experience in Australia must have shown him that his theory of a wage-fund would not hold. Wages there were exceedingly high at the time of the gold discoveries, and most of the food had to be imported; the reason of the excessive wages was that the individual wealth of the people at that time was far greater than in any other part of the world, excepting California. Again, Mr. Selby says, "Wages I have shown are but the daily bread for the improvident, provided by the forethought of the provident." Are men improvident because they get wages? Are the millions of workers to be dubbed improvident because they earn daily, weekly, or yearly pay? As this embraces all wage earners, from the dock labourer to the Lord Chancellor, Mr. Selby must think that, as a nation, we are in a very bad way. Although I must differ on these and on other points from the author of the paper, I appreciate many of the suggestions it contains, and I admit that Mr. Selby has devoted much time and thought to the subject.

Mr. BEATTIE CAMPBELL: There is one remark of Mr. Selby's I should like to take exception to. In the paper just read he says, "especially any change having for the object the transfer of burdens from one class of the community to the other stands self-condemned." Well, I do not hold with that at all. If an injustice has been perpetrated, the sooner it is remedied by legislation the better; and I must say I differ from the last speaker also, for one can hardly regard the aristocracy as a class of people who are likely to suffer from taxation at all; I think it is those who are down at the other end of the scale altogether who suffer. It is very evident that the whole system of our taxation has been formulated by a certain class, and they have taken considerable care of themselves-I mean the landlords. Let us take the method in which taxes are levied. For example, every householder who, as a tenant, has only an occupying interest in his house, has to pay the property tax for his landlord, which he gets refunded to him. Now, is there any equity in such an arrangement as that? I opine not. A very large majority of the House of Commons passed what is called a substantive motion, which was brought forward by Professor Thorold Rogers, viz. :"That the incidence of taxation should fall upon the landlord, and not upon the tenant." I contend that this is a practical resolution, only it has never been acted upon, but shelved and lost sight of altogether. There is no equity in one man having to pay taxes upon the property of another in which he has a mere occupying interest, or even to advance the money for him and have it refunded again. Here is a grievance which requires setting right, and I therefore must take exception to Mr. Selby's statement, viz. :-"That the transfer of the burden from one class of the community to another stands self-condemned." I cannot see the justice of it myself.

Mr. C. T. MURDOCH, M.P.: I think in this paper there are so very many topics that might be touched upon, that really to me it is

There are one or

most difficult to say what one would begin with. two points which struck me when I heard the paper read, and first of all, I should like to point out, on page 10, a suggestion made by the author of the paper, that it would be a very good thing if the amount of the taxes was not to vary from year to year, but am I to understand that the Government of the day should always levy the same amount, that when the expenditure of the year was not more than was collected, the amount so realised should be used for the reduction of the debt, but that in years when the expenditure was greater than what was levied in taxation, borrowing should then take place? Now, I am not sure that that is a very good theory to hold. It is true that when Sir Stafford Northcote was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he made one step in that direction, by having the amount of the interest on the National Debt put at a fixed amount, in order that the National Debt might be reduced by the surplus that was provided; but for any Government to say that the taxation should continue from year to year the same, I think, is almost impossible. We see how that the taxation of the country necessarily increases, from the demands upon the Government of the day, and the necessity there is for the Government providing various things which are always increasing in amount, and I think it is impossible that you could fix in any one year what the taxation shall be that shall continue for successive years. Of course, if you could be perfectly certain that the expenditure of the country for one year, say, should only be 80 millions, and would continue at 80 millions, it would be possible then to keep the taxation at an uniform level, but as it is almost impossible to say that the necessary amount to be expended by a Government will be 80 millions or 90 millions, I am afraid that the theory suggested by the writer of this paper cannot hold good. With regard to the remarks of the last speaker as to taxation borne by the landlord and tenant, surely that is always a matter of arrangement. Suppose a tenant rents a house and pays a tax, he pays a less rent for the house; if, on the contrary, the landlord bears the taxation, the rent charged to the tenant is so much more. That, I think, is an absolute law, and, whether the taxation is borne by the landlord or by the tenant, is very immaterial. It may be a sentimental grievance but I do not think it is a real one. Now, I should wish to point out the last paragraph on page 13. That paragraph, to me, seems to contain a good deal-" A word to the wealthy." The first part of it I pass over, as being somewhat personal, as to politicians having to please their constituents, but I wish to go on to this-" Cannot means be devised for a propaganda amongst the masses, to induce them to look beyond to-day in their own interest-to make them see that when the law this year checks the profitable use of capital, the wageearner of next year will have short commons." Now, gentlemen, I really think that, in that paragraph, there is an allusion-I do not know if it was intended by the writer or not-which points to a very important

с

If

thing for us in England, and that is the question of strikes. we could only get the people at large, that is, the workers, to understand how trade may be driven out of the country, how that their own interests hardly ever are benefited by a strike, I think we should do more than has ever been done in this country to provide for wealth being increased. There can be no doubt of this, and I am sure that you, as practical men, know it perfectly well, that many an employer in these days is afraid of taking contracts because he is not quite certain whether he may not have a strike, and, therefore, that he may not be able to fulfil his contract. To my idea, an immense deal of poverty in this country-I was going to say an immense deal of trade going from us, but I will not go quite so far as that, but certainly a certain amount of trade going from England to foreign countries-is caused by the fear that a strike is going to take place, and, therefore, the employers of labour are afraid of taking contracts that otherwise they might entertain. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not know that I have any other remarks to make. I rather gather from what we have heard to-day that the whole subject of thrift was very much in the mind of Mr. Selby when he wrote this paper, and, of course, there are many of us who are well acquainted with what Canon Blackley, and others, have written and preached on the subject of thrift. It is a most important subject, and I cannot help thinking that any paper such as this, which encourages the idea of thrift, is in itself very useful, and that a discussion upon thrift, as connected with taxation, must be productive of good results. I may, perhaps, be allowed to supplement what I said by one remark. I think we, as bankers, know from what has taken place last year, it is quite possible to impose new taxes without causing any very great amount of irritation. We bankers know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has touched us up a little this year, but still I hope we are none the worse for it.

