that it extended the area of local taxation to a class of property 
 which was already overtaxed. Tempora ^nutantiir, et nos mutamur 
 in illis may be very fairly applied to the action of the loaders of 
 the Conservative party in this instance. 
 
 VALUATION OF PROPEKTY BILL. 
 Committee, June 29, 1874. 
 
 Sir Lawrence Palk. 
 
 " For his own part, he would much rather that the Bill were post- 
 
 '• *' poned, and that the question, which had been debated for 
 
 *' many weeks last Session, should not be dealt with now, than 
 
104 PARLIAMENTAKY FALLACIKS. 
 
 *' that a matter of sucli great uiagiiitude and importance as the 
 " fair rating of property should be treated as it had been 
 *' treated by the late, and as it was being treated by the present, 
 *' Government, who were accepting and fathering the child they 
 " opposed on every occasion last Session." 
 
 It was, no doubt, very irksome to such advocates of the relief 
 of landowners from local taxation as were not provided wijth 
 Government berths, to find their own friends pursuing, as regards 
 this Bill, the same course as their opponents. If they were not to 
 get any benefit at the expense of the rest of the public, what was 
 the advantage of their movement ? They mav, perhaps, learn to 
 be wiser in opposition after their present lease of power has 
 expired. 
 
 Sir George Jenkinson 
 
 *' Must enter his protest against the line of legislation, which had 
 " been adopted in reference to this subject by the Government, 
 " as being too much in accordance with that of their predecessors. 
 ** The whole course of . legislation in the matter from the time 
 *' of Queen Elizabeth had been in the direction of extending 
 *' the liabilities of real property. Unfortunately, there were 
 ** not now so many hon. Members behind him to back him 
 *' upon this question as there were last year. They were 
 *' otherwise disposed of, and he had been led to attach more 
 *' importance than he had at first done to the warning of the right 
 *' hon. gentleman the Member for Greenwich, to be careful 
 ** how this question was stirred lest the result should be to 
 ** increase the charges on real property." 
 
 Another indignant and protesting landowner, wbo, so far as 
 local taxation is concerned, does not believe in the " wisdom of 
 our ancestors.'* IJpon tiue Conservative principles, is not the 
 general practice from the time of Elizabeth down to the present 
 time proof of the soundness of the principle ? If land has been 
 unduly burdened in this respect, which we do not admit, it has 
 been favoured in others ; witness the celebrated statute of Charles 
 the Second, which relieved landowners from their feudal obliga- 
 tions, and threw the burden upon the excise. Witness, also, the 
 assessment of the land tux, which in the plain words of the Act 
 of Parliament ought to produce four shillings in the pound on the 
 annual value. This four shillings in the pound is as much the 
 property of the nation as the remainder is the property 
 of the landlord ; it was in a landlord's parliament, when 
 the people, being unrepresented, had no power to protect the«- 
 selves, that this great injustice was perpetrated. It has been as 
 
SIR GEORGE JENKINSON. 105 
 
 injurious to the real interests of landowners as it is oppressive 
 upon the people ; and justice will never be done in this matter 
 until decided steps are taken towards a return to the old consti- 
 tutional method of raising the public revenue. 
 
 *' Hard things had been said as to the objection of hon. gentlemen 
 " on his side of the House to game being rated ; bat if the land 
 " was rated at the full agricultural value, no matter what the 
 " produce was, whether corn, game, or whatever it was, there 
 " could be no doubt that in such a valuation the game was 
 " rated as well." 
 
 It appears to be quite right in the opinion of the hon. baronet 
 that the tenant should pay all the rates, and the landlord enjoy 
 the sport and appropriate the game, although fed at the tenant's 
 expense. As to " full agricultural value," can he give examples 
 where it includes the game, as the poor-rate assessment usually 
 bears a fixed proportion to rent paid by the farmer, and the value 
 of land for agricultural purposes is diminished by game pre- 
 serving ? The case does not appear to be so clear after all. Mr. 
 Clare Read put the matter on its right footing in the same 
 debate, in the following words : — " Excessive game depreciated 
 the value of the land, and the consequence was that in some cases 
 the land was not rated at more than three-fourths of its agricul- 
 tural value. There were some tracts of land where the shooting 
 was of considerable value, where the agricultural value was not 
 lower in consequence. The other day he heard of an instance 
 where the agricultural value of the land was £900, and the 
 shooting let to the tenant for £100. If the landlord kept tho 
 right of shooting in his own hand that £100 a-year would 
 escape assessment, whereas under the Bill the farm would be 
 rated at £1,000.^' 
 
 " If a man let his shooting, rate him to the mast head ; but why 
 '' rate a gentleman whose game was absolutely valueless, except 
 *' for his own enjoyment." 
 
 Upon the same principle, why rate a man who does not let his 
 house, but uses it for his own enjoyment ? It is, moreover, the 
 hirer of the shooting who pays the rates, and not the owner of 
 the land. Whether the owner lets his shooting or keeps it him- 
 self, the rates are paid by the party who has the enjoyment of the 
 shooting. Wfcat can Sir George Jenkinson say in reply to the 
 cases instanced by Mr. Bulwer, the Conservative member for 
 Ipswich, where a tenant occupying a farm and paying heavily in 
 
106 P ^.RLIAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 rates might often see his landlord carry away from it cartloads 
 of game, send it to market as valuable property, and get the 
 money for it. Certainly in such cases it was not judicious, as 
 Mr. Bulwcr very mildly put it, for the landlord to object to con- 
 tribute to the rates ; neither is it honest. Fortunately the feel- 
 ing of the House was too strong for the hon. baronet, who *'felt 
 he was bound hand and foot in the hands of the Philistines,'* 
 and withdrew his amendment, entering at the same time a strong 
 protest against the Bill. 
 
 LORDS.— RATING BILL. 
 Second Reading, July 20, 1874 
 
 The Duke of Richmond. 
 
 ** The present Bill was very different from the one which was before 
 " their Lordships at the end of last Session ; in fact, the com- 
 " plexion of the question had been completely altered since 
 *' that time. In the present Session the Chancellor of the Ex- 
 " chequer found himself able to contribute largely to the rating of 
 *' the country ; and it was perfectly obvious that if he did so 
 *V contribute, it would be impossible that property which had 
 " not hitherto been brought within the rating area should con- 
 ^' tinue to be altogether left out." 
 
 \Yho shall decide when doctors disagree ? Mr. Sclater-Booth 
 laid no claim to originality, while the noble Duke describes the 
 Bill as very different from that of last year. The main difference, 
 however, consists in the fact that the Conservatives have suc- 
 ceeded the Liberals in office, and, so far as this measure is con- 
 cerned, are compelled to act uprm the lines laid down by their 
 predecessors. The euphonious phrase about the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer simply means, that he has taken monies out of the 
 imperial revenue with a view to the relief of owners of real pro- 
 perty, who are already insufficiently assessed both to imperial 
 and local taxation. The small measure of justice embodied in the 
 present Bill cannot be regarded as a satisfactory and final settle- 
 ment of the claims of the general public. 
 
 Lord Hennikee. 
 If the Bill of last year was a fragment, this was not only a frag- 
 " ment but a mere shadow of the fragment of' last year. It was 
 
I.OKD HENMKER AND TllK MAKQUKSS OF IJATH. l07 
 
 '' a very puny child of a puny child of the late Government, 
 *' and he regretted extremely it had been adopted. Of course 
 ' something had been done this year to relieve local rates, but 
 v the relief was small. It would have been far better to have 
 '* taken the maintenance of the police entirely off the local 
 '* rates." 
 
 This is a non- official Conservative view of the Bill, and is in 
 marked contrast with that of the ministry. With respect to local 
 ratos, his Lordship is like Oliver Twist, and asks for more, but the 
 ratepayers will act very unwisely, so far as their own interests 
 ar(3 concerned, if they consent to any measure which will satisfy 
 the demands that are put forward on the part of landowners. 
 
 The Marquess op Bath 
 
 Said he was afraid Her Majesty's ministers were a little too apt to 
 *' forget that the change in the political feeling of the country, 
 *' which had so strongly manifested itself at the late General 
 " Election, was due to the dislike which the people had to the 
 " measures of their predecessors ; and that if they were anxious 
 " to merit and maintain their present position they must show 
 " a little more confidence in themselves, and not think to re- 
 '' tain strength and power by seaiching into the pigeon-holes 
 *' of the various departmental offices for the discarded measures 
 " of their predecessors — of which this Bill was one ; antl would 
 " rather mistrust the recommendations of those permanent 
 *' officials who had so largely contributed to the downfall of 
 ** the late Government. The rating question had no doubt 
 *' created great interest throughout the country. It might be 
 '* divided into two questions. The greater question of the two 
 " was the hardship inflicted by the pressure of the rates on the 
 *' agricultural interest, and on that interest alone ; and with 
 *' that question the Government did not propose to deal. The 
 *' lessor grievance arose out of the fact that whereas the larger 
 ♦' portion of the agricultural interest paid the rates, certain 
 " other property, such as woods, mines, and game, escaped 
 *' untaxed. With this lesser grievance, the present Government 
 " like their predecessors, did propose to deal. But there was 
 " this difference — that the country believed that the present 
 " Government would also deal with the larger question, while 
 *' they placed no confidence in the late Government. Though 
 " in some of its details with respect to the rights of fishing 
 " and sporting it was open to objection, he approved the 
 *' principles of the Bill now before their Lordships, in t'he 
 '• belief that it was only a portion of a larger scheme to be 
 *• introduced hereafter." 
 
108 TAKLI AMENTA RY FALLACIES. 
 
 What measures are referred to ? If the electors were dis- 
 satisfied with a measure which would bring under contribution 
 property exempt from contributing to local rates, they must be 
 strangely constituted. Dissatisfaction with some of the measures 
 passed by the late Government was, no doubt, one cause of their 
 defeat at the General Election ; but there were other causes, 
 some of them not very creditable to the successful party. The 
 Rating Bill is not the only measure of the Gladstone ministry, the 
 wisdom of which has, since the General Election, been endorsed 
 by the present Government. Lord Bath's advice may be very 
 well intended, but the ministry will do well, in their own interest, 
 to avoid following it. What does he mean by saying that the 
 hardship inflicted by the pressure of the rates falls upon the agri- 
 cultural interest alone ? No statement can be further removed 
 from the actual facts. It is the smaller ratepayers in towns who 
 feel the pressure of local taxation, and have to bear the ex- 
 clusive cost of improvements which enhance the value of real 
 property. The Government are well advised in ignoring the 
 imaginary grievances that have been put forth on behalf of the 
 agricultural interest. They are, however, paying the penalty of 
 having excited hopes which it is impossible to satisfy, a course 
 which, although pleasant and successful for a time, never fails to 
 bring about its own revenges. If the larger scheme, for which 
 the Marquis of Bath hopes, is based upon the policy of relieving 
 agriculture at the expense of the already heavily-burdened tax- 
 payers of the towns, they will no doubt regard it in the same 
 light as Uncle Oliver in the "School for Scandal" regarded usury, 
 and will re-echo his toast, " May it meet with all the success it 
 deserves." 
 
 DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS. 
 Eebruary 5, 1875. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli, 
 
 In reply to some strictures of the Marquess of Hartington, said* 
 in reference to the Local Taxation Subvention of the previous 
 session, " the moment we had the opportunity we .appealed 
 " to the justice of the House of Commons. We carried the 
 '* measure we brought foiward, and those who were unjustly 
 " taxed in our local fiscal system have now for a year been 
 
MR. DISRAELI AND SIR G. JENKINSON. 109 
 
 ** benefitted to a great extent, and feel from that circumstance 
 *' a confidence in the sincerity of those who for so long a time 
 " and so fruitlessly advocated the cause of justice." 
 
 What, was the complfiint urged " for so long a time, and so 
 fruitlessly ?** Neither more nor less than the heavy burdens 
 placed upon the agricultural interest, and especially upon the 
 owners of land. In fulfilment of their pledges to remedy this 
 alleged injustice, the Ministry granted subventions, the greater 
 portion of which went to the towns. It will subsequently be seen 
 to what extent this proceeding has created " confidence in the 
 sincerity " of the Administration. It would be satisfactory to 
 know how many ratepayers have experienced any benefit from a 
 measure which, while ostensibly a small relief in the local rates, 
 was an addition to the burden of imperial taxation. If great 
 benefits have been experienced from the measure of last year, it 
 is surely possible to adduce demonstrative examples, and thus to 
 convince the sceptical and confound the captious. Let the sup- 
 porters of the transfer descend from vague generalities into the 
 region of detailed and circumstantial fact. We then shall be able 
 to judge whether the procedure is anything more substantial 
 than the celebrated pea and thimble trick, with which it has long 
 been a well-known practice to delude credulous rustics. 
 
 DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS. 
 February 8, 1875. 
 
 Sir George Jenkinson 
 
 Said, " he wished to say a few words upon the subject of local taxa- 
 ** tion. There was great dissatisfaction with the small notice 
 ** taken of this matter last year, and with the total omission 
 ** of the subject from the Queen's Speech this year. The right 
 ** hon. gentleman at the head of the Government said that this 
 '* was a matter which would be properly dealt with when the 
 . " Budget came on ; but it was to be feared that the surplus 
 " would not be sufficient to give them very great hope of 
 " getting a grant in aid of local taxation. Besides, he was one 
 " of those who did not look much to grants in aid, because 
 ** the amount of such grants went principally to the towns. 
 *' A grant in aid was not the way to reach the root of the evil ; 
 *' but it was like skinning over the wound and leaving it 
 *' rankling underneath. Hia right hon. friend the Chancellor 
 
110 PARLIAMENTARY FALLACIKS. 
 
 " of the Exchequer, in answer to a deputation that waited upon 
 " him last year, used these remarkable words. He said — 
 
 "'The system of raising general taxation for general purposes 
 " * from one particular kind of property inflicted as great a 
 " * violation of justice as could well be conceived,' 
 
 " In his (Sir George Jenkinson's) opinion the total exemption of 
 " one class of property from local taxation was the main evil 
 " to be dealt with, and nothing but legislation to remedy that 
 " evil would give the relief desired." 
 
 This is a very different view of the position from that of Mr. 
 Disraeli, " confidence" gives place to " great dissatisfaction." Sir 
 George Jenkinson's remarks are mainly valuable, because they 
 indicate the real views of the party which formerly was in the 
 habit of acting under the leadership of Sir Massey Lopes. They 
 have no anxiety to relieve the ratepayers of the towns who now 
 bear the heaviest portion of local burdens. It is the landowners 
 for whom their sympathies are excited, and it is the relief of real 
 property that is the object of their aspirations. It is quite true 
 that " grants in aid " do not reach the root of the evil, inasmuch 
 as they increase the burden upon labour, both physical and 
 mental. The " root of the evil " lies in the fact that permanent 
 improvements for the benefit of property are defrayed exclusively 
 by occupiers, and that, as a consequence of such improvements 
 towards which landowners have contributed nothing, they are 
 enabled to exacc increased rentals from their tenants at whose 
 cost such improvements have been effected. It should be 
 clearly understood that the intention and effect of imperial 
 subventions" in aid of local rates is to place an additional burden 
 upon tradesmen, clerks, artisans, and labourers, for the benefit of 
 owners of real property. The declaration quoted by the hon. 
 baronet was not made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but 
 by the Prime Minister to a deputation from the Central and 
 Associated Chambers of Agriculture, on the 23rd of March, 1874. 
 The correct words, as reported in the Annual Report of the Local 
 Taxation Committee, were as follows: — "A system of raising 
 taxation for general purposes from one particular kind of property 
 involves as great a violation of justice as can well be conceived." 
 The sentence is pithy and epigrammatic, and was no doubt con- 
 soling to the deputation ; but it is entirely inapplicable to our 
 system of local taxation. What they mean is that we do not tax 
 fundholders and owners of other kinds of personal property for 
 poor rates ; but in the first place it is not true that we do raise 
 taxation for general purposes from one particular kind of property 
 alone ; and in the second place the justice or injustice of such a 
 
SIR OEORGK JENKINSOX. Ill 
 
 course would depend entirely upon the nature of the property and 
 upon many other considerations, as, for example, special privileges 
 and advantages attaching to the property so taxed. It is not true that 
 local taxation is raised exclusively, as Mr. Disraeli would make it 
 appear, from one particular kind of property. It is assessed upon 
 rental, but is paid hy the tenant, upon whose income, from what- 
 ever source it may he derived, a considerable portion of the 
 burden finally rests. Neither income from the funds, or other 
 similar investments, the profits of trades and professions, the 
 .wages of labour, the salaries of clerks, nor income from property, 
 whether real or personal, escape the burden of local rates. Forty 
 millions of Imperial revenue is raised by means of duties levied 
 upon five articles of general consumption, but no one pretends 
 that the whole amount thus raised rests upon those five articles, 
 or upon those who deal in them ; it is spread over the whole 
 community. In hke manner local rates are not raised from the 
 property upon which they are assessed, nor from those by whom 
 it is owned, and who receive the profits. The " violation of 
 justice," which excites such feelings of indignation in the mind 
 of Mr. Disraeli, has consequently no existence. If it were the 
 case that taxation for general purposes had been levied from one 
 particular kind of property, it would not follow that such a pro- 
 cedure was a violation of justice ; that would depend upon a 
 variety of circumstances afi'ecting its original character and the 
 conditions under which private ownership of such property has 
 invariably existed. Mr. Disraeli is so great a master of the art 
 of concealing his meaning in a cloud of words, that it is frequently 
 no easy task to ascertain what is the precise point he is endea- 
 vouring to mystify ; but in this case there is no difiiculty. There 
 can be no doubt that he intended to convey the idea that the 
 landowners were a long-suffering and much- abused race; that 
 heavy burdens were placed upon them which they were scarcely 
 able to bear ; that he was the statesman who alone felt any real 
 sympathy with them ; and, now that he was in office as Prime 
 Minister with a majority, he would do his best to afibrd them 
 relief. The result has shown that, with the very best intentions, 
 he has but little power to carry out their desires. The alleged 
 burdens on land, in so far as they aflect the rent received by the 
 landowners, are a rent-charge in favour of the public ; they are 
 as much the property of the nation as the remaining portion is 
 the property of the landlords, upon whom personally they are no 
 burden, as they have inherited or purchased their property 
 subject to these charges. When the whole question of 
 the incidence of taxation is thoroughly examined, it is evident 
 that the real grievance is that of the general public, and 
 
112 PARLIAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 that, neither in respect to imperial nor local taxation, does 
 real property bear its share of the public burdens. By 
 the flagitious Act of 1660, which relieved landholders from 
 their feudal obligations and threw the burden upon consumers of 
 taxed commodities, a great fraud was perpetrated upon the people : 
 they were deprived of their inheritance in the soil of their own 
 country, to which they were in equity as clearly entitled as the 
 landlords to their portion of its rental; in addition the spon- 
 taneous growth of rent, which has been created by the general 
 industry of the country, has been entirely appropriated by the 
 owners of the soil, although it has come into existence without 
 either effort or outlay on their part. Sir George Jenkinson and 
 those who agree with him may desire legislation in harmonv 
 with their views, but they may depend upon it, that the question 
 once stirred will not be allowed to rest, until the grievances of 
 which the people have just reason to complain are redressed. 
 Landowners may despise the warning given them by members of 
 Mr. Gladstone's administration, but they will have to abide by the 
 consequences of having imprudently stirred up awkward ques- 
 tions. 
 
