very returns, which we now know to have been entirely fallacious, have been year after year quoted in the House of Commons and elsewhere as evidence of the over-taxation of Ireland!

Even Sir E. Hamilton and Sir R. Giffen differ fundamentally on several important points. I do not doubt that Irishmen have done their best to arrive at a just opinion as to the relative wealth and taxability of Ireland and Great Britain, and trust they will do me the justice of believing that I have done the same. Still, we differ, and probably shall continue to differ, so that any attempt to regulate our financial system by these statistics would lead to endless, and perhaps angry, discussions.

However, even taking the statistics as given, I maintain that no case of hardship can be substantiated.

The Death duties, as Mr. Gladstone pointed out, are probably the least unsatisfactory test, though even here there are various elements of doubt; and as for the most part tenant right escapes Succession duty, as pointed out in a very able article in the, Economist, and as tenant right is so important a part of Irish property, it is probable that the real proportion borne by Irish property to that of Great Britain is greater than the duties paid would indicate. Taking the duties, however, as they are, and have been for some years, the proportion-the relative proportion of Ireland would be th of that of Great Britain, while the contribution to Imperial expenditure only is 3.

We start with the important fact that we are paying taxes which bring in over 4,000,000l. a year, and which are not levied in Ireland. Passing on to those which are the same in the two islands, I do not understand that any complaint is made as regards Income tax, Death duties, or stamps, but only with reference to the indirect taxation. These taxes are practically on tea, coffee, tobacco, spirits, and beer.

Are these necessaries of life? Neither tea nor coffee can, I think, be so regarded considering how recently they have been introduced. Moreover, the amount raised by the taxes on them is comparatively small.

Are then the taxes on tobacco and spirits unfair? They are not necessaries. When Nansen went on his adventurous journey he took hardly any spirits, because he believed they would be injurious. They are not necessaries, they are not even simple luxuries, they are dangerous temptations. If Irishmen would abandon tobacco, spirits, and party bitterness, how happy and prosperous Ireland would be!

But what does this terrible grievance amount to? The duties are the same, and we may well ask why should an Englishman or a Scotchman pay a higher duty on his tobacco or spirits than an Irishman? The rate ought clearly to be the same.

But then Mr. Asquith says, 'No.'

You cannot take him away from the environment which history and which social habit have made for him. Let me give you an illustration. Suppose, for the sake of argument, you had an empire, one province of which stretched into the Arctic regions and another province stretched over the Equator, one province where, from the condition of its climate, the people will wear a great many clothes, and in the other they would be able, if so minded, to dispense with clothing altogether. And supposing, in such an empire, the whole taxation, however large the expenditure of the country, was raised by taxes upon wearing apparel, would that correspond with your idea of fiscal justice? According to Mr. Courtney it would; for you would say to the man in the Arctic regions, You have only to dispense with clothes and you need not pay any taxes at all.' And on the other hand, to say to the man in the equatorial regions, You have only to put unnecessary clothes upon your back and you will become a taxpayer at once.' Language of this kind is not the language of statesmen. It is the language of pedantry.

I confess I see no pedantry in Mr. Courtney's argument; but what shall we say of Mr. Asquith's illustration? Was it the language of a statesman anxious to promote a good feeling between the two islands? Is there any such tremendous difference between the two islands?

Does the Irishman, as a matter of fact, consume so much more of these articles? By no means. The consumption per head is, as estimated officially by Sir E. Hamilton-2

According to the best estimate therefore the difference is very small; and Ireland contributes, not more but less, per head than Great Britain.

Moreover, a high duty on spirits is not only a good tax in bringing in a large revenue, but also as a check to drinking, and an encouragement to temperance. No more unfortunate gift to Ireland than a reduction in the Spirit duties could be given by the most unwise Chancellor of the Exchequer; and the reason alleged by Sir W. Harcourt for reducing the duty in his last budget, namely, that it was reducing consumption, ought, on the contrary, if he had been a consistent advocate of temperance, to have been a strong inducement to keep it on.

I do not, however, understand that Irish members themselves seriously wish to reduce the Spirit duties.

Mr. Bastable, Professor of Political Economy in the University of Dublin, in a note appended to the Report wisely says that

Taxation of alcohol, in the opinion of those who impose it, is in the interest of the consumers quite as much as in that of the Exchequer. It is, besides, a levy,

2 Hamilton, vol. i. p. 359; vol. ii. p. 92.

not on a country but on a class, viz., the consumers of what is thought to be a particularly injuring article, it cannot therefore be placed on the same footing as other contributions in making up an account between the joint contributors to a common fund.

I did not know that there was anyone who thought the consumption of spirits beneficial till I read the enthusiastic praise of whisky in the evidence of Mr. Lough, the member for Islington, who actually told the Committee (p. 52) that he thought

The reduction of the tax would develop the well-being of the people, and if that were done, they would not resort any more to coarse stimulants or vices of any kind.

The question then narrows in itself to this, Does Ireland contribute too much to Imperial expenditure?

