this. (She rings, and a Valet de Chambre appears.) Bid the porter scratch M. * * * off my visiting-list, and take care never to let him in.

Chev. M. *** the more deserves this severity, for having maintained his assertions with a degree of violence; falling foul of the honoured reputation of three persons.

Maréchale. If that was revenge, it was infamous, because in such cases mere exaggeration is so, and those who speak in passion always will exaggerate. If it was sport, such jests richly deserve that the jester should be for ever condemned to low company.

Mar. Last year Madame la Maréchale executed justice upon an ingrate. Now she exerts her social authority against a scandal monger. It is impossible not to applaud the equity of her decrees.

Maréchale. Unworthy conduct, that the laws cannot reach, ought to be punished by the sound portion of society.

Mar. Sedulously may we preserve this delicacy and this equity!

Comt. It is in such good taste! Chev. This is what gives French society its brilliant reputation. This is what renders us the most amiable nation in Europe. Should we ever lose these qualities, we should, in some respects, be inferior to the English, the Germans, the Italians, the Spaniards, &c.

Mar. Nothing short of a revolution could rob us of them.

Maréchale. And luckily a revolution in France is a chimera.

Mar. In the arts only, thank Heaven, is one possible.

We are tired of translating, and is not this sufficient? What blue soirée, what haut ton dinner, what. village tea-table, can rival such polite conversation? We trust our youthful readers will be able to find support in philosophy or religion sufficient to prevent their quite breaking their hearts at being deprived, by the unfortunate lateness of their respective births, of all possibility of ever delighting and improving their minds by participating, in the character of humble listeners, in such "Feasts of Reason," such "flow of soul," and of fancy. We should add, for the farther consolation of the weaker fe

male portion of those youthful readers, that Madame de Genlis positively asserts, that the mere admission of spinsters into society must inevitably deteriorate from its consummate and brilliant perfection in all and every point; so that were the Maréchale's supper even now in a course of being eaten, they would still be as much debarred from the enjoyment of the refined conversation, of which we have treated them to a specimen, as they actually are, by the fact of not having been born until the suppers were eaten, and almost all the eaters dead. But even the brilliant interlocutors in this beau-ideal of dialogue did not, it should seem, judge themselves equal to supporting such intellectual exertions, to displaying such coruscations of talent, night after night. Conversation was consequently now and then relieved and enlivened by readings; of which readings, likewise, these volumes afford us some specimens; viz. a bishop's sermon, à critique upon Voltaire, especially upon his HENRIADE, (which critique, though now extant, independently of Madame de Genlis, in the form of a printed and published book, is here introduced as read in MS. by its author,) and two short tales, the first founded upon three unconnected, improbable facts, the improbability of each being skilfully increased, and the second, as far as we could make out, containing no story at all.

But enough of the Maréchale de Luxembourg's suppers; and enough too, though we really grieve to say it, of Madame la Comtesse de Genlis. We would fain part from our whilom favourite in perfect amity, having felt much of our juvenile predilection in her favour revive whilst writing these remarks, and thinking of such of her works as we were wont to like; and we accordingly take our leave of the good old lady with a cordial wish, that she may yet live as long as she finds life enjoyable and desirable; but we must couple this with a second, qualifying, wish, that her enjoyments may be unconnected with literary labour. May she taste the proper otium cum dignitate of advanced age, and at 82 give up the notion of playing School-Mistress General to mankind.

EVERY man has a natural antipathy to taxes, therefore declamations against them, however devoid they may be of reason and proof, are always palatable to him; and the production of such declamations is perfectly easy to every capacity. It, of course, happens that diatribes against taxes always rank amidst the grand means with which demagogues, parties, and factions, operate on public ignorance and credulity.

The community is in grievous distress, and it is assured on all sides, that the great cause is taxation. The public disturber to give success to his schemes-the political economist to conceal the falsification of his principles-the Whigs and ministerial Tories to divert public attention from the total failure of their experiments, the terrible evils they have produced, and their errors, profligacy, and incapacity, all harmoniously join in the cry-You are ruined by the taxes!

