ccxliii 



Every ftJw years they would foresee a demand of an indefinite amount, 

 depending on many points of taste and opinion, and they would only 

 have the alternative of paying or surrendering their property to the 

 State. Careful as Mr. Mill is to suggest safe-guards, the essential 

 nature of the transaction would be such as to destroy confidence in the 

 continuity of private right in some particular plot of land. The 

 apprehensions might in the main be unfounded, but their existence 

 would be a public calamity, unless the theory is admitted that the 

 abolition of private property would be beneficial, which in some 

 localities it might be. 



'' Turning from this suggestion, I think there is much to be said 

 in favor of our present special taxes on land, imperfect as we have 

 shown them to be. They have permitted the growth of an immense 

 mass of value in the hands of individuals only, and at a very recent 

 date there was a sudden reduction of the burden, by which a small class 

 received a considerable gain. But with all their imperfections, they 

 have the merit of elasticity. They are set apart for the discharge of 

 certain branches of expenditure ; and, without fl.uctuating so widely as 

 to disturb property rights, they may be increased matei'ially, and so 

 reserve for the State some portion, however insignificant it may be, of 

 the augmenting value of property. This is no small merit, especially 

 when compared with the model of the continental land taxes, which 

 have no such capacity of expansion. It is an additional convenience, 

 that, as the branches of expenditure which are thrown specially on this 

 property are local, local administration and local taxation can be asso- 

 ciated. In this view, the rates are, in fact, a happy English invention, 

 by which different and unconnected advantages are obtained in a rough 

 practical fashion, and as it is a familiar system we have another obvi- 

 ous reason for trying to make the most of it. Could not something 

 more be made of it ? It will be of some use perhaps if the discussion 

 of the principles on which the burden is imposed makes it clear that 

 no injustice is now committed — that the support of a cei'tain burden 

 of expenditure is a condition of the enjoyment of the property which 

 the State may properly impose. Every one knows the condition 

 beforehand, and as it is quite a calculable one, notwithstanding the 

 loud talk of the increase of rates and the addition of new rates, there 

 is no inexpediency in it as a too heavy restriction on the enjoyment of 

 private property in land. But the discussion, I think, may do more, 

 and justify the imposition of new charges which are convenient for 

 local administration. As the tendency of the functions of local 

 Government is to increase, and the additional expense has not yet 

 proved commensurate with the increase of the value of property, we 

 have a security in the recognition of this principle, both for the 

 reservation to the State of a part of that value — though, I fear, a 

 most inadequate part — and for the safety of private property against 

 any great disturbance. If I might venture to make a suggestion, 

 there is one new charge which escapes notice, and which might very 

 properly be treated as a branch of local expenditure ; the army for 

 home defence ought to be locally maintained. For many reasons it is 

 important that a good deal of local management and self-government 

 should be associated with the organization of our militia and volun- 

 teers and the charges might very properly fall on the rates. This 