Mr. SELBY (in reply): I fear my memory will be at fault in following the different speakers. Mr. Martin believes that direct taxation is, and is generally admitted to be, the best. Now, the tendency of my argument is to show that, if you must have a certain amount of taxation, it is better for the community that that taxation should be raised indirectly rather than directly. It is better that people should be allowed to pay from day to day, or from hour to hour, as they consume, than that they should have to pay their whole taxation in one sum. It is less burdensome on a man to pay for each fig of tobacco than that the tax gatherer should come to his house and demand a certain sum every year. A poll tax is much more irksome to any community than a tax on imported goods. Mr. Cork, I am sorry to find, considered that my argument abounds with fallacies, but I think if he will be good enough to read it again with more leisure, he will find that it is simply from the attempt to condense, if I have laid myself open to some of the misconceptions

he has fallen into. It is, no doubt, as I feel, a bold step to question Adam Smith's first maxim, which John Stuart Mill and other economists have accepted, without question, as true. I produced arguments by which I hoped to convince that my view is right. The first consideration of a statesman, Mr. Cork says, should be to secure that taxation be fair. Well, I say, if only taxation be old taxation, it is bound to be as fair as taxation can be; although in the incidence of a new tax, as I have endeavoured to point out, very great injustice may be done. A new tax on house property would depreciate the property at once to the amount of the capitalised tax. I saw a very strong instance of that in Victoria. A heavy tax was put upon large estates, with a view to causing them to be broken up into farms. In effect, the tax actually confiscated the interests of the owners of some of these estates, which were subject to mortgages. Mr. Cork takes exception to my remark, on page 9, that a landowner has an enjoyment the less through a land tax, and says, he may have many enjoyments the less; but, of course, I only used the expression in illustration. A community, no doubt, as well as individuals, I agree with Mr. Cork, may be ruined by an excess of taxation. I do not think that the case of high wages being paid in Australia at the time when no food to speak of was produced there, really affected my argument. Of course, when using the expression " food," I mean articles of consumption generally. In Australia, at that time, people did not live upon gold; their wages were high, and so was the cost of living-they had to pay so much for flour, which was £140 a ton at many of the gold fields, that, although they got an immense amount of gold in wages, they did not save so very much. I should be sorry to be understood to dub men improvident because they earn wages. I spoke, though not using the expression, of daily wages. I spoke of those who really live from hand to mouth, who earn nothing but the wage of unskilled labour. If a man has the means to keep him until harvest, he is a capitalist, not a mere dependent on the wage fund. I certainly agree with Mr. Campbell that an injustice should be promptly remedied, but I hold that no old tax is unjust. If you put on a new tax it will be unjust, though sometimes unavoidable. Mr. Murdoch questions my contention that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be content to let taxes alone, notwithstanding a moderate surplus or deficiency on the year's revenue. Now, I am afraid that is too long an argument to go into at present, but I think that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to disburse a few millions extra, it does not make much practical difference to the community whether he borrows that sum, or raises it by taxation, so long, that is, as it is borrowed in the country. In either case there will be a transfer from productive to unproductive consumption, and I think that on the whole it will be found that to borrow, and thus cause financial agencies to distribute the burden, would be fairer to the community than to impose a new tax, and thus

levy the amount by a special penalty upon those upon whom the tax immediately falls. As regards the question of strikes, I am thoroughly at one with Mr. Murdoch. One of the points, I think, which the labouring classes do not realise, is, that if by the aid of a strike one set of workmen receive higher wages than before, somebody else, other things being equal, must receive less, since all the expenditure of the community is for labour. No one can spend anything without employing labour. If a man buys an imported commodity, it must be paid for by some export which has been produced by the labour of the country of course not always contemporary labour. : I have been understood to hold it immaterial that the cost of living was increased by taxation. Of course I agree from the assumption that taxation is necessary; I do not say that taxation is good in itself, but if you must tax, I say it is better to so tax as to increase the cost of living than to so tax as to reduce the wage. I think that good deal of the prosperity of America under protective duties, is owing to the fact that they cause wages to be nominally very high. I saw an estimate the other day that a working family in America earned £163 a year, and spent £160, while in England a family earned only £100, and spent £99, so that in America they were better off than in England by £2 a year. But besides this trifling additional saving, on the average the American family has a margin of £60, out of which a saving and thrifty family can improve its position. There is no doubt that, if you increase the cost of living in one country, you handicap its people as against other countries. You do so, in fact, if you increase the unproductive expenditure of the community-and that is one of the effects of strikes, among other fallacious acts. I should therefore be very sorry to be understood to indicate in any way an opinion that an increase in the cost of living is good in itself. I do not think I need trouble you with any further remarks to-night, except to thank you for your attention.