 Mr. Scourfield. 
 " On the subject of local taxation he wished to see a more accu- 
 " rate definition of the question. The general taxes of the 
 " country were levied under Acts of Parliament, and the tax- 
 ** payers could clearly understand what they had to pay ; but 
 " the local rates, though nominally levied by local bodies, 
 " depended as to their amount upon the representations of 
 " official persons who had no sort of interest in the diminution 
 " of the burdens, but whose interest, in fact, lay in the opposite 
 " direction. Those who imposed the rates wished to indulo-e 
 " in a vicarious philanthropy. They wished, as the hon. and 
 " learned member for the city of Oxford (Sir William Har- 
 *' court) -said of them, to play the part of the Good Samaritan, 
 " without providing the oil and the twopence. Something 
 " might be done, perhaps, to remedy the evil by means of sub- 
 '' ventions ; hut, as a general rule, subventions were clogged 
 " with conditions which increased the expense, and could not 
 " therefore be resorted to with general advantage." 
 
 Accurate definition is no doubt desirable, and would dispose of 
 the claims put forward for the rehef of the landed interest. That 
 taxpayers can clearly understand what they have to pay in im- 
 p(?iial taxation is hardly consistent with the fact that the larger 
 p'Ttion of it is levied by duties on commodities, whose great merit, 
 in the eyes of their defenders, consists in the fact that they conceal 
 
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE. 113 
 
 the burden. Ratepayers know what they have to pay in local 
 rates far more clearly than in general taxation. It may be true 
 that in some instances local expenditure may be increased in con- 
 sequence of' the representations of inspectors from the central 
 authority, but tlieir powers are based upon and defined by Acts of 
 Parliament. It is probable that a system of subventions without 
 the exercise of any control from the central authority would be a 
 satisfactory solution of the matter, so far as Mr. Scourfield and 
 his friends are concerned ; but there can be no doubt that, in that 
 event, the last state of the ratepayers would be worse than the 
 first. It is perfectly idle to imagine that the Treasury will grant 
 subventions without having any voice as to the mode in which 
 they are to be expended, or without taking due precautions for 
 the efficient management of the institutions in aid of which they 
 make contributions. We should probably have had one rate for 
 London ere this, but for the difficulty of giving St. George's, 
 Hanover-square a control over the expenditure of St. George's- 
 in-the-East. 
 
 THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT. 
 
 April 15th, 187p. 
 
 Sir Stafford ISTorthcote. 
 
 We have been accused of doing nothing in the matter of Local 
 " Taxation. No doubt we are still a little short of the magni- 
 " ficent promises held out by the noble Lord opposite (the 
 " Marquis of Hartington), who promised a relief of 
 "£1,200,000; but we have given .£1,154,000, and that ii 
 " something better than talking about doing so. And although 
 " we are not proceeding by leaps and bounds, we are still ad- 
 " vancing steadily and safely, and are not losing sight of the 
 " question. Last year we introduced the principle of an Im- 
 " perial subvention for purposes fairly requiring it. We also 
 " extended the area of rating by abolishing certain classes of 
 *' exemptions. This year we are taking a step towards im- 
 " proving the system on which local loans are contracted, giving 
 *' greater security and greater advantages to the investor ; and 
 " we are endeavouring to bring about a system Avhich shall be 
 " the foundation of a local Budget. ^sText year, if not this year 
 " I hope we may be able to take a step further, and that the 
 " promise given earlier in the evening by my right hon. friend 
 " the President of the Local Government Board may be 
 
114 PARLIAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 " redeemed by tlie introduction of a Valuation Bill that will 
 " improve the system of assessment and remove some of the 
 " anomalies that now exist. We cannot do more than we 
 " have done ; but we are honest in our attempts, and we 
 " have endeavoured to deal with the subject in the best way 
 " we can. If we have not made strides sufficient to satisfy 
 " the impatience sometimes manifested on the other side of 
 '* the House, I hope our friends will believe that we are doing 
 " what in us lies, and that what we have done is only an 
 " earnest of what we hope in the future to do." 
 
 Again tho deluding fallacy that "wc have given" something 
 in relief of local rates, the fact being that a mere transfer has 
 been effected from one pocket to another, and that the burden has 
 been rendered less evident, while its real pressure has been aggra- 
 vated. It is also inaccurate to say that " yve introduced " the 
 principle of an Imperial subvention. It Was introduced by Sir 
 Robert Peel, in 1846, and all that has been done since that time 
 has been to extend its application. An improvement of the 
 system on which loans are contracted is, no doubt, a great deside- 
 ratum, but the idea of a Local Jiudget is one of the greatest 
 delusions that have ever been employed to hoodwink taxpayers. 
 The proper place for a Local Budget is in the local governing 
 body. Any attempt to produce one in the House of Commons 
 would either add enormously to the already oppressive labours of 
 that assembly, or it would become as useless and unattractive a 
 proceeding as the Indian Budget. It is in the extension and 
 strengthening of our local institutions and the creation ot County 
 Boards on a broad suffrage basis that the real remedy for existing 
 evils is to be found. Unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 is prepared to discuss the details of every different local district, 
 his local budget would convey nothing more than is already done 
 in the returns laid before Parliament, while it would, if it were 
 made a leulity, seriously interfere with the legitimate busmess of 
 the House of Commons. In recounting the various measures 
 proposed, and to be proposed, respecting local taxation, there is 
 not one word to indicate the fact that the Government have been 
 to some extent treading in the path laid down by their predecessors, 
 and have, in fact, adopted the comparatively easy course of 
 appropriating their measures without acknowledgment. The 
 "■ impatience sometimes manifested " at the slowness of their pro- 
 ceedings has been principally manifested by Sir George Jenkinson, 
 Sir Lawrence Palk, Sir William Bartellot, Mr. Scourfield, and 
 other supporters of the present ministry, to whom it must have 
 been news that they belong to '*the other side of the House." 
 The criticisms of the opposition have been mainly directed to a 
 
MR. PELL. 115 
 
 demonstration of the fact that in office the Government were 
 compelled to proceed with the caution displayed by their prede- 
 cessor?, and were unable to gratify the desires of their supporters. 
 
 Mb, Pell 
 
 " Could not say that the statement of the Chancellor of the Ex- 
 " chequer was a very cheering one in regard to the subject 
 " which he and other hon. members liad at heart." 
 
 This complaint, at all events, does not come from "the other 
 side of the House.'' 
 
 " Since 1869 up to 1874-5 there had been a remission of Imperial 
 *' taxation to the amount of £20,000,000, or, making allowance 
 '' for the addition to taxation of some £3,000,000 in the time he 
 " had selected, a reduction of over £17,000,000. That was cer- 
 
 ^ " tainly a cheering state of things. In the course of eiglit 
 '^ years there had been an increase of local rates to tlie extent 
 " of £2,500,000, and he did not think this fact had been fully 
 *' realized." 
 
 The fact must not be lost sight of that the amount of the 
 I^ational Revenue w^as larger in the last-named than in the former 
 year. The figures are as follows : — 
 
 1868—69 £72,591,991 
 
 1874—75 £74,921,873 
 
 Increase . . . . £1,329,882 
 
 A remission of taxes is not necessarily a remission of taxation ; 
 and, in the case referred to, it has merely been a change in the 
 mode of collection — from the extravagance of the indirect method 
 so largely employed in raising the Imperial revenue towards the 
 simplicity and economy of the method by which our local reve- 
 nues are mainly collected. If there is a necessity for increased 
 expenditure for local purposes, local rates will necessarily increase. 
 It would, no doubt, be very pleasant to have whatever we want 
 without the necessity of paying for it ; but such is not the usual 
 course of affairs, new wants involve extra expenditure. Taxation 
 may indeed be concealed by unscientific and costly methods of 
 procedure, but the pressure of the burden is aggravated by the 
 process, and thrown with greater weight upon those who have the 
 least voioQ in administration and who have the smallest means. 
 
116 PARLIAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 Mr. Scourfiel-d 
 
 " Would like to see an attempt made to put local taxation, which 
 " at present fell on one description of property, on the same 
 " footincj as imperial taxation. In Liverpool Id. in the pound 
 " on the property and income schedules would produce as 
 " much as 6d. on assessable property, and the right lion. 
 " Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had stated that 4d. in 
 " the pound on the poor rate assessment would yield a sum 
 *' equal to Id. in the pound on the property and income-tax 
 " schedules. The whole expense of education fell upon local 
 " taxation, and there was a growing feeling in the country 
 " that local burdens had been most unfairly increased, and 
 " were likely to be increased still further." 
 
 It is fortunate that tliosc who wish to put local taxation " on 
 the same footing as Imperial taxation " are a minority, otherwise 
 the ratepayers would soon feel a great increase in their burd-ens. It 
 seems, however, from the following paragraph that Mr. Scourfield's 
 meaning is to collect local taxation by means of an Income Tax 
 on all now paying and on Fundholders, and thus extend all the 
 evils of that impost. This is a question that he will have to fight 
 out with the Anti-Income Tax Association ; but it may be as 
 well for him to say where he would assess merchants, bankers, 
 and financiers ; at the places where they carry en their business, 
 or where they reside, and, if the latter, what is to be done when 
 they have a number of residences ? The device may be inge- 
 nious as a theoretical means of favouring owners of real property, 
 but it is thoroughly unworkable, and if practicable would be un- 
 just. But why should it stop here ? Why not tax Murillos, 
 Aubusson carpets, diamonds, Canova busts, priceless MSS, and 
 goods in bond ? If the whole expense of education faDs upon 
 local taxation, what becomes of the amount voted yearly in the 
 .estimates for that purpose ; is it applied in some other direction ? 
 If so it is a matter for the Select Committee on Public Accounts ; 
 but the statement is merely an example of the rhetorical exagge- 
 ration which appears to be inseparable from the arguments of 
 " local taxation reformers." 
 
 Mr. TlLLETT 
 
 " Concurred with the hon. member (Mr. Scourfield) that there 
 " a feeling of great dissatisfaction a: ' 
 " which local taxation was increasin 
 
 a feeling of great dissatisfaction arising out of the manner in 
 
 " With regard to the local burdens upon one description of 
 *' property, they ;jow amounted to the enormous sum of 
 " £20,000,000." 
 
ME. SCOURFIELD, MR. TILLETT, AND MR. HUNT. 117 
 
 It may reasonably be expected that an increase of local taxa- 
 tion will keep pace with the growth of local improvements, unless 
 some means can be devised of securing such advantages without 
 having to pay for them. Mr. Tillett seems anxious to show that 
 error upon these subjects is not confined to the Conservative 
 benches, but that even some Liberals entertain the delusion that 
 local taxation is a burden upon real property exclusively. If so 
 whence arises the dissatisfaction of ratepayers who are not owners, 
 and why are they not disabused of their error ? 
 
 DEBATE ON THE BUDGET, 
 
 May 7, 1875.* 
 
 Mr. Ward Hunt. 
 ** A gretit deal of criticism, he might add, had been expended on the 
 *' subject of the relief which was given to the ratepayers ; -and, 
 " no doubt, that which had ostensibly increased the expendi- 
 *' ture of the country was the subvention in aid of local taxa- 
 " tion, by which very considerable relief had been afforded. 
 '' It rested with the present Government to deal practically 
 *' with a grievance which, was on all sides admitted to exist, 
 '' and he believed the relief given was*very gratefully acknow- 
 " ledged by those who laboured under that grievance." 
 
 Mr. "Ward Hunt has, in this sentence, explained the whole 
 process of subventions, and shows very clearly that the relief is 
 an illusion, the real effect being to increase the taxation of the 
 country at the expense of the same people that have been relieved 
 in their local districts. It is to be feared that he does not study 
 the proceedings of the Chambers of Agriculture. If he did, he 
 would discover that the subventions of the previous Session were 
 by no means " gratefully acknowledged," v,^hile the inhabitants 
 of the towns have no reason to be thankful, so long as they are 
 compelled to pay the whole cost of improvements, which have a 
 direct tendency to increase the value of property, and to raise 
 their rents, 'ihe amount of relief to the taxpayers afforded by 
 the subventions of 1874 was for that year only, and was obtained 
 from the surplus left by Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Lowe. In the 
 
 * ^he extracts from ParHamentary Debates in the following pages are 
 taken from tke I'imes reports, as Hansard was not ready when the MS. 
 was sent to the printer. 
 
113 PARLIAMENTAKY FALLACIES. 
 
 following year it became a charge against revenue, and ^'endered 
 necessary the imposition of taxation to the amount of £l,2o0,000. 
 This sum is nearlv three-eighths the produce of the income tax at 
 2d. ; it is nearly one-sixth the yield of the malt tax, that stand- 
 ino- 'orievance of the agriculturists, and the further the principle 
 of'subventions is carried, the more distant will become the pros- 
 pect of the reduction of that impost. It would have been far 
 wiser to have applied that portion of the surplifs to the entire 
 repeal of small duties of customs and excise, which are nothing 
 but restrictions upon the growth of trade, and hindrances to the 
 development of nationah prosperity. 
 
 DEBATE ON SECOND READING OF THE PUBLIC 
 WORKS LOANS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL, 
 
 May 24, 1875. 
 
 The Chancellor of the Exchequer. 
 
