In Paris, the Globe nerve was mudi reat I was not conducted exclusiver at one of the Bt. but treated of the question of the Ly and I L particularly, in Essays on pine tileny lenge sollet to propose certain reforms in the ana organiz

Society. He is a

composed of idlers, aut burem 22

at the amelioration, mor, Large, a mem the laborers, and at the Praca nu tr The means of accomplishing thee as an 11 the idlers, the abolino of al the peo H 215 as to the laboren there capacities, and her remen enig i ther works."

This, no don va de forma of the een vr Enfantin consentei ni modry

time.

Among other things meat of demending the mile diate abolin of the

the revenue of the State.

This tax should become still heavier as the heirs were further of kin from the deceased: and this mode might, by many persons, be preferred to an actual seizure of an Estate in default of direct heirs, as removing the necessity of intrusting the management of the property to the hands of incapable public servants. This tax, even on direct succession, was defended on the ground that it was taken at the time the property changed hands, and when, in many cases, it was about to devolve on those who would, unfortunately, be perverted by it from industrials, into idlers.

It was contended by M. Enfantin that, at the time when property changes hands, a diminution of it is little felt, and that a scisure of a portion of it thus differs entirely from the confiscation of part of an Estate of a living man.

The answer to all this sort of reasoning is obvious. Most of the Estates are small, and descend to the Widow and Children of the deceased. In such cases it cannot be alleged that the heirs are turned from the pursuits of industry, to live in idleness; for it more often happens that they are reduced from comparative affluence to poverty; the death of the head of the house annihilating the income derived from his exertions. The funeral expenses, and the necessary legal charges are considerable; and it is generally felt to be a great hardship that Government should step in at such a season of distress, to seize, by Probate and Legacy Duty, a share of the slender portion of the Widow, or the Orphan,-acting like Wreckers on the coast who prey on the destitution of the afflicted.

There is, however, another objection which, on considerations of political economy, ought to be conclusive. This tax falls on capital, whereas all taxes should be taken from the yearly produce of capital.

Capital is the foundation of social wealth, and is, therefore, necessary to national progress, and prosperity. The increase of capital, therefore, should be the aim of every Statesman, and the fear of excess is, practically, groundless.

Governments may safely leave the propensity to accumulate to take care of itself, but to prevent, or discourage, accumulation is as unwise for the interest of the State, as it is unjust to all classes.

It would be an injustice, however, to attribute such sentiments to the St. Simonians. Their desire was to protect property, but to abolish inheritance :-to allow the wife and family to share the possessions of the husband and father during his life-time, but to filch those possessions at his decease, as the property of the State, leaving the widow and her little children to work or

starve.

The French Government wisely rejected these theories, and, whether wisely or not, prosecuted the propounder, M. Enfantin, and condemned him to imprison

ment.

The British Legislature adopted them, so far as filching for the Government, under the heading of 'Succession Duties,'-and for this step into Socialism we are indebted to the St. Simonians, and a treacherous or benighted Parliament.

This was a rash and weak experiment in legislation, proceeding on the false and foolish notion of compensating one wrong by the commission of another and greater of the same kind. Instead of the Succession Duty acting as an equilibrium to the Probate and Legacy Duties, -instead of preserving the balance between Real and Personal Property,-the direct operation is, to impose an additional and heavier burden on both. We can never compensate wrong by wrong; and wrong can never become right; for though good may, and often does ap

pear to come out of evil, yet evil never becomes good. By a power far higher than man's agency, the good prevails over the evil;—not through the evil, but in spite of it.

In the competition between good and evil in the affairs of this world, it is the first duty of a Christian Legislature to act on the principle of equal justice, and not to seek by compensation to make wrong more tolerable.

Every such attempt must fail, because it can only aggravate the original evil, by making the first wrong the greater, and more lasting.

Especially applicable is this moral truth to the political interests of this great Commercial Country. We are, as Mr. Tooke remarks,-" Competitors in a race in which the smallest inequalities of pressure may give an advantage or a victory to rivals who, with greater skill, or greater prudence, have provided for a more unfettered command of their natural aptitude for the contest." And, as he wisely adds:-"No Free Trade Financier will imperil the public credit by rash and weak experiments; but, while he regards caution as his first duty, he will also regard improvement as his first maxim."

In imposing taxes, he will be the most skilful financier who can imagine himself in the position of the persons liable to pay any particular tax.

It is impossible to suppose that many of the vexatious and profitless imposts which have been laid upon the People of this Country would ever have been proposed, if Statesmen had, by experience, or by imagination, attained to an adequate notion of the personal inconvenience caused by these imposts. And what is public good, but an aggregation of personal convenience?

The greatest happiness of the greatest number, can never be incompatible with the welfare of any Nation.

GENERAL REVIEW.

In reviewing the taxation of this Country, it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that, it has grown up with the Country, and has been imposed from time to time under pressing emergencies, without any system, and by selfish and interested classes, who consulted only what they believed to be their own interests, regardless of consequences to others.

Thus was imposed the great burden of taxation on corn and wine, and all other intermediate necessaries and comforts of life, under the notion that the taxes, so disguised, would be spread over the great mass of the people, who would know little or nothing about it, and who, in fact, had little or nothing to do with the making of the laws. Nor is this any fanciful imputation. Mr. M'Culloch, before quoted, describes a tax "to be direct when it is immediately taken from property, or labor; and indirect when it is taken from them by making their owners pay for liberty to use certain articles, or to exercise certain privileges." Assuming this definition, mark his reasons for his preference. He says:

"Indirect taxes have, with few exceptions, been the greatest favorites both of princes, and subjects, and there very sufficient reasons for the preference of which they have so generally been the objects. The burden of direct taxation is palpable and obvious. It admits of no disguise, or concealment, but makes every one fully sensible of the exact amount of his income taken by Government. We are all, however, extremely averse from parting with property, except we obtain some more acceptable equivalent in its stead. And the benefits derived from the institution of government, though of the highest importance, being neither so very obvious nor striking as to be readily felt and appreciated by the bulk of the

N