It is somewhat marvellous that this should be the case with a generation which dilates so incessantly of its omniscience and wisdom. It might, at any rate, have been expected, that the real effects of taxation, forming, as they do, a question of such universal and gigantic importance, would be familiarly known to all-that "scientific education" would enable the humblest mechanic to discover, at a glance, how far taxes were the cause of public evils. When we see that this clamour against taxes is not only raised by the boasting oracles of the age, but joined in by the country at large, we are constrained to think the fashionable " schoolmaster" is a sorry dunce, whose tuition only propagates ignorance. When men at public meetings declare they are overwhelmed with loss and misery, and then only declaim against taxes, and call for no other relief than the miserable repeal of the duties on malt and beer; the humiliating fact compels us to suspect that the march of intellect, which is so much spoken of, is merely a retrograde one to barbarism. We fervently wish that there was less boasting and more knowledge-that the march of intellect had less puffing, and a better direction.

We should not trouble ourselves with the clamour, were it not calculated to have very pernicious consequences. It is easy to foresee that Parliament will charge the calamitous condition of the country on the taxes, make, at the best, some unimportant reduction of them, and treat the mention of other causes and remedies with contempt. Thus it will be made the instrument for stifling enquiry, suppressing the truth, and withholding all efficient relief. It therefore becomes a matter of the first importance to enquire how far public misery can be truly ascribed

to the taxes.

The war, which was the parent of so large a portion of them, is loudly condemned; and the landed interest shares the condemnation for having supported it. Whether the war was necessary, or unjust, is a matter of no moment; because the right of those for whom this portion of the taxes is collected, is as sacred in the one case as in the other. If the State expend the money which it borrows in a guilty manner, this can form no ground for defrauding its creditors. As to the landed interest, it will obtain no relief for its own sake; if it obtain any, it will be on the score of general good alone; therefore its conduct touching the war is out of the question.

But, however unnecessary it may be, we will, in the first place, hastily glance at the character and consequences of the war. In the words of Mr Pitt, it was "A contest undertaken in compliance with the faith of treaties, and for the defence of our allies; undertaken to repel the daring, unprincipled, and unprovoked aggression of the enemy; undertaken for the maintenance of our own independence, and the support of our own rights; undertaken for the preservation of our constitution and laws, and in obedience to those principles of policy by which the conduct of England has so long and so gloriously been directed; undertaken from a union of all these causes, and a combination of all these motives, to a degree for which the annals of the world present no parallel.' So spoke Mr Pitt, December

30, 1796, and his sentiments were those of the country. During its progress, no great change took place in the nature of the war; it was to the last a defensive one, waged to protect and secure every thing dear to the empire.

If there be any man, who, after reading the history of the revolutionary government of France, believes that this country could have avoided war, and in remaining at peace could have preserved its independence, constitution, and freedom, its colonies, and even Ireland; we shall not labour to convince him to the contrary, because his belief can' only arise from insanity, or a depraved resolution to reject the clearest proofs. It is matter of demonstration, that this country could not have avoided war, without losing what we have named; therefore the question is, Would the loss of these have been a smaller evil, than the debt is, which the war created? We need not answer it.

But did the war provide nothing towards paying the debt and taxes, of which it was the parent? It gave to this country various valuable colonies, which constitute a regular source of wealth and naval power. The high prices, which nothing but could have produced, raised an enormous mass of comparatively worthless land to the average points of fertility, and gave hundreds of millions of property to the landowners and farmers. The general prosperity which flowed from it caused a vast accumulation of capital throughout the community. And it created an immense field for the investment of capital, which could not otherwise have had existence. When all this is looked at, it may be safely assumed, that the war produced as much capital as debt, and that it in a great measure provided the means for paying the taxes it imposed. The evils are not to be charged upon it, which, since its close, have flowed from destructive changes and experiments. It must be remembered, that a considerable part of the taxes it imposed are in reality paid by those who receive them.

Farther defence of the war, and of the landed interest for supporting it,

is needless. And now, putting it and its fruits out of sight, we will proceed with our enquiry.