 The view of the subject taken by the Government was that they 
 '' had two classes of questions with which to deal — the placing, 
 '^ of the relations between Imperial and local finance on a 
 ^' proper footing, and the alteration and amendment of local 
 '' finaace within itself. The former of those considerations the 
 *' Government had deemed it right to place on the iirst line, as 
 " being the most important and pressing. The reverse view 
 *' was talxen by right hon. gentlemen opposite when they had 
 *' to deal with the s^ibject.- TVhen they were asked to make 
 " some provision for the relief of local taxation from the burdens 
 " which it was said were unjustly imposed upon it, they generally 
 " met the difficulty by urging that the local linance system 
 " should, first of atl, be placed on a proper footing, and then 
 '• steps taken in the direction of dealing with Imperial funds. 
 " That mode of proceeding had led to little or no result, though 
 '' it w^ accompanied by a great deal of sound doctrine. When, 
 " therefore, the present Government took up the question, they 
 " felt that it could not he satisfactorily dealt with in that w^iy, 
 *' and that, in point of fact, it was expedient to reverse the 
 " process suggested by their predecessors. They thought it 
 " right ill those matters to settle their policy first and the 
 *' machinery after, because the policy being settled, the 
 " machinery could be adapted to it. In pursuing the opposite 
 
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, 119 
 
 " coarse they were of opinion that right hon. gentlemen oppo- 
 '' site were wrong, for what were local taxation and local 
 " government 1 They almost invariably involved, more or 
 *' less, Imperial considerations. There v/ere questions of educa- 
 " tion, sanitary questions, and a number of others, in respect 
 '* to almost all of which that observation applied. Taking, 
 ** for example, the administration of justice, he would ask 
 *' whether it was not m.ost important that questions affecting 
 " that subject should be settled by Imperial authority before 
 " the position of the local authorities in connexion with it 
 '' was considered. The hon. member for Hackney (Mr. 
 " Fawcett), whenever he spoke on local taxation, told the 
 " story of an election incident in Cornwall, in which one of the 
 '' candidates was told that he had no chance of winning because 
 " he had voted for giving a superannuation allowance to the 
 " governor of the prison, the moral being to show how im- 
 " portant it was that the ratepayers should exercise some control 
 '• over expenditure^ But what were the merits of the question? 
 " In all probability the Visiting Justices knew what they were 
 " about in granting a retiring allowance, and it might have 
 " been an unfortunate thing to have intrusted the matter to 
 " the -ratepayers, who were, perhaps, incompetent to decide 
 " upon it. In these questions it was important to consider, 
 " first, how the service was to be done, and iiext, to whom it 
 " had best be intrusted. The matter was not to be looked at 
 " as one of saving money. Xow, the administration of justice, 
 " which was a ditficult and complicated question, could not be 
 " dealt with on the principles which the hon. gentlenjan advo- 
 '* cated. They had to consider how far it was an Imperial 
 " concern, and how far the cost of it should be defrayed out of 
 " Imperial funds. The question had been raised in different 
 " forms at different times. When the hon. gentleman first 
 " raised it he objected to the unequal manner in which certain 
 '' classes of property were taxed. But as the discussion pro- 
 ** ceeded, he and those who acted with him abandoned their 
 " attempt to re-adjust local taxation so as to make it embrace 
 " all classes of property, and in 1872 came forward with a reso- 
 " lution in the following terms : — 
 
 " * That it is expedient to remedy the injustice of imposing taxation 
 " ' for national objects on one description of property only ; 
 " ' and that, therefore, no legislation in reference to local taxa- 
 " ' tion will be satisfactory which does not provide, either in 
 " * whole or in part, for the relief of occupiers and owners in 
 " * counties and boroughs, in respect to the administration of 
 " * justice, police, and lunatics, the expenditure for such pur- 
 " * poses being almost entirely independent of local control.' 
 
 *' That resolution, which was adopted with the concurrence of most 
 *' of those who now sat on the Government side of the House, 
 
120 PARLIAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 *' was tlie basis upon which the Government had been proceed- 
 " ing since they came into office. (Hear, hear.) They had 
 *' dealt with it to a certain extent ; they had taken np the 
 *' questions of police and lunatics, and if they had not yet 
 " entered into that of the administration of justice it was owing 
 " to the complexity of the subject and the financial condition 
 '' of the country. (Hear, hear.) But it was a question which 
 *' had not been forgotten, and which, no doubt, they would be 
 *' prepared to deal with at the proper time. (Hear, hear.) 
 '* Having adopted that resolution as the basis on which to go, 
 " the Government naturally took the course of 23roposing 
 " certain subventions. They thought it wrong, however, 
 " simply to give subventions without at the same time obtain- 
 ^' ing some security for the proper application of the money 
 ^' granted. They proposed, therefore, to bring the sums granted 
 *' for police and lunatics under a certain amount of control — 
 '' (hear, hear) —and with that object, so far as the police were 
 " concerned, he intended that evening to move for leave to 
 " introduce a Bill. Such were their intentions with regard to 
 " subventions. But they Avished further to bring the condition 
 *' of local finance more directly under the notice of Parliament 
 " by the introduction of a " Local Budget." (Hear, hear.) An 
 " annual statement of that kind would be very desirable, not 
 '^ only in regard to direct taxation and expenditure, but also as 
 " showing the process and progress of local indebtedness. 
 ** There was a very great risk of local authorities increasing 
 " their indebtedness without the fact being properly observed, 
 '' and the Government felt it was important, on the one hand, 
 " that steps should be taken to enable local authorities to 
 " provide the funds necessary for the purposes they were 
 ^' called upon to execute, and, on the other hand, to bring 
 *' the process by which they were increasing their indebted- 
 " ness clearly and properly before Parliament. It was im- 
 " portant to bear in mind that a great proportion of the 
 " services — such as education and sanitary improvements — 
 " for which local authorities incurred debt were rendered for 
 " Imperial reasons and by Imperial legislation: (Hear.) It 
 " Avas therefore quite reasonable that the Imperial authority 
 " should assist the local authority not only in the Avay of 
 '' direct subventions, but also by facilitating the borroAving of 
 " money and by putting their operations on such a footing as 
 *• might beat guard -against abuse. With that end in view 
 " the Government had introduced tAvo Bills — one relating to 
 " the Public A¥orks Loans Commissioners, and the other to 
 " Local Authorities' Loans. What the Government aimed at 
 " Avas in the first place to secure the Treasury against incon- 
 " venient, inexpedient, and irregular calls being made upon 
 '•' it through the Public Works Loans Commissioners. Public 
 " Works Loans Avere Avhat might be called the ' rage ' of the 
 
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE* 121 
 
 '* present day, everybody whe had au improvement to propose 
 *' or new legislation to suggest turning to the Public Works 
 " Loan i'und as the means by which the thing was to be 
 " done. As guardian of the Public Exchequer, he felt 
 " bound to try to make these calls more regular. That was 
 *' one object they had in view. Another, as he had already 
 " explained, was to bring before Parliament, and through the 
 ** action of Parliament to bring before the local authorities 
 *' themselves, the -progress of local borrowing and expendi- 
 " ture ; and in connexion with this the Government proposed 
 ** to introduce also the principle of audit. In that way he 
 " believed they would pave the way for a steady and progres- 
 *' sive improvement in our local financial system. (Hear, hear.) 
 " Now, they were told they were not doing anything for local 
 " self-government. Well, it was perfectly true that they were 
 " doing little or nothing in that matter, but the fact was that 
 " these great schemes of local self-government were brought 
 " forward rather with the object of staving off demands on 
 " the Treasury than with the view of their being adopted. It 
 " would certainly be possible to bring forward some ingenious 
 *' plan for reconstituting the local authority of the whole 
 " country which might make a great sensation, and afford 
 " opportunity for declamation and display ; but he very much 
 " doubted whether any great good would be effected in that 
 *' way. Far better would it be to throw as mucli light aa 
 *' possible on the subject, and to facilitate the improvement of 
 *' the existing machinery. By this means he believed it would 
 *' be found that an improvement of the system could be 
 ** effected without any violent organic changes. (Hear, hear.) 
 " Her Majesty's Government would not decline when the 
 '' proper time came to consider the measures which would have 
 " to be undertaken in reference to the improvement of the 
 *' local constitution of the country." 
 
 Here at length is an authoritative exposition of the views of 
 the present ministry upon the important questions of Local 
 Taxation and Government. That they would differ from their 
 predecessors in the order of their procedure everybody was aware. 
 They were committed to the resolution of Sir Mas&ey Lopes, and 
 it was but natural that one of their earliest acts should be the 
 appropriation of part of the surplus of the late ministry so as to 
 meet the requirements of their friends. The first point of policy 
 that was settled was to grant a subvention from the Imperial 
 taxes, at the same time reducing the income-tax, so that the whole 
 burden of the transfer might as far as possible be thrown upon 
 consumers of taxed commodities — an admirable commentary upon 
 Mr. Scourfield^s proposal to raise local taxation by means of a tax 
 
122 PARLIAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 ■upon income. The real effect of the system of subventions, for 
 which the Government claim so much credit, cannot, under our 
 existing system of Imperial taxation, be other than disastrous to 
 the less wealthy contributors — a fact which is 'made very clear in 
 the following extract from the speech of Professor Fawcett during 
 the same debate : — 
 
 " The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the policy of the 
 " present Government, as distinguisTied from that of their pre- 
 " decessors, was to determine their policy first and their 
 " machinery afterwards. The members of the late Government 
 " were able to defend themselves, but it was open to an inde- 
 " pendent member to ask whether the present Administration 
 " had given any sign of possessing a policy at all with reference 
 " to local taxation and administration. The Chancellor of the 
 " Exchequer had informed the House that further grants were 
 " to be given from Imperial funds in aid of local taxation, 
 " and he had also announced a scheme for the reduction of the 
 " National Debt ; but it had also been made clear that on the 
 *' Budget of the year the right hon. gentleman had not a 
 " shilling to spare. This throws new light on the financial pro- 
 " posals of the Government, for it was well known that the 
 *' present grants in aid of local taxation must at least be 
 " doubled in order to carry out the principle of what was 
 " known as Sir Massey Lopes' resolution. It might be all very 
 " well to make these grants, but if made in a partial, hap- 
 " hazard, and spasmodic way they were likely to injure the 
 " principle of local self-government, and at the same time to 
 " perpetrate great injustice. He had a vivid recollection of 
 " complaints made from the Opposition benches by right hon. 
 " and hon. gentlemen now in power about the way in which 
 " personal property escaped taxation, and the burden was 
 '' thrown upon land, houses, and business premises. One of 
 " the most prominent among the hon. members making these 
 " complaints was the hon. baronet to whose resolution he had 
 ^' just referred. He spoke then as if those he represented were 
 " suffering under a keen feeling of injustice and wrong ; but they 
 " never heard his voice now. He had been so securely silenced 
 " that he was obliged to see the very wrong he so often 
 " denounced greatly aggravated and intensified. He would 
 ''show by an example how these grants in aid of local taxa- 
 "tion from the Imperial funds instead of diminishing the 
 "burden of the most overburdened ratepayers, greatly inten- 
 " sified the injustice under which they suffered. He would put 
 *' a case : Suppose a clerk, a clergyman, or a half-pay officer, 
 " with £200 a year. He had to keep up a respectable appear- 
 " ance on that income. He paid £30 for his house and £8 a year 
 *' in rates. Contrast his position with that of the fundholder. 
 
MR. FAAVCETT ON SUBVENTIONS. 123 
 
 "He had a very small, establishment. Everything that was 
 ii done — whether to make the lite and property of the wealthy 
 " fundholder more secure, to make the city in which he dwells 
 " more healthful, by embanking rivers or sewering streets 
 'i — to every one of these objects the poor man, with his £200 
 " a year, had to contribute, while the wealthy fundholder 
 " almost entirely escaped contribution. But to go a little 
 " further, this injustice was accumulated. Where did these 
 " grants from the Consolidated Fund come from ] They were 
 "not a bounty rained . down from heaven; they represented 
 " taxation, every sixpence of which was taken out of the tax- 
 " payer's pocket. Five-sixths of the entire revenue were raised 
 " from taxation on cocfimodities ; five-sixths of these grants 
 " in aid were therefore paid by the consumers of commodities ; 
 " and therefore if they increased those grants in aid at the 
 " same time that they diminished the taxation on personal 
 ** property, they very largely increased the burden of the 
 ** already overtaxed ratepayers. Who contributed most, in 
 " proportion to his income, to the taxation on commodities 1 
 " The man with moderate mean?. Every article almost con- 
 '* sumed by men of moderate income was far more heavily taxed 
 " than the articles consumed by the wealthy. Beer and cheap 
 " claret paid a much higher percentage of taxation than the best 
 '' clarets and the more expensive wines. Tobacco was taxed 
 " 400 per cent., while the best cigars were taxed only 25 per 
 " cent. The best tea was taxed not more than 15 per cent., 
 " while the poorer sorts were taxed 45 per cent. Therefore 
 " these grants in aid did nothing to bring relief to the over- 
 *' burdened taxpayer, but rather increased the inequality of 
 " taxation under which he suffered." 
 
 It is no doubt true that the administration of justice is an 
 " Imperial concern," as well as one of local importance ; but it 
 ought also to be a matter of '* Imperial concern " that the public 
 revenue, whether national or local, is raised in a fair and equit- 
 able manner. That this is not the case at present is almost self- 
 evident, and Mr. Fawcett gives practical proof that the pet 
 amendment of the Government is an aggravation of the original 
 injustice. Whenever the people thoroughly understand the sub- 
 ject, they will demand a readjustment in a very different direc- 
 tion. The celebrated resolution of 1872 commences with a mis- 
 statement as to fact, ^nd concludes with an absurd and imprac- 
 ticable recommendation. It is not the case that taxation for 
 national objects is imposed on one description of property only, 
 and it will be no relief to owners and occupiers to tax them in 
 another and more onerous form for the same purposes. The 
 resolution was very skilfully worded, but there can be no mis- 
 
124 PARLIAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 understanding as to its real intention. It was designed to effect a 
 covert relief of owners of property,, and to throw an additional 
 burden upon occupiers. It has already been shown that a " local 
 budget ^' will . be nothing but a useless delusion ; but upon this 
 point, and also upon the Loans Bill the following remarks from 
 JProfessor Fawcett and the Marquess of Hartington are well 
 deserving of attention : — 
 
 Professor Fawcett. 
 
 The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the result of this 
 " measure would be that a complete local budget would be laid 
 " before that House ; but the truth was that as only a very 
 *' small portion of the sums borrowed by the local authorities 
 '' was lent by the Government, the local financial statement to 
 *' be made under this Bill would present a most delusive and 
 " misleading view of the real state of aifairs. If this measure 
 *• were passed, the question of the amount to be advanced to 
 " the local authorities would be brought more immediately and 
 " directly under the control of party and political influences, 
 " and henceforth money would be advanced or withheld, not 
 *' according to the merits of the case, but according as the* 
 "representatives of the borough seeking to borrow were sup- 
 *' porters or opposers of the Government of the day. The 
 ** Bill would, therefore, have a most mischievous effect upon 
 *' both Imperial and local finance. These loans should be 
 *' granted by bodies who were totally independent of political 
 '' and party influences. The Public Works Loan Commissioners 
 " had hitherto discharged their duty in a most admirable and 
 *' a most satisfactory manner, and, except when they had been 
 " interfered with by Parliament, they had, during the course 
 ** of the 30 years they had been in existence, never lost a 
 '< shilling by bad debts. The question was, had the Govern- 
 *' ment been pursuing the right course in introducing social and 
 " sanitary measures without in the first place reforming our 
 *' local self-government and local finance, so as to get rid of the 
 ■ " resistance from the local authorities which the right hon. 
 <' gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had himself 
 " pointed out as likely to obstruct the working of such Bills. 
 *< What was the present position of the question of local taxa- 
 " tion'J The tendency of recent legislation was to throw all 
 *' new local charges upon the occupier, and to let the owner go 
 ** free. He would take the Artisans' Dwellings Bill as an illus- 
 " tration of his proposition. The Home Secretary said that' 
 " although the Bill would in the first instance involve a consi 
 " derable charge in order to carry it into execution, yet the 
 " ratepayers would ultimately be remunerated and recompensed 
 
MR. FAWCETT ON THE LOANS BILL. 125 
 
 " even in a pecuniary sense. Admitting that statement to be 
 " strictly accurate, what did it amount to 1 Supposing £600,000 
 " were required to be raised in order to provide dwellings for 
 " the working classes, it must be borrowed on the principle 
 " that the whole of the money, principal and interest, should 
 " be repaid in 21 years. To do this it would be necessary to 
 *' impose a shilling rate, the result being that at the end of that 
 " term the municipality would, according to the supposition 
 *' of the Home Secretary, find itself in possession of a property 
 *' worth £800,000. But every shilling of the additional rate 
 ** would have been paid by the occupiers, while not a farthing 
 *' would have been contributed by the owners of buildings or by 
 ** the owners of tlie land on which they stood. (Hear, hear.) 
 ** If, then, the occupiers had given to the municipality a pro- 
 " perty worth £800,000 the rates would be reduced; if the 
 " rates were reduced, rents would be raised ; and it came to 
 " this — that the occupier of a house would be rated in order 
 " to enable the owner ultimately to put the money into his 
 " own pocket in the form of increased rent. (Hear, hear.) It 
 " was difficult to imagine anything which involved a greater 
 " infringement of the principles of financial justice. There 
 " could be no doubt that if, for the sake of eifecting any im- 
 *' provement, money was borrowed and a new rate imposed to 
 *' pay the principal and interest of the loan, every shilling of 
 " the rate would be paid by the occupiers as distinguished 
 '* from the owners of farms, houses, and business premises. 
 " To bring out the point in a still more striking light, he would 
 " state another case, which was not an" imaginary one. It re- 
 " presented a bit of real life in a parish where there was a 
 ** clergyman whose tithes had been commuted for £700 a year, 
 *' a non-resident landlord whose income was supposed to be 
 " £10,000 a year, and who had two farms which were let on 
 " long leases. There was also a wealthy stockbroker who 
 " rented for £200 a year the mansion of the non-resident 
 " landlord. In consequence of a sum of money having had 
 " to be borrowed in order to put the roads in a good state of 
 *' repair and to make new. roads a shilling rate was to be im- 
 *' posed for a considerable number of years. In what proper- 
 " tion was that shilling highway rate paid ? The farmer paid 
 " £50 a year, the non-resident landlord did not pay a half- 
 *' penny, the clergyman who kept one carriage jiaid £35 a 
 *' year, and the wealthy stockbroker with £20,000 a year, and 
 "who kept seven carriages, paid only £10 a year. Did Her 
 " Majesty's Government think that their best supporters, the 
 " farmers and clergy, would be satisfied when suffering under 
 " such grievances with a petty proposal for altering in an un- 
 " fortunate way the relations between the Treasury and the 
 ** Public Works Loan Commissioners ?" 
 
