poor.

objections to it appear to be three. The first is, that uniform taxation is essentially unjust. In whatever mode taxes are collected, it is plain that not only more should be levied, but a greater proportion should be levied, on the rich than on the If a man of two thousand pounds a year contributes a twentieth of his income to the exigencies of the state, it is plain that, to preserve fairness, a man of two hundred a year should contribute less than a twentieth. For as he is much nearer to the possession of the mere necessaries of life, to diminish his power of purchasing by a twentieth would make a much more dangerous inroad upon his happiness than a levy of a twentieth upon the other. The necessaries of life are those things of which the non-possession necessarily causes physical suffering, as hunger, thirst, or injury from exposure to the weather; and the nearer a man is to the simple possession of these already, the less he can afford to be reduced in any given proportion. There is an infinite difference between being driven from white bread to brown, and being driven from burgundy to port. And it would be difficult to prove that any right to inflict greater distress on the poor than on the rich, can arise out of the fact that the poor are distressed already. The object, therefore, should be, to make taxation bear on all with fairness; or if there are not data for doing this with exactness, to assign a scale which shall approach to it. And the first thing that presents itself, is that there are some stages of poverty on which it is evidently improper to lay any direct taxation. Day-labourers, for example, may safely be placed in this class. But there is another class who are in point of fact equally unable to bear any reduction of their means of support. And this is composed of the persons who, though ostensibly better paid than the day-labourer, are placed just on the other side of the great gulph which the habits of civilized society have established between manual and mental labourers. The respect paid to mental labour in all its forms, joined to the frequent necessity there is for such labourers mixing with the wealthier classes, has created a demand upon them for a certain elegance in their appearance and mode of living, which it is in vain for them to think of resisting without giving up all the resources which previous habits have placed within their reach. And though it may be true that the possession of this superior elegance is in itself a source of enjoyment, yet the mental labourer may be as utterly unable to support any diminution of his means of living as the other. And this appears to show, that an equitable scale of taxation must commence above the class which contains the poorest order of mental labourers. And another requisite would evidently be, that in no

imaginable case the taxation should exceed a certain per centage. It would be an absurd rule which should make the per centage on a wealth of any imaginable magnitude approach to the whole; and it might be equally improper that it should amount to a half or a fourth. The scale, if expressed by the visible arithmetic of curves, should be nothing at a certain income, and approach to some reasonable per centage as to an asymptote. The simplest scale of this kind would be one where the per centage should be nothing on the income supposed to contain the poorest class of mental labourers, and should fall on the higher incomes according to a uniform rate upon their excess above the sum which is to pay nothing. For example, if a hundred and fifty pounds a year paid nothing, two hundred should pay at a fixed rate, as for instance five per centum, upon fifty; two hundred and fifty at the same rate of five per centum upon a hundred; and so on. On such a scale the per centage on a sum of unlimited magnitude would approach to five per centum on the whole. The above considerations display a strong objection to taxes on the instrument of exchange, on the ground of their uniformity. And the other objections are, their acting on the labouring classes as an intolerable engine of depression, and the endless mischief arising from the vitiation of money contracts.

The leading error in the first pamphlet appears to consist in not perceiving, that after the instrument of exchange, composed either of coins or paper, has been made sufficient to conduct the exchanges of the community without the aid of commodities, its volume or numerical quantity has no connexion with what men

m

x-a
x

where x is the

The equation to the curve is y=Mx X abscissa measured from a point without the curve, a the distance from this point to the vertex of the curve, y the ordinate, M a given line,

m

and a given fraction. If x represents the income, a the income

n

at which taxation is to commence,

m

n

the uniform rate levied on

per centage

the excess of r above a, the ordinate y will vary as the which the proposed scale assigns to the income represented by x. Or the proportion of the ordinate to the given line M, will always be that of the numerator to the denominator of the fraction which expresses the per centage on the income.—If a line is drawn parallel to the abscissa at a distance equal to Mx and on the same side of it as the curve, it will be an asymptote; for when x is indefinitely increased, y approaches to being equal to Mx

m

n

m

n

consume.'