If the taxes had only been imposed when the effects of the existing Free Trade and Currency Laws commenced, it might have been made matter of doubt whether they, or these laws, had produced the misery. But the fact is this. During the war the population was much smaller, and the taxes were far higher, than they are at present; the taxes, in proportion to the population, were almost double what they now are, and in addition, trade with various foreign nations was nearly destroyed; yet the country enjoyed unexampled prosperity. This conclusively demonstrates that the misery cannot possibly have been produced by taxation.

The country was prosperous when the taxes were so much higher, because every man had a greater income than he now has. The landowners, farmers, manufacturers, traders, and labourers, had income which both enabled them to pay the higher taxes, and put them in possession of much more money for other purposes. They are distressed because this income has been to a great extent taken from them; it has not been taken by the taxes, on the contrary, the only alteration which has been made in these, has been calculated to enlarge it; therefore they manifestly have had no share in creating the distress. The latter has unquestionably been produced by the things, whatever they may be, which have taken away the income.

Every member of the community has a certain amount of taxes to pay; it does not increase and diminish with his income, but, on the contrary, it either remains stationary, or a rise of his income reduces, and a decrease, raises it. Whatever may be the individual exceptions, this holds good on the average; the community, to be honest, must pay a certain sum as taxes.

The community, to be honest, must pay a certain amount of taxes: this amount remains the same, whether its income-we mean by the word the aggregate of individual incomerises or falls; and it is only through a rise in such income that it can be effectually reduced. The whole of

the taxes, practically, form one grand poll tax; every man on the average must contribute to them the same sum, no matter how his income may vary. Taking them in round numbers at fifty millions, the community must pay this sum, whether its income be five hundred, or a thousand millions; and, of course, as its income fluctuates, they are in their pressure raised or reduced. From one of a thousand millions they take only five per cent; from one of five hundred they take ten per cent, and from one of two hundred they take twenty five per cent. Thus, if each member of the community on the average have his income raised fifty per cent, it in effect is a proportional repeal of his taxes; if in consequence he pay more of the latter by raising his standard of living, the ultimate effect is still the same; he produces surplus revenue, by which the taxes are actually reduced. It is from all this essential to keep general income at the highest practicable point, not only that the per centage of taxation on it may be kept at the lowest, but that the progressive extinction of taxes may be accomplished.

This is, to a great extent, true, in regard to what the community pays to foreign nations for goods, and to capitalists as the interest of fixed capital. The sum it so pays is but little varied by fluctuations in its income; and, therefore, as the latter rises or falls, foreign goods are in effect made cheaper or dearer, and such interest is reduced or raised. When this income sinks to the lowest point, the price of these goods and this interest practically rise to the highest.

A wise and able ruler will, of course, constantly labour to keep general income, that is, profits and wages, as high as possible; and a foolish and incapable one will do exactly the reverse. A better test than this for ascertaining the character of a government, could not be conceived.

When we apply this test to those who have governed the British empire in late years-we do not mean this ministry, or that party, but the Tories, Whigs, and Liberals, who, however they may have differed in name, have agreed in principlewhat is the result? It is this :-they have regularly laboured on system to reduce individual and general in

come as far as possible; they have constantly acted on the doctrine, that cheapness produced by the destruction of profits and wages, is highly beneficial. In consequence, they have, as far as practicable, taken every man's income from him, and thereby, in reality, raised to him, as far as practicable, the taxes, the price of foreign goods, and the interest on fixed capital. According to the test it follows, that these rulers were never surpassed in folly and incapacity.

These men, when they commenced their new system, found the empire in great prosperity; the taxes have been since in some degree reduced; foreign trade has encountered no material impediments; and the course of nature has produced no evils worthy of notice. Putting their conduct out of sight, every thing, both at home and abroad, has conspired to add to trade and riches. Yet, in spite of all this, their system has filled the empire with calamity and mi

sery.