126 PARLIAMENTARY FALLACIES.. 
 
 The Marquess op Hartington. 
 
 " They had heen told by the rir/ht. hon. gentleman that one of the 
 " objects to follow from the passing of this Bill was that it 
 " would enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Presi- 
 " dent of the Local Government Board annually to lay before 
 " this House a statement in the nature of a budget of local 
 *' expenditure. That was a thing which was greatly desired 
 " by some hon. members, and among them by his hon. friend 
 "the member for LiverpooL It might have its advantages, 
 " but he failed to see that in such a statement the local rate- 
 " payers would find any great consolation. 'VVhat was the use 
 " of Parliament listening to a Local Taxation Budget of the 
 " Chancellor of the Exchequer if it was to do nothing but 
 " look on at a continually increasing expenditure and indebted- 
 ^'ness*? (Hear.) What was required was not a Local Taxation 
 " Budget presented to this House, but one presented to the rate- 
 " payers of every locality. (Hear, hear.) What we wanted was a 
 " Local Taxation Budget presented to every county, to every 
 •' municipal borough, to every town, and to every Local Go- 
 '' vernment Board, so that every ratepayer might know what 
 '* not one in every thousand knew at present— Avhat he was 
 *' to be called upon to pay, by whom it was to be levied, and 
 *' for what purposes. (Hear, hear.) Such a reform as that 
 " they would not be able to accomplish until they had ob- 
 " tained a simplification 6f the areas of local government, 
 " something in the nature of a consolidated rate, identity of 
 " constitution, and a remodelled Local Government Board. 
 " Until they had effected some euch reforms they might in- 
 *' crease the subsidies, they might year by year make it as easy 
 "as they liked for local bodies to borrow at low rates of 
 * " interest ; but their subsidies would be all swallowed up in 
 " the bottomless pit of weak aud inefficient administration, 
 " and, instead of relieving local ratepayers, they would bo 
 *' adding to the burdens of the people." 
 
 It is hardly to be expected that a Government, which has come 
 into power on the condition that it shall do nothing, will embark 
 in any great scheme of reform ; such a course would be foreign to 
 its nature. But the question will never be solved to the satisfac- 
 tion and advantage of the community until our system of local 
 administration is thoroughly revised and strengthened, a due 
 proportion of local and Imperial burdens levied from owners of 
 property, and the administration of the county finances placed 
 under the control of representatives elected by . the ratepayers. 
 The budget of the Imperial revenue and expenditure, yearly sub- 
 mitted to Parliament, is a very different thing from tliat contem- 
 plated by Sir Staj9['ord Northcote in respect to local taxation and 
 
MR. PAGET. • 127 
 
 expenditure ; the one is prospective, while the other would be 
 retrospective. The discussions on the Imperial Budget have a 
 practical aim and are a reality, while those that would take place 
 upon an ex ^wst facto budget, summarising a previous vear's 
 proceedings ot* the local authorities, would be thoroughly unreal, 
 and the statement would in all probability be postponed, as in 
 the case of the so-called Indian Budget, till the end of the Ses- 
 sion. Practical work will always take precedence of mere critical 
 discussion in a business assembly. The proper pLice for a local 
 budget is a properly constituted local governing body. Parlia- 
 ment is already overworked, without assuming functions which 
 dy:> not belong to it, and which it is incapable of performing with 
 advantage. 
 
 Mr. Paget 
 
 " Would give an illustration of the way in which the tenant-farmer 
 " was affected by local taxation. A penny in the pound of 
 " local taxation was in many cases equivalent to three or four 
 *' times that amount in the shape of Income Tax. For 
 " instance, the income of the occupier of a farm whose rent was 
 *' £300 a year would be taken for the purpose ot Income Tax 
 " at one-half, or £150. From this sum £80 would be deducted, 
 " and the addition of a penny in the pound Income Tax would 
 " make a difference of only 70d. But let a penny in the pound 
 " be put on as local taxation, and what would be the result] 
 '•'The rateable value of this farm would probably be £270, 
 " and therefore a penny rate would yield 270 pence, or nearly 
 " four times as much as a penny Income Tax. (Hear.). Let 
 *' hon. members contrast the position of such an occupier with 
 '* that of a man living by his side 'and enjoying an income 
 " derived perhaps from railways of £150. Be would probably 
 " live in a house of £15 a year rent, which would be rated at 
 " £12, and a penny rate on him would yield 12d. instead of 
 " 270d. (Hear, hear.) Who «ould wonder that the occupiers 
 " of land should feel such a state olthings as a great grievance 'I 
 " But the grievance was not confined solely to occupiers ol 
 '* land ; it als'o affected occupiers of houses to an enormous 
 " extent. The hon. member for Liverpool (Mr. Bathbone), 
 " who had taken an interest in this question some years ago, 
 " told the House in an instructive speech that in Liverpool iie 
 " had found incomes of £ J 5,000 a year rated at 1 per cent., 
 " while the earner of a weekly wage of 24s. had to pay at 
 *' the rate of 4 per cent. In fact, there was ample evi- 
 ** denco that this question affected small occupiers to u greater 
 " extent than almost any other class*" 
 
 
128 PARLIAIMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 ■ The assessment of a farmer's income at a fixed proportion of 
 his rent is an anomaly in the assessment of the Income Tax, which 
 dates from the days of feudal supremacy and the pre-education 
 period. It appears from Mr. Paget's example that in the one 
 case the farmer would pay 5s. lOd., and in the other 22s. 6d. ; 
 hut there are some considerations which he overlooks. In the 
 first place the farmer has taken his farm subject to such a contin- 
 gency, and his rent has been fixed with a view to existing and 
 prospective burdens. Then the question arises, does the farmer 
 actually pay the said rates out of his own earnings, or do they 
 not become a part of the cost of production, and are they not 
 repaid to him in the increased price of his produce ? This is the 
 view taken by Professor T. E. Olifi'e Leslie, and by the Commis- 
 sioners of the State of New York* ; and if this is the case it is 
 difficult to see that there is any greater hardship in this instance 
 than in that of the large manufacturer who pays a heavy poor 
 rate upon his factory, or than in the case of the coalowner, who 
 pays a poor rate in proportion to the output of his colliery. The 
 cases of the farmer and of the owner of an income from other 
 sources, assessed upon his dwelling-house, are not parallel, and 
 not fit subjects for comparison. Besides, in the case of an income 
 from railways, Mr. Paget has made an unfortunate selection, for 
 it has already paid one poor rate in the assessment of the railway 
 itself; and, upon his own theory, would have been more than 
 £150, but for that payment. His illustration disposes, at all 
 events, of the alleged grievance of owners of real property, for it 
 is shown that the increase is borne by the occupier, and that 
 consequently it is only that portion of the local rates, whiuh is of 
 long standing, and has become a rent-charge inherited with their 
 estates, that afi'ects owners. To employ a familiar adage — 
 " The boot's on the otter leg.*' It is owners of real property 
 who enjoy an unjust exemption from the increased burden of 
 local taxation. In the case of small town ratepayers, for whom 
 Mr. Paget expresses commiseration, the increase of their burdens 
 by throwing an increased proportion of local expenditure upon 
 taxed commodities, of which they are the largest consumers, is a 
 curious method of affording relief. As Mr. Paget quotes Mr. 
 Eathbone, the following extracts from a speech by that gentle- 
 man, on the same occasion, may be commended to his considera- 
 tion : — " lie trusted, that the Government would give away no 
 more money in that direction until they had promoted or were 
 prepared to submit some scheme of reform in reference to the 
 relations which existed between the local bodies and the central 
 authority." ' And then added that : *^ He would urge upon hon. 
 
 * See pp. 2o 26. 
 
MK. R. YORKE, MR. BENTINCK, AND MR. PELL 129 
 
 gentlemen opposite that they could support no more Conservative 
 measure than one which would give owners of property, by being 
 directly rated, an interest in the origin and the application of 
 local burdens." 
 
 Mr. E. Yorke. 
 
 " The country was under the impression that the Government had 
 " been playing fast and loose ; that they had promised largely, 
 " especially before the last General Election, and had not 
 " performed what they promised. (' Hear, hear,' and * No, 
 " no.') To-night the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though 
 " vaguely reassuring, had given the House no definite account 
 " of the policy he meant to pursue. He trusted, however, that 
 " before the debate closed a definite statement would be made 
 " by some other member of the Government. If when the 
 " Session terminated they were not able to give a clear answer 
 " to the questions constituents in the country were sure to 
 " put on this subject to their representatives, he for one should 
 " be compelled to separate himself on this matter from the 
 " Government. He hoped that before the Session closed some 
 '* adequate measure would be proposed." 
 
 Mr. Bentinck. 
 
 " Upon the question of local taxation, he regretted the course 
 " taken, or rather that had not been taken, by the present 
 ** Government. (Hear, hear.) They had shown a want of 
 " energy in dealing with the most important question of the 
 "day." 
 
 These are not the opinions of members sitting on " the other 
 side of the House," but of the Conservative colleague of Sir M. 
 E. H. Beach, Chief Secretary for Ireland, in the representation 
 of East Gloucestershire, andof one of the Conservative members 
 for West Norfolk. They may convince Sir Stafford Northcote 
 that there is " impatience sometimes manifested " on the minis- 
 terial as well as on the opposition benches of the House of Com* 
 mons. 
 
 Mr. Velu 
 
 ** Kegretting as he did that the Government last year were led to 
 ** give up the only means of making any sensible contribution 
 " towards local taxation, he must remind hon. members oppo- 
 " site that when the late Premier went out of office he stated 
 
130 PARLIAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 ^' it to be Ms intention, if the next Parliament gave him a 
 " majority, to abandon the whole of the Income Tax. If the 
 " whole Income Tax had been abandoned, he did not know to 
 " what source we should have looked for subventions in aid of 
 '' local taxation. ......... 
 
 " Mucli as he would likQ to support any motion which might 
 " stimulate Her Majesty's Government to deal with this ques- 
 " tion, considering the concessions which the Government 
 " were making, and the quarter from which the resolution 
 " came, he felt he had no choice but to vote against it. There 
 " were hon. members on the other side of the House, and there 
 " had been many more in the last Parliament, with Avhom he 
 " certainly would have voted had they made such a motion. 
 " But he could not forget that the hon. member for Hackney 
 " had taken some trouble not to miss any opportunity of record- 
 " ing his vote in opposition to the views of the Local Taxation 
 " Committee, and when the hon. baronet, the member for 
 " Devonshire, made his famous motion he voted against it. 
 " That he called a crucial test. He had said enough to convince 
 " the House that he would be very unwise if he should vote 
 " for the motion of the hon. meml)er for Hackney." 
 
 The only source to which ratepayers can reasonably look for 
 relief is a tax upon property, but that is a proposal not contem- 
 plated by the followers of Sir Massey Lopes. There can be no 
 doubt Mr. Pell would have been enlightened as to the source from 
 which Mr. Gladstone would have relieved the ratepayers, if he 
 had been allowed to propose his budget; and in his earnest, 
 honest, and master hands the I'eform of our system of local 
 government and taxation would have been accomplished on just 
 and equitable lines, every national interest being duly considered. 
 The difference between the hon. member for Hackney and Mr. 
 Pell consists in the fact that the one wishes to relieve ratepayers, 
 and the other to favour landowners ; the one regards the interests 
 of the many, and the other the privileges of the few. 
 
 Sir George Jenkinson 
 
 " Rose merely to say that he hoped the Government would read 
 *' aright the lesson taught by this debate. Every speaker, no 
 " matter on what side he sat, had testified to the griev- 
 " ance in respect of local taxation. The Prime Minister 
 " had already admitted the injustice of the present state of 
 " things, and so had the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The 
 " longer the Government left the question unsettled, the 
 " stronger would the feeling of dissatisfaction throughout the 
 " country become, and the result would be that they would lose 
 ^* caste." ■ 
 
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH. 131 
 
 Another dissatisfied Conservative ; the Government may almost 
 exclaim with Macbeth, " What ! will the line stretch out to the 
 crack of doom ?" ** Every speaker'' may have testified to some 
 grievance, but not to the same grievance. The admissions of the 
 Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had 
 reference to the imaginary grievance of the landowners, while 
 Professor Fawcett urged the grievance of the ratepayers, in 
 having to bear the whole burden of improvements which perma- 
 nently benefit property. The Government are somewhat in the 
 position of the countryman who warmed the frozen adder into 
 life, which subsequently bit him. They fostered, for party 
 reasons, a purely fictitious agitation, and although they have 
 comfortably located the chief promoter in a snug berth at the 
 Admiralty where he could do no mischief, they cannot silence 
 other agitators, and are threatened with loss of caste and other 
 direful consequences if they do not satisfy the unreasonable expec- 
 tations they have themselves helped to excite. 
 
 Mr. Sclater-Booth. 
 
 " The subvention for lunatics had been of important advantage to 
 *' the payers of poor rates throughout the country, and it wass' 
 " an advantage which they enjoyed without the slightest risk 
 " of being tempted to extravagant outlay. On the contrary, 
 " the lunatics were removed from the power of the guardians as 
 *' soon as they were transferred ; the guardians no longer had 
 " the control of their expenditure ; and the subvention was not 
 *' only an advantage to the ratepayer, but was in itself a safe 
 " and wise measure. Besides, the Government had secured an 
 " audit of the expenditure upon lunatics, an important safeguard. 
 " (Hear.) Then last year, it must be remembered, the 
 " Government had induced their supporters to make some 
 '' sacrifices by assenting to the Eating Act. He bad never 
 " denied that the greater part of this measure had been 
 " introduced in the previous year by the late Government, but 
 " they were unable to carry it. The Bill contained much that 
 " was distasteful to supporters of the present Ministry, but they 
 " felt the necessity of inducing the House to assent to the 
 *' abolition of certain exemptions, which accordingly ceased 
 " to exist." 
 
 To those who look below the surface the lunatic sub- 
 vention does not seem so important an advantage to the 
 payers of poor rates as the speaker would make it appear, 
 as they are merely deceived by the process, not relieved. 
 Mr. Sclater-Booth is not very complimentary to the'patriot- 
 
 k2 
 
132 PARLIAMENTARY FALLACIES. 
 
 ism of the House of Lords, wlio rejected a measure intro- 
 duced by Mr. Gladstone's Government, which they subse- 
 quently passed when their own friends were in possession of the 
 loaves and fishes of official life, although it contained much that 
 was distasteful to them. The Peers seem to agree with Mr, Pell 
 that it makes all the difference from what quarter a proposal 
 comes, and swallow with a wry face from a Conservative ministry 
 a measure which they would contemptuously reject if it came 
 from a Liberal administration. 
 
133 
 
 MR. J. J. COLMAN, M. P. 
 
 ON 
 
 LOCAL TAXATION 
 
 From a Paper read at the Social Science Congress at Norwich^ October 3rd^ 
 
 1873. , ' 
 
 '' rpi AKING, then, the indisputable fact of the higher rates which 
 I towns are called upon to bear, there is something ^7'^7/ia 
 ^' facie unjust in the way in which they are apportioned, unless 
 " it can be shown either that the towns have an exceptional 
 ** ability to bear the burden, or gain exceptional advantages in 
 " return. I admit that there is an apparent ability in urban 
 '' populations to bear their heavy rates. Trade, commercial 
 " enterprise, and numbers centre in our larger towns ; in them 
 " yoQ find the banker, or at least the banking establishment, 
 *' the merchant, the manufacturer, and prosperous professional 
 . " men, and in some the Stock Exchange, where transactions of 
 " enormous amount are daily carried on. The income tax 
 " returns, assessed taxes, accounts, &c., show that the wealth 
 " is there. But when the question comes, * How do you get 
 " at this wealth for local taxes V the reply must be that every 
 , " test of ability is ignored except the single one of rental, and 
 ** it is my object to show that this is a fallacious one. Apart 
 " from the question of tho relative shares of taxation to 
 " be borne by houses and land, there presses upon our 
 " attention the consideration that the incidence is entirely 
 " upon one description of property, and this means a 
 " heavy burden upon industry. The income derived from 
 *' real property has been variously estimated at from one- 
 ** third to one-seventh of the total income of the nation, and 
 " it has been said that upon this small proportion the whole 
 
134 MR. J. J. COLMAN O^ LOCAL TAXATION. 
 
 ^' burden of local taxation falls. These estimates have been 
 " disputed ; and I am not prepared to insist on details, but it is 
 " an unquestioned fact that the income from personalty — 
 " entirely untouched for local purposes — is greatly in excess of 
 " that from real propei-ty." 
 
 Mr. Colman, very naturally, takes up the case of the towns, 
 and while landowners complain of the pressure of local taxation 
 upon land, he complains of its pressure upon urban populations. 
 It seems, according to his statements, that the towns pay heavily 
 because their wants are great ; that there is ability in the towns 
 to meet the burden ; but that local taxation is raised in a manner 
 which does not reach the wealth that is there. He objects to the 
 rental test, and urges in support of his objection two contradic- 
 tory reasons, viz., that "the incidence is entirely upon one descrip- 
 tion of property, and this means a heavy burden upon industry." 
 If the incidence of local taxation falls entirely upon real property, 
 it is difficult to see in what way it becomes a heavy burden upon 
 industry. There is a confusion of thought I'unning through the 
 whole statement. It is perfectly true that " it has been said " 
 that the whole burden of local rates falls upon income derived 
 from real property ; but the falsity of the assertion has been again 
 and again demonstrated, and Mr. Colman himself disproves it, 
 although he speaks of income from personalty being entirely un- 
 touched for local purposes. Does he mean to assert that a person 
 having an income entirely derived, say from the funds, and occu- 
 pying a house, pays no local rates ? We shall ascertain this fact a 
 little further on, but it is a very transparent fallacy to insist that 
 personalty contributes nothing to local taxation, unless he also 
 replies in the affirmative to the foregoing question. 
 