If we are to consider the taxes paid by different parts of the United Kingdom, we must also consider the assistance given to local expenditure. In the case of Ireland, this is very considerable.

According to the Death duties, which Mr. Gladstone considered the wisest test, Ireland's proportion would be th or

th.

But the whole amount contributed by Ireland to Imperial expenditure is under 2,000,000l. or only nd part.

Is this too much? This session (1897) we have made a grant towards Irish local expenditure which will probably amount to over 700,000l. If we were to relieve her to the extent of 1,200,000l. more she would contribute absolutely nothing.

But then we come to the plea that Ireland is a poor country compared with Great Britain. The taxation, however, is on the amount consumed. We do not impose this taxation. The people tax themselves. Moreover, the evidence shows that they take better tea and tobacco than our countrymen.

Lord Farrer put to Mr. Murray the remark that we have to consider not only whether the Irishman consumes the tea and tobacco, but whether he can afford to pay for it, and what was Mr. Murray's answer?

My informant told me that he had to supply the South of Ireland and the West of Ireland with a better class of tobacco than he supplied to the stupid Northerner or the ignorant Saxon.

The evidence also shows that the Irish drink a better class of tea than the English. If then the Irish can afford to drink rather more tea, smoke rather more tobacco, and consume rather more spirits, purchasing them moreover of rather better quality than that which the average Englishman allows himself, that does not look as if their circumstances were so very bad.

At the numerous recent meetings which have been held in Ireland, always excepting Ulster, the amount of these duties has been described as ruinous to Ireland. One noble friend of mine especially denounced the Tea duty as really so iniquitous as to justify rebellion. Now what do they amount to?

Of course we should all be glad to take off the duty on tea, but that is too small a matter to constitute a serious grievance.

A difference of 4d. a year is rather a small matter to go to war about. The whole complaint, then, rests on the Tobacco and Spirit duties.

But here the grievance is surely imaginary. No Irishmen have asked to have them reduced.

Moreover, it is admitted that, as far as concerns local expenditure, much more is done for Ireland than for Scotland or England. This session again (1897) a large concession has been made to Irelandone which will probably amount to over 700,000l. a year. Even, however, before this.

According to the official figures of the Treasury the contribution of Great Britain per head to Imperial expenditure (vol. i., p. 354) was 1. 14s. 11d., while that of Ireland was only nine shillings.

We must remember that there are, unfortunately, very poor people in Scotland and England as well as in Ireland. In the south and east of London there is as much poverty as in the south and west of Ireland.

The true entities' we have to consider are persons, not places.

I do not understand that Irish members propose to lower the duties on tobacco or spirits, and under all the circumstances I cannot see that they have established any Irish grievance, or that there are any sufficient grounds for complaints against Great Britain.

Lastly I may mention that Ireland has had subventions in aid of rates far larger in proportion than England or Scotland, and liberal grants of money-as, for instance, 8,000,000l. at the time of the famine.

While, however, I do not admit that any grievance can be established, I may say in conclusion that, during the twenty-seven years that I have had the great honour of a seat in Parliament, I have supported, and shall continue to support, any well-considered measure calculated to develop the resources of Ireland, and promote the happiness and prosperity of our Irish fellow-countrymen.

We have then, in my judgment, no reason to reproach ourselves, and, on the contrary, Ireland has been not only justly, but even generously, treated by Great Britain.

JOHN LUBBOCK.

RECENT SCIENCE

I

ONE of the chief problems that are now under discussion among geologists and physical geographers is undoubtedly the origin of mountains, plateaus, valleys, and oceanic depressions; in other words, the origin of the various forms assumed by the earth's surface. In fact, the problem is contemporaneous with the beginnings of science itself. Descartes and Newton paid attention to it, but it was only in the second part of this century that the detailed geological exploration of mountain regions could supply the necessary elements for a thoroughly scientific discussion of this vast problem.

Over wide areas of the earth's surface the sediments which had been deposited in past ages at the bottom of the ocean, or of interior seas, have retained up to the present time their nearly horizontal position. They now lie several hundreds or several thousands of feet above the level of the seas in which they were deposited; but they have not been much disturbed during this change of level. Their flat surfaces stretch over hundreds and thousands of miles, with but very slight dips towards this or that part of the horizon. This is the case in the wide plains of North and South America, Asia and Eastern Europe. As soon, however, as we enter a mountain region we find the same strata lifted up, bent in all directions, folded and contorted in the most fantastic ways, and the question necessarily arises, How did these disturbances originate? What were the agencies which produced the wonderful mountain scenery which man never ceases to admire ?

The answer which used to be given to this question some fifty years ago is well known. Chains of mountains were considered as immense rents in the earth's crust, through which masses of igneous molten rocks had been ejected from the interior, lifting up, bending, and folding the formerly horizontal strata. Running water has subsequently sculptured these broken and folded strata, scooping out of their fractures the valleys, the gorges, and the rock basins now filled up with lakes. A force acting from beneath, and the seat of which was in the igneous molten interior of the globe, has lifted up the mountains, violently bending and breaking the stratified rocks, while