a parliamentary majority imposed a heavy tax on wine and allowed beer to go free, the French people would contribute the major portion of the revenue; if the reverse, beer being taxed and wine free, the burden would lie mainly upon the English people. Thus under nominally equal taxes one population or the other might be oppressed. This is unanswerable, but the Commission seem to give it an erroneous application. Under a wine tax there is a minority in England who would be just as injuriously affected as the majority in France, and under a beer tax a minority in France would suffer as much as the majority in England. The partiality of such a scheme of taxation would not be a partiality for or against countries, but against groups of taxpayers. The remedy, therefore, should be sought not in direct efforts of mitigation to the injured country, for that would leave the case of the minority in the favoured country untouched, but rather in a readjustment of the duty so that the beverages of the people at large might be as nearly as possible equally taxed.

Spirits Beer

Wine

Tea. Tobacco

The spirit-drinking Irishman is said to contribute more to the revenue than the beer - drinking Englishman; but the Commission entirely fail to take note of the equally important fact that the spirit-drinking Englishman contributes more than the beer-drinking Irishman. To remedy the former, they propose either to take less from the Irishman's spirits, in which case his English confrère would have more right to complain than ever, or to make a free present to Irishmen at large from a fund raised by English taxation.

In

The term English rather than British has been here used because this line of argument necessitates some reference to England and Scotland as distinct areas. 1853 and 1854 the duty on Scotch spirits was increased by Mr Gladstone from 3s. 8d. to 6s. a gallon, and in the following year by Sir George Lewis to 8s., since which date it has been at the same rate as that levied in England. Now the following table gives the present taxation paid per head by the people of the three kingdoms on the principal articles of consumption :England.

Scotland. 8. d.

8. d.

Ireland. 8. d.

In the case of tea and tobacco the differences are inconsiderable, and afford ground for no complaint. The results in regard to spirits, beer, and wine are, however, very striking. Each Scotchman pays on account of spirits 17s. 6d. to the revenue as compared with the Englishman's 8s. Ild., while the latter pays 5s. 9d. on his beer as

22 5

21 0

compared with the Scotchman's 1s. 9d. The total contribution for alcoholic liquors per head of population is-Scotland, 19s. 9d.; England, 15s. 4d.; Ireland, 13s. 9d. If, therefore, the Irishman is hardly used because his spiritdrinking propensities are costly, much more grievous is the position of the Scotchman, who drinks less

lightly taxed beer and more heavily taxed spirits than anybody. If the position of the Irishman requires any one of the drastic concessions recommended by the different groups of commissioners, much more urgent is the Scottish case.

We state this not as a valid reason why Scotchmen should agitate, but as an argument why no departure should be tolerated from the system of identical rates of taxation, which is the cornerstone of our financial fabric. To do so here would be not to remove but to augment inequalities, for if the duty on spirits were reduced in Scotland and Ireland, the spirit-drinkers in various parts of England, where the preference for spirits over beer is just as general, would suffer flagrant injustice.

Is there, then, no injustice or inequality in the existing fiscal system? In regard to direct taxation none, for wealth is wealth wherever it may be found, whether in Whitechapel or Westminster, Kilkenny or Caithness, and should be equally taxed; in regard to tea and tobacco none that is perceptible, for these luxuries are of general use in every locality and by every society; but in regard to beer and spirits there is not equality. The injustice has nothing to do with geographical expressions, but permeates all sections of the people. Each beer drinker gets his stimulant at a much less charge than the spirit - drinker. How much less? The Board of Inland Revenue have provided an answer which may be assumed to be accurate. The spirit duty is 10s. 6d. per proof gallon, and the beer-duty 6s. 9d. per 36-gallon cask. The quantity of spirits present in beer is about 11 per cent, and in 100 gallons of beer there will be found

11 gallons of spirit. The duty on 100 gallons of beer is 18s. 9d., and on 11 gallons of whisky £5, 15s. 6d. Hence the intoxicating property pays more than six times as much to the revenue in the form of whisky as in that of beer.