 " It is, I know, contended by some that local rates do not press on 
 *' the owners of real property, but that in the case of houses 
 " the rates are paid by the occupier ; and that as to business 
 " premises, the tradesman recoups himself from his customer. 
 " Without entering at the moment into this question, it is 
 *' sufficient to observe that, as a general rule, (with the exception 
 " of some parts of London and a few other towns, built on 
 " leasehold property), owners and occupiers, as well as trades- 
 '* men and consumers, reside together, and the whole com- 
 ^' munity feels the infliction. The proportion in which the 
 *' occupier and owner bear the burden does not, therefore, for 
 " my argument, enter into the account — they live mainly 
 " together, and if the taxes are unduly heavy they all suffer. 
 " The real fact is, however, that taxes press on both owner and 
 '^ occupier, though the latter feels the charge the more keenly, 
 
MR. J. J. COLMAN ON LOCATi TAXATION. 135 
 
 for, to use the words of an able writer, * Taxes have a ten- 
 
 * dency to remain with those on whom they are primarily 
 
 * imposed ; or, in other words, an ulterior effort must be 
 
 * made, by those who have already paid them, to shift them 
 
 * on to others ;'* an effort which, I must add, is by no means 
 always successful." 
 
 Here, then, we have Mr. Colman's answer. He does not hold 
 that income from real property pays all local taxation, nor that 
 income from personalty is entirely untouched for local purposes, 
 but that " the whole community feels the infliction," and that if 
 taxes are unduly heavy, both owners and occupiers suffer. His 
 argument is by no means clear, but his conclusions are unques- 
 tionably sound. Local taxation affects the whole community, 
 and taxes, when unduly heavy, cause much suffering. From 
 these two opinions it is impossible to dissent. The proportion in 
 which local rates are borne by owner and occupier goes, however, 
 to the root of the question in dispute, for it is the contention on 
 the one hand — and this contention Mr. Colman appears first to 
 favour and then to discard — that the whole burden rests on the 
 owner, and on the other hand that the real grievance is that of 
 the occupier, which theory Mr. Colman seems also to favour. 
 The statement that taxes have a tendency to remain with those 
 on whom they are primarily imposed requires very considerable 
 modification. It depends entirely upon the nature of the taxes. 
 Indirect taxation, for instance, has no such tendency, but becomes 
 a source of profit to those by whom it is first paid, and thus 
 aggravates the burden on the ultimate payer of the tax. In the 
 case of direct taxation it depends entirely upon the class of pro- 
 perty upon which the tax is assessed ; in the case of house pro- 
 perty the occupier bears the chief burden ; in the case of land it 
 is generally held that it falls mainly upon the owner, but there 
 are reasons for believing that the recent rise in rates in rural dis- 
 tricts has been thrown upon the customers of the farmers, in the 
 shape of enhanced prices of agricultural produce. f 
 
 " The struggling tradesman to whom large business premises may 
 *' be a necessity, has to pay heavily ; while a professional 
 '* man or capitalist, whose offices or business occupation may 
 " be comparatively small, pays a proportionately small amount, 
 
 * British Qmirierhj Hevinv, Jan., 1873, Art. VH. *' Local Taxation," 
 p. 202. 
 
 t See page 25. 
 
136 MR. J. J. COLMAN ON LOCAL TAXATION. 
 
 " although he earns a larger income ; and a man who has 
 '' realised a fortune, which is invested in personal estate, escapes 
 " with a fractional payment, because his requirements are 
 *■' limited to a private residence. This, surely, cannot be 
 "just." 
 
 This is equally the case with rent. The tradesman wh.o re-, 
 quires large business premises pays a higher rent than a profes- 
 sional man or capitalist, whose offices or business occupation is 
 small ; and it is in the nature of things that he should do so. 
 He does not, however, pay his rent out of his net income. It 
 enters into his profit and loss account, and the same is the case 
 with his rates. Where, then, is the injustice? He recovers the 
 amount from his customers, and thus diffuses the burden through- 
 out the community. 
 
 Mr. Colman quotes several cases illustrating his idea of the 
 unequal pressure of local rates, all based on the idea that the 
 tradesman and manufacturer occupying large premises pay their 
 rates out of their net profits, and adds — 
 
 ** Philosophers or political economists will perhaps say, * This is all 
 " * delusion and nonsense. It is not the manufacturer or trades- 
 " * man who pays : he is simply the medium of collection. It is 
 ' ' * his customer who pays, and it you tax the professional man and 
 " ' capitalist in local rates, you would have to pay it back, as 
 *' ' they would simply charge it in some shape to their clients 
 " ' and customers." 
 
 *' It may be very logical to argue that rates fall on the consumer, 
 " but practical experience, I think, shows that the burden has 
 " a tendency to stop where first imposed ; and at all events 
 " I am entitled to ask whether this roundabout way of col- 
 " lection is the most economical, or whether the amount of a 
 *' man's rent is the fairest test of ability to pay." 
 
 Mr. Colman appears to regard philosophers and political 
 economists with feelings somewhat akin to those of Mr. Disraeli, 
 and treats the labours of men who have spent years upon years 
 in the study of the intricate problems of political economy as if 
 they were of no account. Their arguments are not, however, 
 refuted, nor their conclusions shaken, by a mere expression of 
 opinion as to the teaching of practical experience. It would be 
 more to the purpose to show by an adequate demonstration, or by 
 practical illustrations, that they are in error. It is equally futile 
 and inconclusive to ask the two questions with which Mr. Colman 
 concludes this portion of the subject. Can he point out a more 
 
MR. J. J. COLMAK ON LOCAL TAXATION. 137 
 
 economical method of collecting the necessary funds for local 
 purposes, or specify one which will be more just in its incidence ? 
 He makes two suggestions. First, a contribution from a reformed 
 income-tax in aid of local taxes ; and, secondly, a proposal made 
 in New York by the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the 
 subject of local taxation, for the assessment of dwellings at three 
 times their actual rental, as equivalent of the personal property of 
 the occupier. Although Mr. Colman contends in the early portion 
 of his argument that the incidence of local taxation is entirely 
 upon real property, he completely disposes of the assertion before 
 he closes, for the alleged burden upon property disappears, as he 
 says, if it has a tendency to stop where first imposed, viz., upon 
 the occupier. Finally, he proposes to throw upon the National 
 Exchequer several millions of expenditure, now defrayed locally, 
 without any attempt to adjust the incidence of Imperial taxation, 
 although it is far more unjust, as affecting industry, than the 
 local rates. If his remedies were adopted, the last state of rate- 
 payers in towns w^ould be worse than the first. The consumers of 
 the commodities vended by the traders and manufacturers, for 
 whose condition Mr. Colman expresses so much consideration, pay 
 all the charges of which he complains. Hent, rates, taxes, losses 
 by fraud, bad debts, are all taken into consideration in fixing 
 prices. Whether taxation is levied directly or indirectly, the 
 burden falls upon ' the consumer ; the public is the great milch 
 cow by whom the revenues required, both for Imperial and local 
 purposes, are raised. Experience shows that under a system of 
 direct assessment upon rent the burden is far less than it is under 
 the wasteful and extravagant system of customs and excise. The 
 public has, therefore, a direct interest in maintaining the integrity 
 of direct local taxation against the encroachments that are pro- 
 posed in the interest of owners of property. 
 
A SUMMARY OF FACTS 
 
 COMPILED PROM THE LATEST 
 
 LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS. 
 
140 
 
 SUMMARY OF FACTS. 
 
 AMOUNT OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAXATION 
 AND OF OTHER SOURCES OF RECEIPTS, FOR 
 THE PURPOSES OF LOCAL EXPENDITURE IN 
 EACH DIVISION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM, 
 IN THE YEAR 1872-73. 
 
 FROM THE " STATISTICAL ABSTRACT,*' TWENTY-SECOND NUMBER. 
 
 LOCAL TAXES. 
 
 Divisions. 
 
 Direct. 
 Levied by Rates, 
 
 IXDIRKCT, 
 
 From Tolls, Dues, 
 &c 
 
 Total of Taxes. 
 
 England and Wales. ^ 
 Scotland . . * . . 
 Ireland 
 
 £ 
 18,619,378 
 
 1,683,008 
 
 2,514,691 
 
 3,939,238 
 455,454 
 300,224 
 
 £ 
 22,558,616 
 
 2,138,462 
 
 2,814,915 
 
 22,817.077 
 
 4,694,916 
 
 27,511,993 
 
 OTHER SOURCES OF RECEIPTS. 
 
 Divisions. 
 
 From Sales 
 or Rents of 
 Prop rty. 
 
 From 
 Government 
 Contributions. 
 
 Raised by 
 Loans. 
 
 From 
 
 Miscellaneous 
 
 Sources. 
 
 Total of other 
 Receipts. 
 
 England and 
 Wales . . 
 
 Scotland . . 
 
 Ireland 
 
 £ 
 923,011 
 285,060 
 30,961 
 
 £ 
 962,895 
 123,738 
 1,000,959 
 
 £ 
 6,583,812 
 145,653 
 169,995 
 
 £ 
 2,926,984 
 138,763 
 187,946 
 
 * £ 
 11,396,702 
 693,214 
 1,389,861 
 
 1,239,032 
 
 2,087,592 
 
 6,899,460 
 
 3,253,693 
 
 13,479,777 
 
THE UNITED KINGDOM. 
 
 HI 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 Divisions, 
 
 Bates, Tolls, 
 Dues, &c. 
 
 Other Receipts. 
 
 Total. 
 
 England and Wales . . 
 
 Scotland 
 
 Ireland 
 
 £ 
 22,558,610 
 
 2,138,462 
 
 2,814,915 
 
 £ 
 11,396,702 
 
 693,214 
 
 1,389,861 
 
 £ 
 33,955,318 
 
 2,831,67(5 
 
 4,204,776 
 
 27,511,993 
 
 13,479,777 
 
 40,991,770 
 
 It is shown by these returns that of the total revenue of 
 the local authorities of the United Kingdom, amounting to 
 £40,991,770, about two-thirds is raised by local taxation, of 
 which about one-sixth is levied by means of tolls, dues, and other 
 indirect imposts falling upon consumers, and the remaining five- 
 sixths by rates mainly assessed upon the rental of lands and 
 houses. The amount of Government contributions for the year 
 was £2,087,592, making the total taxation for local purposes 
 £29,599,585. A considerable portion, however, of the amount 
 levied under the head of Tolls, Dues, &c., cannot be regarded as 
 taxation, being a payment strictly analogous to rent, and a direct 
 return for a service rendered. It is difficult to see in what re- 
 spect tolls paid for the privilege of selling cattle in a market, for 
 example, differ from rent paid for shops, warehouses, and offices. 
 Market tolls, bridge and ferry tolls, light, pilot, and harbour 
 dues, although included in the gross amount of local taxation, 
 ought in strict accuracy to be classified with revenues derived 
 from other sources. They are no doubt included in the amount 
 collected by means of local taxation, because they are received by 
 public authorities, but they are not, in the strict sense of the 
 word, taxation, any more than similar payments made to private 
 companies or to individuals. In the following tables the local 
 taxation of each of the three divisions of the United Kingdom is 
 analysed, so far as it is possible, from the published returps. 
 
142 
 
 STJHMAllY OF FACTS. 
 
 LOCAL TAXATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) 1872-3. 
 
 I. — EATES. 
 
 SouECE OF Revenue. 
 
 Abstract of Local 
 
 Taxation Ee- 
 
 tums. No. 338. 
 
 Session 1874. 
 
 Mr. Pell's Ee- 
 tum. Local 
 Authorities. 
 Beceipts and Ex- 
 penditure. No. 
 189. Session 1875. 
 
 1 . Poor Eate,excluding County, Borough, 
 
 Police, Highway, and Burial Board 
 Eates* .- .: 
 
 2. County and Eural Police Eates* 
 
 3. Borough and Town Police Eates* . . 
 
 4. Highway Eate 
 
 5. Metropolitan Local Management Eate, 
 
 excluding the Consolidated Eate 
 
 6. Metropolitan Board of Works Consoli- 
 
 dated Eate, excluding Coal and Wine 
 Duties 
 
 7. Metropolitan Police Eate * 
 
 8. City of London Police Eate t . . 
 
 9. City of London Ward Eate | . . 
 
 10. Urban Sanitary Eates 
 
 1 1 . Lighting and Watching Eates . . 
 
 12. Sewers' Eate 
 
 13. Drainage and Embankment Eates ., 
 
 14. Burial Board Eate 
 
 15. Church Eate 
 
 Eural Sanitary Eates 
 
 School Board 
 
 £ 
 
 8,331,475 
 1,714,637 
 1,304,397 
 1,410,292 
 
 1,379,343 
 
 269,705 
 626,270 
 
 49,506 > 
 4,947 i 
 3,094,251 
 
 41,933 
 
 38,416 
 154,081 
 134,778 
 
 17,507 
 
 £ 
 
 8,245,144 
 1,714,637 
 1,187,400 
 1,410,292 
 
 1,300,464 
 
 269,705 
 626,270 
 
 54,453 
 
 3,094,251 
 
 41,933 
 
 38,416 
 
 154,081 
 
 134,778 
 
 17,507 
 
 23,540 
 
 162,621 
 
 18,571,538 
 
 18,475,492 
 
 * These amotints do not include the contributions from the Consohdated Fund, 
 ■which come out of Imperial Taxation. 
 
 t The Corporationof the City contribute an additional sum out of their property 
 and from the Bridge House Estates, in order to keep free from Grovemment control. 
 In the year ending 31st December, 1872, the amount was £17,267 6s. 7d. SeeParlia- 
 meatary Paper, No. 301, Session 1873. 
 
 X According to the Annual Accounts of the Chamberlain of the City of London 
 (No. 301, Session 1873), the Corporation of London also received £123,528 for Sewers 
 Bates, expended in paving, lighting, improvements, and sanitary purposes, which 
 does not appear separately in either pf these yeturps, and is possibly included under 
 ** urbprA sanitary r?'tes," 
 
ENGLAND AND WALES. 
 II.— TOLLS AND DUES. 
 
 143 
 
 SOURCK OF ReVKNUE. 
 
 Abstract of Local 
 Taxation Re- 
 turns. No. 338. 
 Session 1874. 
 
 Mr. Pell's 
 
 Return. 
 
 No. 189. 8eg. 1875. 
 
 16. Corporation of London, Tolls and 
 
 Eents .. 
 
 17. City of London Markets 
 
 18. Borough Tolls, Dues, Eents, &c. 
 
 19. Turnpike Tolls . 
 
 20. Bridge and Ferry Tolls 
 
 21. Market and Fair Tolls . . 
 
 22. Light Dues 
 
 23. Pilot Dues 
 
 24. Harbour Dues 
 
 £ 
 
 186,026 ) 
 19.331 ) 
 636,367 • 
 705,837 
 60,653 
 50,680 
 396,235 
 405,641 
 1,595.982 
 
 £ 
 
 205,357 
 
 636,367 
 
 705,837 
 
 60,653 
 
 50,680 
 
 396,235 
 
 405,641 
 
 1,595,982 
 
 4,056,752 
 
 4,056,752 
 
 III.— DUTIES. 
 
 Source of Revenue, 
 
 Abstract of 
 Local Taxation 
 
 Returns, 
 No. 338. Ses. 1874. 
 
 Mr. PeU's 
 
 Return. 
 
 No. 189. Ses. 1875. 
 
 25. City of London — 
 
 Coal Duty at 9d 
 
 Coal Duty at 4d 
 
 Wine Duty 
 
 Grain Duty (35 & 36 Vict.) . . 
 
 £ 
 
 218,234 
 
 96,993 
 
 12,760 
 
 754 
 
 No details 
 given. 
 
 328,741 
 
 328,741 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 SOUBCB OF BEVBlfUB. 
 
 Abstract. 
 No. 338. Ses. 1874. 
 
 Mr. PeU's 
 
 Return. 
 
 No. 189. Ses. 1875. 
 
 1. Levied by Eates assessed on rateable 
 
 property 
 
 2. Levied by Tolls, Dues, &c., assessed on 
 
 traffic .. ^ 
 
 3. Levied by Duties assessed on consum- 
 
 able articles . . 
 