And these men still have the incredible hardihood to proclaim, that none but themselves are capable of governing the empire, and that they are infallible; they coolly survey the horrible sufferings of the community, and then oracularly declare the principles which produced these, to be unerring; they even still deny all knowledge and intellect to those who differ from them. But perhaps this ought not to be matter of wonder; it may be very natural for so much folly and incapacity to be combined with so much assurance and egotism.

It is, however, urged that, no matter what the causes of the distress may be, a reduction of taxes would yield great relief. Let us examine the truth of this, putting practicability out of the question.

We will take, in round numbers, the taxes at fifty millions, and the income of the British population at two hundred millions, or about fourteen pounds for each individual on the average. In this case, the taxes as a whole, form an income tax of twentyfive per cent, and each individual contributes to them about £3, 10s. yearly.

Let one-fifth of them, or ten millions, be abolished, and they will still form an income tax of twenty per

cent; the gain to each individual will only be fourteen shillings per annum. Let the public debt be swept away, and thirty millions of them be abolished, they will then form an income tax of ten per cent; and the gain to each individual will be £2, 2s. per

annum.

The individual gain would be no more than this, if the taxes could be abolished solely through surplus revenue. But this is impossible; they can only be reduced by taking income from one part of the community to give it to another. If the public debt were totally destroyed by the "sponge," the population, as a whole, would gain nothing from it; the profit of one number of families would be the loss of another.

If, then, the whole public debt were destroyed by the "sponge," the benefit on the average to each individual, save the fundholders, would not exceed two pounds, or guineas per annum. In proportion as general consumption would be enlarged amidst others, it would be reduced amidst the creditors of the state. Therefore general business and employment for labour, could not receive much increase. The contribution to the taxes varies very greatly in regard to both individual and class; let us therefore enquire how the benefit would be divided.

The farmer gives more or less rent in proportion as his taxes, wages, and cost of maintaining his family are lower or higher. We have the best authorities with us in saying, that the taxes levied on his farm are ultimately paid by his landlord. If the whole public debt were destroyed by the "sponge," it would yield the farmers, as a body, very little benefit; they would soon have to pay that in rent which they now pay in taxes and duties. The gain would be principally reaped by the landowners.

If the house and window-duties should be abolished, the occupiers of houses and shops in towns would soon have to pay proportionately higher rents; the gain would go chiefly into the pockets of their landlords.

With the same corn law, the prices of corn and animal food would not be reduced in any degree worthy of notice by the abolition of the taxes. They are wholly above the control

of farmers and landowners; they go→ vern, but are not governed by, rents; and a rise of the latter from a reduction of taxes would not affect them. Such reduction would raise them, should it increase consumption. Of course corn, animal food, wool, and various other commodities, would be about as dear as they now are: the more important articles of dress would be very little cheaper, provided wages should not be reduced. The gain would consist principally in the reduced prices of tea, sugar, tobacco, spirits, &c.; and, in conse quence, it would scarcely reach the poorer part of the population. The millions who, from the lack of em ployment, or insufficient wages, are enduring practical famine, would find the things which they expend their pittance in nearly as dear as they are at present, and probably they would find them on the whole dearer.

Of the best paid labourers it is not necessary to speak, because they form the insignificant minority in their classes, and belong to that part of the community which needs no relief.

Thus the farmers would draw scarcely any profit from the use of the " sponge," but, granting that it would yield them from five to twenty pounds per annum, according to the size of their farms, would this make the difference to them between heavy loss and prosperity? It would be equal to two or three per cent on their prices; and would an advance to this amount yield all the relief they require? It is sufficient to say in reply, that their losses have been for some time equal to their rents.

The distressed part of the working classes would draw very little benefit from it; but granting that amidst these classes each individual on the average should gain from threepence to sixpence per week, would this remove the distress? Is this all the relief required by the workman who is destitute of employment, or by him who cannot, by fourteen or sixteen hours of toil per day, earn what will keep his family from starving? Answer is needless. A very large part of the labouring orders would in the course of the year, lose as much in parish relief as they would gain from the reduction of taxes.

Supposing that the manufacturers