The Legislature, in fixing the beer duty and in increasing the duty on spirits to so enormous a figure and so huge a proportion of the value of the article the declared value of rum on importation is 1s. 44d. and the duty 11s. 4d.— has not been solely moved by a desire to tax alcohol. There has been a desire to check by high taxation the consumption of alcohol in its more deleterious form, and any suggestion that spirits should be relieved of any considerable part of their present burden, and so made cheaper to the people, would be regarded with strong disfavour on other than financial grounds. May it not be owing to the high taxation of spirits as compared with beer that from 1880 to 1894 there has been in Ireland a decrease in the consumption of spirits of 1,034,000 gallons or 18 per cent, and an increase in the same period in that of beer of 2,032,000 gallons or 49 per cent? If so, the result has been beneficent. It is very improbable that the duty on spirits will be materially reduced, but there are necessitous times in prospect at the Imperial Exchequer, and an augmentation of the tax on beer would not only yield a golden harvest, but would redress inequalities of burden among the people.

To illustrate broadly this proposition. If the tax on beer were doubled, the figures given above would be altered, so that the contribution on intoxicating liquors per head of population in England would be about 21s. 2d.,

in

Scotland 21s. 6d., practically identical, and in Ireland 16s. 6d., her comparative contribution being much reduced. Sir Alfred Milner in his evidence pointed out that if the tax on alcohol in beer were

raised so as to equal that of alcohol in spirits, the beer revenue would be killed right away. He estimates the usual price of a 36gallon cask of beer at 40s., on which the duty is 6s. 6d. If the duty were sextupled so as to equalise the tax on alcohol in both beverages, the duty on 36 gallons would be 39s., equal to present value. If the duty were doubled even this is an extreme suggestion, made only by way of illustration the cost would be enhanced by little more than 2d. per gallon or 1 farthing per pint, while the revenue-assuming consumption did not decrease-would profit to the extent of 10 million pounds. We should regard any serious augmentation of the beer duty as a misfortune; but if it be considered necessary to adjust the burden of taxation so that the inequality between groups of taxpayers, wherever they live and quite irrespective of nationality, may be mitigated or removed, some step in this direction may be forced on the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

It is time to consider in what way the Commission has done service to the country. It has proved to demonstration that, except in preparation for Home Rule, it ought never to have been constituted; it should never have been asked to find out the relative taxable capacity of two parts of the United Kingdom on a national basis except as a preliminary to the dissolution of the United Kingdom. Individuals are taxed, and not nations. It has established by evidence that, however

VOL. CLXI.-NO. DCCCCLXXV.

poor some districts may be as compared with others, direct taxation cannot operate unequally-for where there is no wealth, no income, no succession, there there will be no tax; and that while the habits of the people may render equal taxes on commodities more burdensome to some than to others, this can only be redressed by adjustment of the rates of duties as applied to all and not by relief to geographical areas. Sir David Barbour and Sir Thomas Sutherland alone report in this sense, the other members of the Commission having either boldly gone in for a policy involving Home Rule or else propounded schemes which sink beneath the weight of their own extravagance. It is the remedial measures advanced by the several groups of commissioners which demonstrate the absurdity of their conclusions.

Again, the extravagance of Irish establishments as compared with those in England and Scotland has been abundantly demonstrated. By a return laid before Parliament in August last it appears that the revenue collected in Ireland was £8,034,000, or 7.46 per cent of the whole, while the local expenditure in Ireland was £5,938,000, or 15.53 per cent of the whole. The distinct establishments of a smaller country are necessarily dearer in proportion than the establishments of a larger. But Scotland is as small as Ïreland, and the Scotch revenue much higher, £11,435,000, or 10.61 per cent of the whole, yet the Scotch expenditure is no more than £4,143,000, or 10.83 per cent of the whole. Why is this? Partly the cost of the Irish Constabulary, which has no counterpart in the sister countries, and partly extravagance. The following are a

I