 £ 
 18,571,538 
 
 4,056,752 
 
 328,741 
 
 £ 
 18,476,492 
 
 4,056,752 
 
 328,741 
 
 22,957,031 
 
 22,860,985 
 
144 Nummary of facts. 
 
 The first point that attracts attention in the above tables is the 
 variation in the amount of hocal rates in the two returns, both of 
 which, moreover, differ from that: in the statistical abstract, in 
 which the figures are £18,619,378. The tolls, dues, and duties 
 agree in the Abstract of Local Taxation and in Mr. PelFs return, 
 but in the statistical abstract they are given as £3,939,238, while 
 in the other returns the same items amount to £4,385,493. The 
 total amount of local taxes, as given in the statistical abstract, is 
 £398,415, and in Mr. PelFs return £96,046, less than in the 
 Abstract of Local Taxation. Upon the face of the accounts there 
 is nothing to explain the reason of these discrepancies, which 
 naturally throw doubt upon the accuracy of the entire returns. 
 The paper issued on the motion of Mr. Pell seems to have been 
 an unnecessary expense, as the figures had already been laid 
 before Parliament in other documents ; but it surely might have 
 been expected that some explanation should have been given of 
 the discrepancies between it and previous returns. The follow- 
 ing analysis of the figures for England and Wales has been com- 
 piled from the Abstract of Local Taxation Returns, IS^o. 338. 
 Sess. 1874, and shows, as nearly as can be ascertained from the 
 information it contains, the respective amounts contributed to 
 Local Taxation in the metropolis and other cities, boroughs, and 
 towns, and in the purely rural districts. 
 
 Local TAXAXtON in the Metropolis. 
 
 It appears from the summary of expenditure in the statistical 
 abstract that the total local expenditure in the Metropolis for tho 
 year 1872-73 was £7,038,842, or nearly one-fourth of the total 
 expenditure of England and Wales, exclusive of that for har- 
 bours, lighthouses, pilotage, and other maritime purposes, which 
 is raised by payments from shipping in return for services ren- 
 dered. The total Poor Rate levied in the Metropolis (Pari. Ret. 
 No. 103— (D) Sess. 1873) for the same year was, £2,442,575, 
 which was supplemented by grants amounting to £124,154, 
 making the total receipt £2,566,729. The amount expended for 
 relief of the poor, and purposes partly connected therewith, 
 was £1,749,684, and for other purposes £769,274, so that it 
 would seem that £1,797,455 of the total amount raised was 
 applied to purposes connected with poor relief ; and as the extra 
 receipts for the purposes of poor law administration are very 
 small, it may fairly be assumed that the Poor Rate of the Metro- 
 polis, exclusive of the portion raised for police, and other purposes 
 foreign to poor law administration, is £1,750,000. Upon this 
 
E>'GLAND AM) WALE?!. 145 
 
 assumption the local taxation of the M etropolis assessed upon 
 rateable property will be as follows :— 
 
 PoorEate ... ... ' ... 1,750,000 
 
 Local Management ... ... 1,379,343 
 
 Consolidated Rate ... ... 269,705 
 
 Police Rate ... ... ... 626,270 
 
 City of London Police and Ward Rates 54,453 
 
 £4,079,771 
 
 The remaining local taxation of the Metropolis is raised in the 
 following manner : — 
 
 £ 
 Tolls and Rents ... ... ... 186,026 
 
 Markets ... ... ... 19,331 
 
 Coal, Wine, and Grain Duty ... 328,741 
 
 £534,098 
 
 Borough and Town Local Taxation. 
 
 In the case of boroughs and towns other than the Metropolis, 
 there are no returns which enable their poor law expenditure to 
 be separated from those of the country districts, as the so-called 
 rural unions contain a considerable town population. The county 
 of Lincoln may be taken as an example ; throughout the whole 
 of its area there is not a single union which consists exclusively 
 of a town population ; in every case, therefore, they are classed 
 as rural unions, although the census returns show that, in the 
 county, out of a total population of 436,599, there were 163,142 
 (or above 37 per cent, of the whole) inhabitants of towns. It is a 
 palpable' misnomer to describe such unions as "rural;" they 
 would be more correctly designated by the term mixed. Accord- 
 ing to a return moved for by Mr. Hibbert (No. 141. Sess. 1871), 
 it appears that in 1868-69 the amount expended in poor relief 
 was, in the " rural " unions, £4,052,500, and in the town unions 
 £3,620,600. Adopting tbe same proportion as the basis of an 
 estimate of the Poor Rate for the year 1872-73, it will be found 
 that, in the so-called "rurar' unions, the amount is £4,400,250, 
 while in the town unions it is £3,931,225. The Poor Rate of 
 London having been estimated at £1,750,000, that of the oth.^v 
 town unions will be £2,181,225. 
 
146 SUMMARY OF FACTS. 
 
 The amount levied by rates in boroughs and towns, indepen- 
 dent of such as are included in rural unions and counties, is as 
 
 follows : — 
 
 £ 
 
 Poor "Rate, estimated above ... 2,181,225 
 
 Borough and Town Police Eates ... 1,304,397 
 
 Urban Sanitary Rates ... ... 3,094,251 
 
 Lighting and Watching Rates ... 41,933 ^ 
 
 Burial Board Rates ... ... 134,778 
 
 £6,756,584 
 The remaining sources of revenue from taxation are — 
 
 £ 
 Borough ToUs, Dues, Rents, &c. ... 636,367 
 
 Market and Fair Tolls ... ,.. 50,680 
 
 £687,047 
 
 Partly Tov^n and partly Eural Local Taxation. 
 
 The following is the amount levied in the remaining districts 
 of England and Wales : — 
 
 Poor Rates, as estimated above 
 
 £ 
 ... 4,400,250 
 
 County and Rural Police Rates 
 
 ... 1,714,637 
 
 Highway Rate ... 
 
 ... 1,410,292 
 
 Sewers Rate ... 
 
 38,416 
 
 Drainage and Embankment Rates 
 
 154,081 
 
 Church Rate 
 
 17,507 
 
 
 £7,735,183 
 
 It has been already shown that a considerable proportion of 
 the Poor Rates in this table fall upon inhabitants of towns, and 
 there is not one of the other rates which is not paid by the in- 
 habitants of urban as well as of rural districts. It may fairly 
 be assumed that at least one-third of this amount is coiitributed 
 by town districts, in which case the amount levied in purely rural 
 districts by means of the above rates is reduced to i^5, 156,788. 
 The remaining sources of revenue under this head are— 
 
 £ 
 Turnpike Tolls ... ... ... 705,837 
 
 Bridge and Ferry Tolls ... ... 60,653 
 
 £766,490 
 L ^avpg out of consideration the amount raised by tolls, dues. 
 
ENGLAM) AND WALES- 147 
 
 and duties, and the revenues of maritime authorities, none of 
 which, excepting the coal, wine, and corn duties of London, can 
 fairly be called taxation, the following is the result : — 
 
 Town Rates. £ 
 
 Metropolis ... ... ... 4,079,771 
 
 Boroughs and Towns ... ... 6,756,584 
 
 Towns included in Kural Unions, &c. 2,578,395 
 
 13,414,750 
 Kural Rates ... ... 5,150,788 
 
 Total ...£18,571,538 
 
 It appears, therefore, according to this estimate, which errs, 
 if in any direction, in favour of the rural districts, that the 
 enormous burden, which it has been so loudly and confidently 
 alleged is weighing down the landed interest and pressing with, 
 such, undue heaviness upon agriculture, amounts to the magni- 
 ficent total of £5,156,788 for a population according to the last 
 census of 9,800,000, while the remaining £13,414,750 is borne 
 by the occupiers of rateable property in cities, boroughs, and 
 towns, who numbered 12,900,000. In the former the amount 
 is 10s. 6d. and in the latter 20s. 9d. per head of the population. 
 When we descend from the i-egion of vague generalities into that 
 of prosaic fact, it becomes apparent that the alleged grievance 
 of the unfortunate landowners is a monstrous delusion, and that 
 it is occupiers in towns who have just ground of complaint, inas- 
 much as local expenditure, the burden of which is made to rest 
 upon their shoulders, has ^een largely incurred for purposes 
 which render the property which they occupy more valuable to 
 its owners as a source of revenue, and add largely to the amount 
 paid in rent by those at whose sole expense such permanent 
 improvements have been efiected. 
 
 Non-remunerative and Eemunerative Local TAXATir)N. 
 
 In the third annual report of the Local Government Eoard 
 we find the following observations upon this feature of the 
 question :— " Local taxes in their economic aspect are broadly 
 divisible into two classes — (1) non-remunerative, and (2) remu- 
 nerative and property improvement taxes. The first class is 
 mainly devoted to the protection ol life and property, the main- 
 
 k2 
 
148 SUMMARY OF FACTS. 
 
 tenance of the internal peace of the realm, and the relief of the 
 poor." The following is the classification of the report— 
 
 j^on-remunerative. 
 Eates. Tolls, &g. 
 
 Poor, City and Borough, 
 
 County and Borough, Tolls and Rents. v 
 
 Police. 
 
 Remunerative. 
 Rates. Tolls, &c. 
 
 Highway, Turnpike, 
 
 Metropolitan Local Man- Bridge and Ferry, 
 
 agement and Consoli- Market and Fair, 
 
 dated, Light, Pilot, and 
 
 City of London Ward, Harbour Dues, 
 
 Town Improvement, London Coal and 
 
 Local Board, "Wine. Duties. 
 
 Lighting and Watching, 
 Sewers, 
 Drainage, 
 . Embankment, 
 Burial Board, 
 Church. 
 
 There is an analogy between this classification and the long 
 controversy respecting productive and non-productive labour, 
 about which volumes have been written. Mr. J. S. Mill has 
 some observations upon the latter question,* which are equally 
 applicable to that now under consideration. He says, " Besides 
 materials for industry to employ itself on, and implements to aid 
 it, provision must be made to prevent its operations from being 
 disturbed, and its products injured, either by the destroying 
 agencies of nature, or by the violence or rapacity of men. This 
 gives rise to another mode in which labour, not employed directly 
 about the product itself, is instrumental to its production; 
 namely, when employed for the protection of industry." Among 
 the productive classes he therefore places the soldier, the police- 
 man, and the judge. In like manner the policeman and the 
 judge, or in other words the protection of property and the ad- 
 ministration of justice may fairly be classed among the remunera- 
 tive expenditure of owners of property. It is perfectly true, as 
 Mr. Mill observes, that in any well governed country such 
 functionaries render a service far more than equivalent to the cost ; 
 if occupiers of land were not protected in the enjoyment of their 
 
 * Principles of Political Economy, Book I. chap. ii. § 5. 
 
ENGLAND AND WALES. 149 
 
 property and had themselves to defend it from the depredations 
 of the dishonest, if there were no tribunals for the administration 
 of justice, but criminals were caught and executed flagrante 
 delicto, there would indeed be no police or county rates, but with 
 the disappearance of public security and order there would most 
 certainly be a disappearance of rent. Looking at the question 
 in this light, it does not appear that the owners of land have 
 much ground to complain of the proportion which they pay of 
 the £1,714,637, levied in the partly town and partly rural dis- 
 tricts, while it is difficult to see in what respect the farmer would 
 be benefitted if he were assessed for these purposes upon his 
 stock in trade, instead of upon the amount of his rental. The 
 demand to transfer the whole cost of the police from local rates 
 to the Consolidated Fund is an attempt to throw some portion of 
 the cost of defending the property of the landowner upon the 
 already overburdened labouring population. There still remains 
 for consideration the Poor Eate, an old established charge upon 
 property, of which landowners have no just ground of complaint 
 as they have purchased or inherited their estates subject to this 
 burden. The amount, moreover, of this impost which falls upon 
 owners of land is so small and trifling compared with their vast 
 revenues, that they are very ill-advised in raising the question. 
 Their grievance is purely imaginary, and the fact that they have 
 been able to maintain a lengthened agitation upon such fictitious 
 grounds is a remarkable illustration of the influence of human 
 credulity. 
 
 The " remunerative " local taxation which afiects owners and 
 occupiers of land consists of their proportion of the Highway 
 Rate, of the Sewer?, Drainage, and Embankment Rates, and of 
 the Church Rate. The last is approaching a vanishing point, 
 being only maintained where debts have to be paid off", and will 
 disappear when that task is accomplished. The rates levied for 
 the maintenance of sewers, drainage, and embankment are so 
 clearly a remunerative expenditure for those by whom they are 
 paid and upon whom they fall, that it has not been found pos- 
 sible to raise any objection against them. It has been difiercnt, 
 hoAvevcr, with regard to the highways, especially in connection 
 with the extinction of turnpike trusts and the increase that has 
 thereby been made in the highway rates, and in view of the 
 further transfer of the cost of maintaining existing turnpikes, 
 amounting in 1872-73 to £787,620, of which £705,837 was 
 raised by tolls, and the remainder from other sources, including 
 loans. It has been gravely maintained that the proportion of 
 this charge, which would fall upon owners and occupiers of land, 
 would be an intolerable burden, and would prove to be the pro- 
 
150 SUMMARY OF FACT?. 
 
 verbial last straw that breaks the camel's back. It is, however, 
 quite as necessary that there should be good roads throughout 
 a country, in order to enable a landlord to secure a rental, as it 
 is to have a staircase in order to reach the upper portion of a 
 house, and the cost and maintenance of such roads is a perfectly 
 legitimate charge upon the owners of the soil. If there were no 
 roads, the expense of bringing agricultural produce to market 
 would be so burdensome that there would remain but a very 
 small modicum of the proceeds of its sale for the rental of 
 the landowner, after defraying the expenses of cultivation and 
 interest upon the capital of the farmer. There can be no tax 
 upon real property more just in its incidence, or more beneficial 
 as affecting rent, than that which is levied for the efiicient main- 
 tenance of public roads. If a landowner were in possession of a 
 vast tract of unproductive territory, one of the first things he 
 would do, in order to render it available as a source of revenue, 
 would be to lay out and construct a convenient system of roads, 
 an undoubted proof that such expenditure is directly productive 
 and profitable, and a sufficient answer to all complaints from 
 landowners on the subject. 
 
 An examination of the preceding analysis of local taxation 
 shows that the bulk of the ^' remunerative and property improve- 
 ment" rates, as of local taxation generally, falls upon the in- 
 habitants of the towns, at whose sole expense is defrayed the cost 
 of town improvements, which greatly augment the value of real 
 property. The town occupier pays a rent to his landlord, and, 
 in his local rates, he pays for valuable improvements, which 
 enable his landlord to embrace the first convenient opportunity 
 of increasing his rent. This is the real grievance which exists 
 in respect to local taxation, and it is one which will be aggra- 
 vated, not removed, by the granting of subsidies from the Imperial 
 Treasury. The remedy required is one which shall enable local 
 authorities to levy a contribution from owners of real property 
 towards the expense of improvements, from which they directly 
 profit ; the remedy proposed is to increase the burden upon occu- 
 piers by taxing them for such purposes upon commodities which 
 enter into their daily consumption. That this* is the intention of 
 the Conservative party is clear from the objections raised to Mr. 
 Lowe's second reduction of the sugar duty by Mr. Ward Hunt 
 and Mr. W. H. Smith, on the ground that it would prevent any 
 money being granted from the Consolidated Fund in relief of 
 local taxation. It does not seem that they had the interest of 
 the ratepayers so much at heart as that of owners of property, or 
 they would have made some proposal to remedy the existing in- 
 justice of throwing the whole of the burden of improvements, 
 
SCOTLAND. 151 
 
 which permanently benefit property, upon thosa who not only 
 derive no benefit from such improvements, lout are made to pay 
 an increased rental in consequence of the money which they have 
 provided to defray their cost. The proposal of Mr. Gladstone's 
 Government to throw one half the burden of local rates directly 
 upon owners may be regarded with scorn by an organised body 
 of landowners, bent on exacting to the utmost from occupiers and 
 resolved to exempt themselves, but it is one which the over- 
 burdened ratepayers ought warmly to support, as being eminently 
 calculated '' to put the saddle upon the right horse.'' When the 
 question of local taxation is thoroughly understood by the electors, 
 they will insist upon the adoption of the principle, that those 
 who reap the benefit should defray the cost, and the only con- 
 sideration will be, whether one-half the amount of such charges 
 will be a sufiicient and equitable proportion to levy directly from 
 owners of property. When the proposal to divide rates between 
 owners and occupiers was made by Mr. Goschen, it was scorn- 
 fully rejec<"ed by such representatives of the landed interest in the 
 House of Commons as had followed Sir Massey Lopes through 
 the whole of his campaign, but there can be no doubt that owners 
 of property will be compelled to contribute directly when- 
 ever the public mind is thoroughly instructed upon the merits of 
 the question. 
 
 SCOTLAND. 
 
