244 
PROCEEDINGS OF THE VICTORIA INSTITUTE. 
altogether. To repeat and extend that exemption as far as 
practicable would in my opinion be wise. I know that some hold 
a multiplicity of duties to be equitable, as reaching every class 
of the community ; but that can be done with a comparatively 
short tariff. In England we used to have a great number o£ 
articles subject to taxation, Here is what Sydney Smith said 
of the burden : — “ We have taxes upon every article which enters 
into the mouth, or covers the back, or is placed under the foot. 
Taxes upon everything which it is pleasant to see, hear, taste, 
or smell. Taxes upon warmth, light and locomotion. Taxes on 
everything on earth, or under the earth, on everything that is 
brought from abroad or grown at home, on the sauce which 
pampers man’s appetite, and the drug which restores him to 
health; on the ermine which decorates the judge and the rope 
which hangs the criminal ; on the poor man’s salt and the rich 
man’s spice ; on the brass nails of the coffin and the ribbons of 
the bride. The schoolboy whips his taxed top ; the beardless 
youth manages his taxed horse 'with a taxed bridle on a taxed 
road ; and the dying Englishman, pouring his medicine which 
has paid 7 per cent, into a spoon which has paid 15 per 
cent., flings himself back upon a chintz bed which has paid 
22 per cent., and expires in the arms of an apothecary who 
has paid a licence of £100 for the privilege of putting him 
to death. His whole property is then taxed from 2 to 10 per 
cent. Besides the probate, large fees are demanded for burying 
him in the chancel. His virtues are handed down to posterity on 
taxed marble, and he will then be gathered to his fathers to be 
taxed no more.” Of course, all that has long since been done 
away with, and the British Customs tariff is now simplicity 
itself. 
Protective duties are a less warrantable interference with 
freedom of trade. Let me show the effect of two of our taxes of 
that character. We refer to European bounties as " iniquitous," 
but a protective duty is the same in principle, each being 
intended to unfairly handicap a rival producer. We charge an. 
import duty of £11 5s. per ton on sugar, and in consequence the 
consumers of sugar contributed £3,000 last year to the revenue. 
1 believe this an unwisely large sum to levy, but at least it went 
into the public purse. Well, there is a local sale which may be 
estimated at 5,000 tons. Theoretically, the price charged for this 
by the producer would be £11 5s. per ton more than the natural 
price. Let us put it down at 15 and we find that the import 
t 0n ? Umer >-^ 0 °0 which goes to the revenue 
TrinSn / • S ° e V\ tb r P roduoer - Take rum, again. The 
ai fr lr rT 18 C T lf be S ets in England 8d. (10d. less 
2d. freight and charges) per gallon— yet he charges 15 d. here; 