will be able substantially to pay or to expend. The argument appears to be, that when men have an increased quantity of the instrument of exchange, they must necessarily be anxious to employ it. Put money into people's pockets, and they will And a stimulus to production is concluded to be the consequence of the continual necessity of finding employment for the instrument: without adverting to the possibility that the project may evaporate, as so many other projects for a perpetual motion have done, through some simple principle which is overlooked. Let it but happen that there is depreciation, and the whole expectation vanishes. The mistake is in assuming that because a certain increase in the improved instrument of circulation, or every increase up to a certain point, promotes production, an increase beyond that point will do the same. An insufficient supply of coins or paper which should necessitate the employment of commodities, may be compared to a bad and insufficient highway. The wares which are circulated by means of it, will be conveyed with a degree of difficulty and delay which is a hindrance to production; and every improvement in it will have a contrary effect. But when the road has been brought to the best condition which the materials will admit, and has been made wide enough to convey all that is to be carried upon it without confusion or delay, it would be unreasonable to expect that, by making two or three parallel roads of the same kind, production should be any further increased. The same produce which might have been conveniently carried upon one road, would only be carried on two or on three. And if any man was led into increasing his business or expenditure by confounding such an increase in the means of conveyance with an increase of the wealth to be conveyed, it is evident that he would be corrected by disappointment.

ART. XI. PERIODICAL LITERATURE.

1. Edinburgh Review. Vol. 1, 2, &c.

IF periodical criticism is good for any thing, it cannot be less needed in the case of periodical literature, than of any other class of the productions of the press. It is indeed a subject of wonder, that periodical publications should have existed so long, and have come at last to occupy so great a portion of the time and attention of the largest class of readers, without having become subject to a regular and systematic course of criticism. We trust it will appear that we shall have rendered an important service to the progress of the human mind, in setting at least an example of this species of control; in showing how great has been the need of it before it existed, how much of evil it is calculated to prevent, and how much of positive advantage it cannot fail to secure.

Periodical literature is so wide a field, that though we shall not interdict ourselves from any part of it, we shall select for our province more particularly that portion, with respect to which the demand for the service which we thus desire to see rendered, will, to every intelligent mind, appear to be the strongest. The review of books, with the influence which it has in giving direction to the taste for reading, has long been a department of literature the effect of which has been very imperfectly appreciated. For a considerable number of years this field has been to such a degree occupied by two rival, celebrated, and successful publications, that the old have sunk into insignificance: the attempt to elevate new ones, has hitherto proved abortive; and it will hardly be incumbent on us, unless with casual exceptions, to bestow much of our attention upon the rest.

Another circumstance renders criticism peculiarly necessary in the case of the publications to which we have alluded; we mean, the Edinburgh and Quarterly Reviews: under the guise of reviewing books, these publications have introduced the practice of publishing dissertations, not only upon the topics of the day, but upon all the most important questions of morals and legislation, in the most extensive acceptation of these terms. Whatever occasion, therefore, there can be for that species of censorship which criticism exercises over those who assume the task of supplying nourishment to the human mind, it is presented by the publications in question, and with peculiar circumstances of aggravation.

Of these circumstances, some they have in common with other periodical publications; some are peculiar to themselves. One law to which periodical literature is subject is attended with consequences, the good and evil of which have never yet been sufficiently analysed, though it is of the highest importance that they should be familiarised to the public mind. If a work is published, not periodical, and possesses real merit, it can afford to be overlooked for a time; and though it may be little noticed for the first year, or years, may count with tolerable certainty upon that degree of ultimate fame to which it is entitled. Not so with periodical literature. That must have immediate success, to secure so much as existence. A periodical production must sell immediately, at least to a certain extent, otherwise it cannot be carried on. A periodical production must be read the next day, or month, or quarter, otherwise it will not be read at all. Every motive, therefore, which prompts to the production of any thing periodical, prompts to the study of immediate effect, of unpostponed popularity, of the applause of the moment. To catch at this applause is then to be regarded as a grand characteristic of periodical literature; and the good and evil consequences which arise from it deserve to be diligently traced, and correctly estimated.

On the favourable side it may be affirmed, that as the diffusion of all the good which is derived from reading, must be in proportion to the diffusion of this which is its instrument, this peculiarity in periodical literature is an eminent advantage. By consulting the public taste with continual anxiety, the pleasures of reading are perpetually supplied to the greatest possible number. The number of those who love reading and the number of those who derive pleasure from periodical literature, are the same. To it, therefore, we are, it may be said, indebted, for the grand source of general intelligence; that is, the grand source of the greatest possible good.

The most effectual mode of doing good to mankind by reading, is, to correct their errors; to expose their prejudices; to refute opinions which are generated only by partial interests, but to which men are, for that reason, so much the more attached; to censure whatever is mean and selfish in their behaviour, and attach honour to actions solely in proportion to their tendency to increase the sum of happiness, lessen the sum of misery.

But this is a course which periodical literature cannot pursue. To please the great body of men, which is the object of the periodical writer, he must flatter their prejudices.. Instead of calling in question the opinions to which they are wedded, he