 For this portion of the United Kingdom complete returns appear 
 to be yet wanting. Those in the Statistical Abstract already 
 quoted are " partly estimated," and in the more detailed returns 
 laid on the table of the House of Commons in 1874, on the motion 
 of Mr. William Holms, there are several deficiencies. The first 
 of these returns (Poor Rates, &c., Scotland, No. 400. Sess. 1874) 
 gives the assessment levied by ]?arocbial Boards constituted by 
 the Poor Law Act, and acting as Local Authorities under the 
 Public Health Act, for the year 1873-74, with the amount pro- 
 duced. The second return (Local Taxation, Scotland, 'No. 402, 
 Sess. 1874) gives the valuation and amount of assessment in 
 each county, and Eoyal and Parliamentary burgh separately, 
 distinguishing the amount paid by owners and occupiers respec- 
 tively for Police, Prisons, Eoads and Bridges, Registration of 
 Voters, Court Houses, Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, MiK- 
 tia Depot, General and County Rate, County Buildings, Lunacy, 
 Lighting and Watching, and, in some instances in burgh 
 
152 SUMMARY OF FACTS. 
 
 Water, Gas, and Public Health. The second return is defective, 
 in consequence of no information having been supplied by the 
 counties of Caithness or Zetland, nor by the following burghs : — 
 Annan, Anstruther, Easter and Wester, Burntisland, Crail, Dun- 
 dee, Galashiels, Haddington, Hamilton, Inverkei thing, Inverurie, 
 Xilrenny, Lanark, Portobello, Wick. The population of the 
 respective non-returning districts in 1871 was — Counties, 63,132 ; 
 burghs, 179,343, of which last 118,977 were to be found in the 
 burgh of Dundee. The following is a summary of both returns, 
 so far as the amount of local taxation is concerned : — 
 
 Counties. Burghs. Total. 
 
 Poor Eates, including School Eate, £ £ £, 
 
 Eegistration of Births, &c., Public 
 
 HealthEate,andVaccination Kate 692,138 377,078 1,0G9,216 
 Police, Prison, General and Couuty 
 
 Rates, &c. ... ... 230,941 564,559 795,500 
 
 £923,079 941,63(3 1,864,715 
 
 In Scotland, however, the payment of rates is divided between 
 owners and occupiers, so that these figures represent to some ex- 
 tent taxation levied directly upon owners of property, and there- 
 fore differ from the corresponding returns for JEngland and Wales. 
 By the 34th section of the Scotch Poor Law Amendment Act 
 (8 & 9 Yict., e. 83) it is provided that the Poor Pate shall be 
 one half imposed on owners and the other half on tenants or 
 occupants ; so that the proposal which roused the ire of such 
 English landowners as were desirous of further looting their 
 tenants has long been in practical operation in Scotland. A 
 still wider divergence from English practice is found in the 
 incidence of the police and other rates comprised in the return of 
 Scotch Local Taxation, other than that levied by means of the Poor 
 Eate (Return No, 402. Sess. 1874). An examination of this docu- 
 ment shows that in the counties the rates for the following purposes 
 are paid wholly by landlords — Police, Prisons, Eegistration of 
 Voters, Court Houses, Militia Depots, General and County, 
 County Buildings, Lunacy ; the Eates for Eoads, and Bridges, and 
 the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act fall partly on the landlord 
 and partly on the tenant; while there are no rates in Scotch conn ties 
 which are paid exclusively by occupiers. In the Burghs, on 
 the other hand, the practice appears to be widely different ; the 
 following are the rates paid exclusively by landlords, CourtHouses, 
 special sewer rates levied in a few burghs, and in some cases Eoads 
 
IRELAND. 
 
 153 
 
 and Bridges Prisons, and Lunacy ; the rates which are divided 
 between owners and occupiers, mainly in equal proportions, but 
 in some instances only a small par: falling upon owners, are 
 Prisons, Roads and Bridges, Registration of Voters, Contagious 
 Diseases (Animals), Registration of Births, &c., Valuation 
 expenses. Militia Depots, County and Municipal Buildings, 
 General Improvement, and in some few instances Police, Public 
 Health, and Water ; the rates paid exclusively by occupiers, 
 with the exception of the few burghs, where owners pay a small 
 proportion, are Police, Lighting and Watching, Water, and Gas. 
 The following is a summary of both returns, showing the dis- 
 tribution of each class of rates between owners and occupiers — 
 
 Yeab 1873-74. 
 
 ]*oor Eate. Eeturn 
 No. 400. Session 
 1874 
 
 Other Eates. Eeturn 
 No. 402. Session 
 1874 .. .. 
 
 Total.. 
 
 Cou 
 Owners, 
 
 Occupiers, 
 
 Bub 
 Owners, 
 
 aHS. 
 Occupiers. 
 
 Total. 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 346,069 
 
 346,069 
 
 188,539 
 
 188,559 
 
 1,069,216 
 
 204,889 
 
 26,052 
 
 77,793 
 
 486,766 
 
 795,500 
 
 550,958 
 
 372,121 
 
 266,332 
 
 675,305 
 
 1,864,716 
 
 It appears from the above table, that in Scotland owners pay 
 directly £817,290 and occupiers £1,047,425 of the local rates ; 
 and there can be no question that the extension of this mode of 
 assessing local taxation to England and Wales would be a great 
 act of justice to the ratepayers of that portion of the United 
 Kingdom. 
 
 IRELAND. 
 
 According to the Statistical Abstract, the Local Taxation of 
 Ireland for the year 1872-73 was £2,814,915, but there are no 
 such figures in the returns issued by the Local Government 
 Board at Dublin (C. 1U88, 1874.), which give the amount as 
 £2,905,250 for 1872, and £2,981.320 for 1873. The following 
 is the summary given in the above-named report, exclusive of 
 receipts from Loans and from Imperial Taxes : — 
 
154 
 
 SUMMARY OF FACTS. 
 
 Classification of Local Taxes. 
 Levied IN Ireland. 
 
 1. Grand Jury Cess pre- 
 sented by Grand Juries 
 (net amount to be ad- 
 ministered) 
 
 2. Pees of Clerks of the 
 the Peace * 
 
 3. Pees of Clerks of the 
 Crown * . . 
 
 4. Petty Sessions Stamps 
 
 and Crown Pees 
 
 5. Dogs Licence Duty . . 
 
 6. Dublin MetropolitanPo- 
 lice Taxes (exclusive of 
 Pines from Police Courts 
 included in 4) . . 
 
 7. Court Leet Presentments 
 
 8. Harbour Taxation (ex- 
 clusive of receipts from 
 Grand Jury Cess and 
 Parliamentary Grant. . 
 
 9. Inland Navigation (ex- 
 clusive of Grand Jury 
 Cess Eeceipts) . . 
 
 Arterial Drainage 
 
 11. Town Taxation under 
 Town Authorities (ex- 
 clusive of extra receipts 
 from Dogs Licence 
 Duty, Pines, &c., and 
 from Grand Jury Cess 
 
 12. BuriaLBoard Taxes (ex- 
 clusive of Town Burial 
 Board receipts) 
 
 13. Poor rate and local re- 
 ceipts (exclusive of Par- 
 liamentary Grants and 
 repayment of relief) . , 
 
 14. Light Duea and Pees 
 under Merchant Ship- 
 ping Act 
 
 Special Taxation on 
 Pawnbrokers (exclusive 
 of Dublin Metropolitan 
 Police receipts) 
 Bridge and Perry Tolls 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 Bates on Beal 
 Property 
 
 1,133,141 
 
 28,653 
 276 
 
 3,285 
 
 415,732 
 
 3,302 
 
 856,304 
 
 2,440,693 
 
 Tolls, Fees, 
 
 Stamps, 
 
 and Dues. 
 
 9,651 
 
 2,449 
 
 47,068 
 30,231 
 
 12,499 
 
 209,017 
 1,938 
 
 27,995 
 
 660 
 
 22,240 
 
 696 
 641 
 
 365,085 
 
 40,126 
 
 1,857 
 41 
 
 123,606 
 
 201 
 
 5.007 
 
 Other 
 Receipta. 
 
 Total Esti- 
 mated Local 
 Taxation of 
 Ireland. 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 — 
 
 1,133,141 
 
 — 
 
 9,651 
 
 — 
 
 2,449 
 
 4,704 
 
 51,772 
 30,231 
 
 — 
 
 41,152 
 276 
 
 249,143 
 
 3,795 
 3,326 
 
 567,333 
 4,163 
 
 861,311 
 22,240 
 
 696 
 641 
 
 175,542 
 
 2,981,320 
 
 Exclusive of Salaries. 
 
IRELAND. 155 
 
 It will be seen from the above table tbat the local rates of 
 Ireland are principally levied under the Grand Jury Cess, Town 
 taxation exclusive of Grand Jury Cess, and the Poor Rate. Of 
 the first named source of revenue 52 per cent, is expended upon 
 Roads and Bridges, and the remainder upon Lunatic Asylums, 
 Salaries of County Officers, Prison Expenses, Discharge of Debt, 
 Public Charities, Extra Police, Valuation, and miscellaneous 
 purposes. The town taxation and poor rate are analogous to 
 the same clasg of imposts in Great Britain. In Ireland the poor 
 rate is divided between the landlord and the tenant, but the 
 County Cess and other local rates are all paid by the latter. 
 According to the evidence of Dr. jS'eilson Hancock, the well- 
 known statistician, before the Commons Select Committee of 
 1870, the system adopted for the Irish Poor Law had worked 
 most satisfactorily, and there was a general desire to have that 
 method extended to other local arrangements. The cardinal 
 features are a division of rates between owners and occupiers, 
 and the representation of all ratepayers upon local governing 
 bodies, and there can be no doubt that their adoption in England 
 and Wales would be a far more satisfactory solution of the 
 rating question, than a resort to the expedient of imperial sub- 
 sidies, with its attendant evils, the weakening of local self- 
 government and the strengthening of that modern encroachment 
 upon the ancient liberties of the English people, the principle of 
 Centralization. 
 
 The Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons 
 on Local Taxation, appointed in 1870, passed a resolution in 
 favour of making owners of property directly liable for a certain 
 proportion of the rates, thus relieving occupiers from some of 
 the charges, the whole of which are now so unjustly thrown upon 
 them. A series of resolutions, embodying the proposal and the 
 necessary administrative changes which it would render neces- 
 sary, was submitted by the Chairman, Mr. Goschen. These 
 were met by a series of counter resolutions, drawn up by Sir 
 Massey Lopes, which invoked that standard bugbear of the 
 monopolists, the alleged infringement of freedom of contract, and 
 ' protested against any such division of rates between owners and 
 occupiers of real property. A division took place upon the 
 question whether the resolution of the Chairman or of Sir Massey 
 Lopes should be taken into consideration, with the following 
 result : — 
 
156 
 
 SUMMARY OF FACTS. 
 
 For considering the Resolutions 
 of the Chairman. 
 
 Mr. Backhouse, 
 
 Sir Hedworth Williamson, 
 
 Mr. Walter, 
 
 Mr. Acland, 
 
 Mr. Eathbone, 
 
 Sir James Lawrence, 
 
 Mr. Charles Seeley, 
 
 Mr. Ayrton. 
 
 Against considering the Resolu- 
 tio ns of the Chair ma n . 
 
 Mr. Birley, 
 Mr. W. H. Smith, 
 Mr. Corrance, 
 Sir Massey Lopes, 
 Mr. Pell, 
 Colonel Brise, 
 Mr. Wheelhouse, 
 Mr. George Gregory. 
 
 Whereupon the 'Chairman declared himself in favour of his own 
 resolution, which accordingly formed the basis of the report. 
 
 It will be seen that, in this division, every Liberal voted for 
 the relief of the occupiers, while every Conservative voted in 
 favour of the continued exemption of owners, a fact which rate- 
 payers generally will do well to remember. The remedy is in 
 their own hands, and they will take care that it is applied when- 
 ever they are awake to their own interests. 
 
 TREASUHY GEANTS IN AID OF LOCAL TAXATION 
 
 From the Parliamentary Return, No. 402, Sess. 1873, and the Civil Service 
 Estimates for the year ending 'Slst March, 1877. 
 
 Year. 
 
 England and Wales. 
 
 Scotland. 
 
 Ireland. 
 
 Total. 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 1843 
 
 244,312 
 
 49,029 
 
 330,640 
 
 623,981 
 
 1853 
 
 568,223 
 
 82,605 
 
 610,765 
 
 1,261,593 
 
 1863 
 
 874,872 
 
 105,935 
 
 781,706 
 
 1,762,513 
 
 1873 
 
 . 1,195,495 
 
 126,786 
 
 1,073,561 
 
 2 395,842 
 
 1875-6 
 
 2,252.845 
 
 338,391 
 
 1,524,810 
 
 4,116,046 
 
 ' 1876-7 
 
 2,343,878 
 
 i 
 
 339,938 
 
 1,568,356 
 
 4,252,172 
 
 The above table shows the growth of the modern system of 
 subventions from the Consolidated Fund in aid of local expendi- 
 ture, by means of which additional burdens have been thrown 
 upon the general public, in order that the landed interest may 
 obtain relief from an imaginary grievance. The total increase 
 over 1843 is £3,628,191, and represents the produce of a two- 
 penny Income Tax, of which sum £1,856,330, or more than one- 
 half, has accrued during the existence of the present administra- 
 
TREASUllY GllANT?!. 157 
 
 tion. The appropriation of a considerable portion of the surplus, 
 which they inherited from their predecessors, towards the satis- 
 faction of the claims of Conservative landowners, was a pleasing 
 operation at the time, so far as the Government and their clamor- 
 ous supporters were concerned ; but the real character of the 
 transaction is now seen in the penny of the Income Tax, which 
 it has rendered necessary. Sir Stafford Northcote's generosity 
 appears to have been entirely misplaced, for he has not pacified 
 his own friends, who are loud in their expressions of dissatisfac- 
 tion at the smallness of the boon which it has been in his power 
 to bestow. Like Oliver Twist, they ask for more ; and their 
 present demand is that the whole expense of the administration 
 of justice, of the police, and the care of lunatics, should be 
 defrayed out of Imperial taxation, involing a further charge on 
 the Consolidated Fund of at least £4,000,000, to be defrayed 
 by an addition to the Income Tax, or an increase in indirect 
 taxation, or both, for the avowed purpose of affording relief to 
 real property, already insufficiently taxed for both Imperial and 
 local purposes. A more unfounded claim was never put forward, 
 and it is to be hoped that the public will at length become 
 acquainted with its real character, and will take such effective 
 steps as Avill not merely prevent any further compliance with 
 such demands, but will remedy the injustice that has been 
 already perpetrated. 
 
59 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 AGRICULTURE, smallness of 
 capital invested in it, and the 
 reasons, 63, 64 ; assessment of farms 
 for local rates in England. Scotland, 
 and Ireland, 64, 65 ; " Mr. Read's 
 statement that farmers have not 
 been relieved from a single burden 
 since the adoption of free trade, 67 : 
 Mr. C. S. Read on local taxation as 
 affecting, 73-76 ; Sir George Jen- 
 kinson thankful for " small mer- 
 cies," 93 ; the necessity of improved 
 cottages for labourers, 100, 101 ; 
 Mr. Paget on local taxation as 
 affecting the farmer, 127-129. 
 
 BACKHOUSE, Mr., urges placing 
 the control of the police entirely 
 in the hands of the central govern- 
 ment, 99, 100. 
 
 Bath, Marquess of, complains that Mr. 
 Disraeli's Government are intro- 
 ducing the same measures as their 
 predecessors, 107, 108. 
 
 Baxter, Mr. R. Dudley, on war as a 
 cause of pauperism, 2, 3 ; on the 
 growth of the poor rate since 1837, 
 4 ; on Mr. Goschen's comparison of 
 burdens on land at different periods, 
 5, 6, 7 ; on the increase of rates since 
 1841,71-10; on the transfer of burdens 
 from and to other kinds of pro- 
 perty, 10-15 ; on alleged errors of 
 Mr. Goschen about total taxation 
 and the comparative taxation of real 
 and personal property, 15-26 ; on 
 taxes on real property at home and 
 abroad, 26-29 ; on hereditary or 
 prescriptive burdens and the tenure 
 of land, 29-37 ; summary of his 
 errors, 37-39. 
 
 Bentinck, Mr., dissatisfied with Mr. 
 Disraeli's Government, 129. 
 
 Booth, Mr. Sclater, disclaims ori- 
 ginality in the Valuation of Pro- 
 perty Bill 1874, 103 ; defends the 
 policy of Mr. Disraeli's Govern- 
 ment, 131 . 
 
 Bowyer, Sir Geo., on the grievances of 
 the landowners, 94, 95. 
 
 OA.IRNES, Professor, on the sound- 
 ness of Mr. Mill's position as to 
 taxation on rent, 37. 
 
 Carey, Mr., an American political 
 economist, on war and pauperism, 
 2.3. 
 
 Cobden, Mr., his warnings to land- 
 owners on the question of taxation, 
 65, 60, 75, 76. 
 
 Colman, Mr. J. J., on the incidence of 
 local taxation, 87, 133-137- 
 
 Corrance, Mr., condemns Mr. Stans- 
 feld's Rating Bill of 1873, 83 ; fal- 
 lacies respecting taxation of per- 
 sonalty in France and America, 
 84-86. 
 
 D 
 
 ISRAELI, Mr., on the incidence 
 of local taxation, 77, 78 ; his 
 resolutions of 1849, 1850, and 1851, 
 78, 79 ; his extraordinary budget 
 of 1852, 79 ; on the use of the Con- 
 solidated Fund, 80 ; defends the 
 subventions of 1874, 108, 109. 
 
