And he thus concludes that, as regards the absolute amount of taxation, property in Britain escapes for a smaller payment than that in America.

Now, it must be remarked, on this branch of the comparison, that before we can form any opinion as to its soundness, it is essential that we should know on what principles the valuation of property is conducted in New York. The whole question depends upon this. If the system of valuation is different in the two countries, there are no materials on which to build a conclusion. We know what discrepancies may arise out of the mode of valuation, from the fact that, while the annual value of all real property in England and Wales was assessed for the poor-rate, in 1841, at about £62,500,000, a portion of it only—that over £150 a-year—was valued two years afterwards, for the income-tax, at nearly £86,000,000. We observe that Professor Johnston has arrived at the amount of real property in Britain, by assuming the fee-simple value to be twenty-seven years' purchase of the income. But in New York, he tells us, the value of income is calculated at only sixteen and a half years' purchase. The terms of the comparison are, therefore, manifestly faulty. And mark how this affects the result. The real income of Great Britain, capitalised at sixteen and a half years' purchase, would amount to only £1,447,000,000, and, if taxed at the same rate as in New York, would yield, instead of £19,000,000 only, £11,500,000, which, as it happens, is three millions less than it actually pays, as may be plainly seen from the undernoted statement:—

DIRECT AND LOCAL TAXATION OF REAL PROPERTY IN GREAT BRITAIN.

1. Land Tax,£1,164,000
2. Poor and County Rate, (England,)6,847,205
3. Highway Rate, "1,169,891
4. Church Rate, "506,812
5. Proportion of Stamp Duties on deeds affecting real property,1,200,000
6. Proportion of Legacy Duty affecting do.,300,000
7. Property Tax,2,600,000
8. Poor Rate, (Scotland,) £577,000—say on real property,500,000
9. Statute Labour, (Scotland,)81,226
Total,£14,369,134

Note.—The first six items are taken from the Report of the House of Lords on burdens affecting land, and some of them are below the present amounts. The items affecting Scotland are obviously defective.

To this extent at least, then, we are justified in correcting Professor Johnston's calculations, and in affirming with certainty that the owner of real property in Britain surrenders a larger portion of his wealth for the public service than in New York, or any other State of the Union. Whether the same can be said of the British owner of personal property is another question, which we shall come to by-and-by.

So much for the absolute comparison. But then Professor Johnston aims also at proving, that while the rich man is better off here, the poor man is worse—that the "masses" (i. e., we presume, those who are dependent on the wages of labour) pay a larger share of the public burdens than the same "masses" do in America. And this, he thinks, is demonstrated by the fact, that the customs duties of America amount to only a dollar a-head of the whole population, whereas in Great Britain they are three dollars—three times heavier. Now, we venture to affirm that, as a contrast between the position of the labouring man on this side of the Atlantic, and that of his brother on the other, this statement is quite a nest of fallacies. In the first place, it proceeds on the assumption (a very common but erroneous one among our Free-Trade authorities) that it is the labouring class who pay the bulk of the taxes drawn in the shape of customs. As this error, however, may be held to affect both sides of the comparison equally, we have next to notice that, admitting it to be the case, the fact of the customs being three dollars a-head in this country, and only one in the States, only shows that the English labourer pays absolutely more than the Yankee, which no one ever doubted. It amounts only to this—that in an old country which has to uphold numerous public institutions unknown in America, and with a public debt to provide for of some £800,000,000 sterling, the burden of this, as well as of all other branches of taxation, is heavier than in the youthful republic, with a national debt of only £13,000,000. In order to draw a fair parallel between the cases as regards the poorer classes of both countries, we must put the question in a different way, and inquire, what proportion does the amount of customs (assumed as representing the poor man's share of taxation) bear to the whole public burdens in the two countries respectively? The contrasted account would then show the matter in a very different aspect from that in which Professor Johnston has represented it, and would stand thus:—

GREAT BRITAIN.UNITED STATES.
National taxes,£50,000,000National taxes,£6,000,000
Local ditto,[7]14,000,000Local ditto,[8]5,680,000
Total,£64,000,000Total,£11,680,000
Whereof the poor man's Whereof the poor man's
share, or customs, is£20,000,000share, or customs, is£6,000,000
or 321⁄2 per cent. or 52 per cent.

Even if we were to throw into the scale a large portion of the excise duties levied in Britain, which Professor Johnston may be entitled to claim as a peculiar burden on "the masses"—at least as much as the customs—it would still be apparent, that, if such payments are to be taken as a fair criterion, the people's burdens are not relatively heavier here than in America. We shall only add further on this subject, that while many of the less opulent class of our fellow-citizens have undoubted real grievances to complain of, and while writers, with worse intentions than Professor Johnston, are ever ready to exaggerate them, and to foster discontent, it becomes one of his high character to guard against allowing a somewhat undisciplined taste for statistics to betray him into rash general allegations, calculated to produce error and irritation.

The parallel he has drawn, however, is very instructive on one point, although he has failed to notice it. He has taken some pains to prove that, tried by the American standard, our poor men pay too much, and our owners of real property too little, in both which conclusions we have shown his grounds to be fallacious; but he takes no notice of a far more obvious anomaly, the glaring injustice of which is every day attracting more public comment—the comparative immunity of the owners of personal property in this country. The local taxation of the States, it has been seen, is levied by an equal assessment on property of all kinds; and although, from the character of a great part of the country, the real property much exceeds the movable in amount, the rate upon both is a uniform one. No description of possessions is favoured with an invidious exemption. We will take the assessment of one State as an example, and copy the following "Items of the valuation of the taxable property for the State of Iowa, according to the assessor's returns for 1849." They are as follows:—