 FAWCETT, Mr., on the evils of 
 subventions in relief of local 
 taxation, 122, 123 on the Loan 
 Bill, 1875, and the necessity for a 
 reform of local taxation, 124, 125. 
 Free Trade policy eulogised by Sir 
 Stafford Northcote, 89, 90. 
 
 rj.AME LAWS: Mr. Liddell on the 
 \J utility of the police as game- 
 • keepers, 76 ; the rating of game, 
 
 105, 106. 
 Gladstone, Mr. W. E., on the poor 
 law, 75 ; on the effect of subven- 
 tions in aid of local rates in increas- 
 ing taxation upon labour, 96-98. 
 Gladstone Government, The, and local 
 
 taxation, 41-53. 
 Goschen, Mr., motion for a committee 
 in 1870, 45 ; introduces Rating and 
 Local Government Bill in 1871, 46 ; 
 its provisions, 46-48. 
 
160 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Gregory, Mr. G. B., advocates the 
 taxing of all property, real and per- 
 sonal, for local purposes, 82, 83. 
 
 HARTINGTON, the Marquis of, on 
 the Loans Bill, 1875, and the 
 necessity for a reform of local ad- 
 ministration, 126, 127. 
 
 Henniker, Lord, protests against the 
 Rating Bill, 1874, 106-107. 
 
 House tax a hurden upon occupiers, 
 not upon owners, 62. 
 
 Hunt, Mr. Ward, on the subventions 
 of 1874, and the consequent increase 
 of Imperial taxation, 117. 
 
 JEXKINSON, Sir George, on the 
 small mercies of the Disraeli 
 Ministry, 93, 94 ; protests against 
 their line of legislation respecting 
 local taxation, 104, 109-112, 130 ; on 
 the rating of game, 105-106. 
 
 LAND, hereditary and prescriptive 
 burdens on, with a review of ISIr. 
 Baxter's reply to Sir 11. Torrens, 
 and his criticisms upon Mr. Mill's 
 proposal to tax the spontaneous in- 
 crement cf rent, 29-37 ; Sir Mas- 
 sey Lopes denies that it has in- 
 creased in value, 63. 
 
 Land tax, its origin and its evasion by 
 landowners, 33, 34. 
 
 Leslie, Professor, on the effect of the 
 increased price of farm producn in 
 shifting the burden of rates upoa 
 consumers, 25. 
 
 Liddell, Mr. (now Lord Eslington)', 
 his fallacy that real property bears 
 the whole weight of local taxation, 
 67, 68 ; on poachers and the police, 
 76 ; on the local taxation of the 
 metropolis, 77 ; advocates Govern- 
 ment subventions, 77. 
 
 Local Government, necessity for re- 
 form admitted by Sir Stafford 
 Northcote, 92, 102 ; reform urged 
 by Mr. Pell, 98, . 99 ; Sir Stafford 
 Northcote's Loans Bill and local 
 budget, 120, 121 ; Mr. Fawcett 
 and the Marquis of Hartington on 
 the Loans' Bill and local budget, 
 124-126. 
 
 Local Taxation, its growth since 1841, 
 7, 8 ; not a deduction from rent 
 received by owners, 8 ; transfer of 
 its pressure from land to other pro- 
 
 perty and earnings, 10-15 ; Liberal 
 and Conservative policy respecting, 
 51-53 ; its pressure upon the poor, 
 57, 77 ; the exemption of stock in 
 trade from rating, 58 ; the complaint 
 that no relief was afforded when the 
 corn laws were repealed, 59 ; its 
 pressure in the country and in 
 towns compared, 65 ; amount re- 
 ceived from rates and other sources 
 of local revenue, 69 ; compared with 
 Imperial taxation, 70-72, 115; its 
 growth in the metropolis, 77 ; the 
 landowners' grievance defined, 80- 
 82 ; its proposed extension to per- 
 sonal property, 82-86 ; Valuation 
 Bill of 1874 a legacy of the Liberal 
 administration, 103 ; policy of Mr. 
 Disraeli's Government, 118-122; 
 amount raised in the United King- 
 dom, 140, 141 ; rates, tolls, &c., in 
 England and Wales, 142-144; in 
 the metropolis, 144, 145 ; in 
 borouehs, towns, and rural districts, 
 145-147 ; non-remunerative and re- 
 munerative rates, tolls, &c., 147-151 ; 
 rates, tolls, &c., in Scotland, 151- 
 153; in Ireland, 153-155; division 
 between owners and occupiers, 155, 
 156 ; growth of Treasury grants 
 since 1843, 156, 157. 
 
 Local Taxation, dissatisfaction of Con- 
 servatives with the proposals of Mr. 
 Disraeli's '1 Ministry, Sir Lawrence 
 Palk, 103-104 ; Sir Geo. Jenkinson, 
 104, 109-1,12, 130 ; Lord Henniker, 
 106, 107 ; the Marquis of Bath, 107, 
 108; Mr. Pell, 115; Mr R. Yorke, 
 129; Mr. Bentinck. 129; Mr. Dis- 
 raeli's Defence, 108-109 ; Sir Stafford 
 Northcote's defence, 113, 114; Mr. 
 Ward Hunt's defence, 117, 118; 
 Mr, Sclater Booth's defence, 131, 
 132. 
 
 Local Taxation, fallacies as to its inci- 
 dence upon real property, of Sir 
 Massey Lopes, 55-64, 68-73,80-82,87, 
 88 ; of Mr. Pell, 65 ; of Mr. C. S. Read, 
 65-67 ; of Mr. Liddell, 67 ; of Mr. 
 Disraeli, 77-80; of Mr. Gregory, 
 82, 32 ; of Mr. Corrance, 83-86 ; 
 of Mr. Scourfield, 86,116; of Mr. 
 Colman, 87, 133-137; of Sir Stafford 
 Northcote, 91-93 ; of Sir G. Bowyer, 
 94, 95; of Sir Lawrence Palk, 100- 
 102 ; of the Marquess of Bath, 107, 
 108; of Mr. Tillett, 116, 117. 
 
 Local Taxation, subventions in aid 
 of ; Sir M. Lopes' proposal of 1872, 
 73 ; approved by Mr. Liddell, 77 ; 
 
INDEX. 
 
 KU 
 
 condemned by Mr. Gladstone as in- 
 creasing the burdens of labour, 96- 
 98 ; approved by Mr. Backhouse, 99 ; 
 their danger in the case of the 
 police, 99, 100 ; advocated by Sir 
 Stafford Northcote, 118-120; con- 
 demned by Mr. Fawcett, 122, 123. 
 
 Lopes, Sir M., his motion of 1869, " 
 41-45; ditto of 1871, 45, 46; ditto 
 of 1872, 49, 50: his . resolution of 
 1871, 55; ditto of 1872, 68 ; fal- 
 lacy as to incidence of local taxation 
 and pressure of imperial taxation on 
 the poor, 55-57, 72 ; regrets the loss 
 
 . of prorectioD, 58 ; fallacy as to Ex- 
 emption Act of 1840, 58 ; on there- 
 mission of imperial taxation and the 
 growth of local rates, 58, 59 ; affirms 
 that rates becomes rentcharges, 60 ; 
 his classification of local rates into 
 those raised for imperial and local 
 purposes, 60, 61 ; on the increased 
 humanity of poor law administra- 
 tion, 61, 62; advocates the taxation 
 of personal property for local pur- 
 poses, 62 ; denies that land has 
 increased in value, and laments the 
 smallness of the capital invested in 
 land, 63 ; his • change of front, 
 grievance now one of occupiers as 
 well as owners, 68 ; his serious error 
 
 • as to the amount and growth of 
 local taxation, 69, 70; fallacious 
 comparison of imperial and local 
 taxation, 70-72 ; proposed, transfer 
 of local charges to the Consolidated 
 Fund, 73, 82; states his real grievance 
 and complains of misrepresentation, 
 80-82 ; a fallacious illustration of 
 his grievance, 87, 88. 
 
 MCCULLOCH, Mr. J. R., on the 
 land tax, 34 ; on the house tax, 
 62. 
 
 Melly, Mr., approves local taxation 
 proposals of 1874, 96. 
 
 Jflill, Mr. J. S., fallacy of Mr. Baxter's 
 objections to his doctrine of here- 
 ditary burdens and the special taxa- 
 tion of landed property, 31-37; on 
 the house tax, 62, 
 
 Newman, Professor F. W., on the 
 land tax, 34. 
 
 X€W York, report of Commission upon 
 the local taxation of that State, 68, 
 84-86. 
 
 VrORTHCOTE, SIR STAFFORD, 
 -k.^ eulogises the fiscal changes inau- 
 
 gurated in 1842,and affirms the neces- 
 sity for a reform of local taxation, 89, 
 90; fallacy as to the growth of pauper- 
 ism, 91 ; on the complaints com- 
 monly heard in regard to local taxa- 
 tion, 91-93 ; on the improvement of 
 local administration, 102 ; his de- 
 fence of the conduct of the Govern- 
 ment respecting local taxation, 113- 
 115; on the policy of the late and 
 the present Government respecting 
 local finance, 118-121. 
 
 PAGET, Mr., on the tenant farmers 
 and local taxation, 127, 128. 
 
 Palgrave, Mr., on the effect of the. 
 poor rate on wages, 6. 
 
 Palk, Sir Lawrence, on the existing- 
 and prospective grievances of the 
 agricultural interest, labourers' cot- 
 tages, and labourers' unions, 100- 
 102 ; his dissatisfaction with Mr. 
 Gladstone's and Mr. Disraeli's Go- 
 j vernments, 103, 104. 
 
 Paahley, Mr., Q.C, on the cause ot 
 j the growth of pauperism, 6, 7. 
 
 Pell, Mr. on difference in the law of 
 assessment in England, Scotland, 
 and Ireland, 64 ; on the pressure of 
 rates in town and country, 65 ; on 
 the importance- of improved local 
 administration,98; his dissatisfaction 
 with Sir Stafford Northcote' s finan- 
 cial statement of 1875, 115; on 
 subventions and the income tax, 129 ; 
 on Mr. Fawcettt's motion of 1875, 
 130. 
 
 Poor rates, their growth compared 
 with that of imperial revenue, 4 ; 
 an accompaniment of low wages, 
 5-7 ; comparative incidence on towns 
 and rural districts, 9, 10 ; increased 
 cost of poor relief, 69 ; their growth 
 since 1834, 91. 
 
 Protective duties, the loss of urged as 
 a claim for relief from local taxa- 
 tion, 68. 
 
 Purdy, Mr., considers poor rates sup- 
 plement wages, 6. 
 
 RAILWAY duty, its incidence on 
 railways and the public, 21. 
 Read, Mr. G. S , on the burdens on 
 land and Mr. Cobden's warning, 65- 
 67, 75 ; on rent as a test of income 
 and the pressure of local taxation on 
 the farmer, 73-75. 
 Richmond, Duke of, differs from Mr. 
 Sclater Booth respecting the want 
 
1G2 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 of originality in the Valuation and 
 Eating Bill of 1874, 106. 
 Rogers, Professor Thorold, the poor 
 rate largely a rate in aid of wages, 6. 
 
 qCOUEFIELD, lilr., faUacies of, as 
 
 O to the incidence of rates, 86 ; as 
 to the non-participation of rate- 
 payers in the growth of prosperity, 
 88, 89 ; as to general and local taxa- 
 tion, 112, LI 3; advocates local in- 
 come tax, 116. 
 
 Smith, Adam, on the house tax, 62. 
 
 Stansfeld, Mr., introduces three mea- 
 sures in 1873, 50, 51. 
 
 TAXATION, its incidence upon 
 lands, houses, personalty, and 
 earnings, 15-26; on real property 
 at home and abroad, 26-29 ; remis- 
 sions of imperial taxation since the 
 repeal of the com laws, 58. 
 
 Tillett, Mr., fallacy as to the inci- 
 dence of local taxation, 116, 117. 
 
 Torrens, Sir R., on some of Mr 
 Baxter's errors, 30. 
 
 Towns, their recent growth and its 
 effect on the incidence of local taxa 
 tion, 13-15. 
 
 URQUHART, Mr. W. Pollard, on 
 the poor law as a security for 
 property, 36. 
 
 TT7AR, a chief cause of pauperism 
 
 Wells, Mr. David A., on the incidence 
 of taxation on land and buildings, 
 26. 
 
 Wilson, Mr. James, on local burdens 
 and protective duties, 7o, 76. 
 
 YORKE, 'Mr. R., dissatisfied with 
 Mr. Israeli's Government, 129. 
 
WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 NATIONAL FINANCE; a Eeriew of the Policy of 
 
 the last two Parliaments, and of the Results of Modern 
 
 Piseal Lesrislation. Longmans and Co. 7s. 6d. 
 
 FISCAL LEGISLATION, 1842-1865; a Review of 
 
 the Financial Changes of that-period, and their effects upon 
 Eeyenue, Trade, Manufactures, and Employment . . 3s. Od. 
 
 Longmans and Co. 
 
 THE QUEEN'S TAXES, an inquiry into the Amount, 
 Incidence, and Economic Eesults of the Taxation of the 
 United Kingdom. Longmans and Co. 3s. 6d. 
 
 OUR IMPORTS AND EXPORTS, with some remarks 
 
 upon the Balance of Trade Longmans and Co. Is. Od. 
 
 REPRESENTATION, POPULATION, AND TAXATION. 
 
 An Examination of the Representation of the United 
 Kingdom, based upon the Census of 1871, and the latest 
 Parliamentary Returns. P. S. King. 2s. Od. 
 
 The Et. Hon, JOHN BEIGHT, M.P., wrote the Author in 
 April, 1875, as follows :— " I wish to thank you for the public 
 service you are rendering by your books on these questions." 
 
 For Opinions of the Press see foUotcing pages. 
 
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 
 
 NATIONAL FINANCE. 
 
 An able review of the Fioancial Policy of the last two Parliamenta. — Daily News. 
 
 Although the nature of this book may be best described as a hearty effort to 
 whitewash Liberal Finance, the statistics, apart from the opinions recorded in it, 
 will be found valuable by those desirous of becoming acquainted with the financial 
 history of the nation during .the last ten years * * * A handy work 
 
 of reference containing a mass of valuable statistics. — The Globe. 
 
 We are unable to speak in any way favourably of this singularly prejudiced and 
 biassed review of our financial system.— jTAs Standard. 
 
 Note. — It is not the Author'' s fault that the facts, which he has fairly and impartially 
 recorded in his noTrative, are disjjleasiny to the above named Conservative 
 Newspapers. He considers the adverse criticism of the Standard admirable 
 testimony to the value of his book, which, indeed, the more impartial Globe admits. 
 
 It is an excellent contribution to political economy, and it is copiously supplied 
 with trustworthy figures and statistics. — The Hour. 
 
 We differ in some respects from Mr. Noble, but can on the whole commend his 
 work as an honest and independent production, containing much that is valuable 
 and suggestive in criticism and theory, as well as a careful resume of facts.— 
 
 £xa}niner. 
 
 His summaries of the financial procedure of each session of the late Government 
 are manifestly as fair as they are well written. Chapters, 13, 14 and 1-5, on " Modern 
 Finance and National Prosperity," "Modem Finance and the Working Classes," 
 and " The Incidence of Taxation," are especially worthy of attention at the present 
 time. — Glasgow Herald. 
 
 We most cordially recommend the work. — Financial Reformei\ 
 
 We heartily recommend this work to our readers, and especially to those who are 
 called the " leaders " of working men, so that they may be armed with facts and 
 figures when dealing with the difticult and complicated questions connected with 
 Imperial taxation. — Beehive. 
 
 AVill prove of great value to Members of Parliament and other gentlemen 
 interested in the revenue, expenditure, and general economy of the country 
 
 — Stamford Mercury. 
 
 A collection of valuable and interesting facta and arguments.— i?a»7way News. 
 
 FISCAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 A complete record of every change of moment, great or little, that has affected 
 the resources and capabilities of the United Kingdom for three-and-twenty of tb* 
 most important years of its financial h^^iory.— Financial Refermer. 
 
 A concise and useful condensation of the whole financial history of our Goveru- 
 
 ment. — London Review. 
 
 A valuable book of reference. — Lloyd^s Weekly Neivspaper. 
 
 The Author of this Book has done hia work well. — Saunders's News Letttr, 
 
 A concise and handy record of financial changes.— ./o//// Bull. 
 
THE QUEEN'S TAXES, 
 
 Mr. Noble shows a complete mastery both of the details and principles of his 
 subject, and his volume is remarkable for clearness of style and orderly arrangement. 
 — Daily News. 
 
 An able condensation of the nation's financial facts and figures. — Manchester 
 Guardian. 
 
 One of the most comprehensive analyiesof fiscal legislation that has yet appeared. 
 — London Mercantile Journal. 
 
 As a manual or hand-book on Taxation, Mr. Noble's volume will take a foremost 
 place. — Public Opinion. 
 
 A valuable publication. — Weekly Times, 
 
 OUR IMPORTS AND EXPORTS. 
 
 We cordially recommend the book. — Daily News. 
 
 We have never seen the fallacies of the balance of trade more clearly exposed 
 than in this work. — London Mercantile Journal. 
 
 Much useful information, drawn from the best sources, and brought together and 
 put forward in a clear and explicit manner.— OiYy Press. 
 
 JVDD AND CO., PHtSNIX fBIXTlNii WORKS, DOCTOBS' COHilOSa, E. C. 
 
^s/o^f 
 
 o 
 
 .■t.' 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY