« 이전계속 »
Summary, and Suggestions. not apply,—no tax which is not, more or less, inequitable in its pressure, injurious in its operation, and annoying in its collection. This objection, though from its universality not decisive against any particular tax, is decisive against making it the only one. It is in a variety of imposts that we are to look for the solution of the great problem of the Finance Minister-how to make taxation equitable and endurable. We have seen that the apparent merits of direct taxation are apparent only. We have seen that it does not fulfil all the requirements of Adam Smith's “ good tax” better than the indirect system, and that it scarcely fulfils any of them better. It is at least as unequal in its incidence, as unfair in its severity, as prolific in stimulants to fraud, —and immeasurably more irritating and vexatious. It is even questionable whether it is more economical in the collection. It is the first, the easiest, the coarsest mode which suggests itself to rude and uncivilized financiers. The paramount duty of a government in fiscal matters, is to levy the revenue fairly : This takes precedence over all other considerations. But next to this, if its first duty is to levy taxes so as to cause least injury, its second unquestionably is to levy them so as to cause least irritation. We have seen, finally, that taxation, whether direct or indirect, cannot be, and ought not to be, confined to the few ;that to approach this verges upon confiscation, that to recommend it is to preach Jacquerie and spoliation.
At the risk of exposing ourselves to the sarcasms with which the actual Chancellor of the Exchequer loves to reward those “ amateurs” who offer him useful suggestions, or hint that there is a Science in his Art which he has not fathomed, and principles in fiscal policy which he either has not mastered or habitually sets at nought,—we shall venture to enumerate those sources of revenue on which—following out the views above developed -- we think it would be safe, just, and prudent to rely. The first of these is a house-tax, which, taking a pivot of 20 per cent., should vary from 15 to 25 per cent., according to the exigencies of the Exchequer. This should be levied on all the 4,500,000 houses in the kingdom, without exemption. Of these it is estimated that about 500,000 are above £20 a year rent, and the rest under. The former we may fairly take at an average rent of £45, which, at 20 per cent., would yield £4,500,000:--the latter, at an average rent of £5, would yield above £4,000,000 more. The Legacy Duty, on personal property only, now yields £1,400,000 :—if levied at the same rate on all property, it would bring, it is calculated, £3,000,000 into the Exchequer. The Land and Assessed Taxes in Great Britain, leaving out the Window-tax, reach £2,835,000 :—If Ire
The data of the above calculation are as follows. The total inhabited houses in Great Britain are in 1851) 3,647,611, to which we may add for Ireland
land were included we might take them at £3,000,000. So much for direct taxes. The tax on tea should be reduced certainly to 1s. lb., perhaps still lower, but would probably, according to all analogy, yield at that rate as large a revenue as at present. The tax on spirits and tobacco, there can be no reason for reducing below the point at which smuggling and illicit distillation could be prevented. Probably this might entail some loss on the article of tobacco. Our budget would then stand thus—taking the receipts of 1849 as our standard:DIRECT TAXES— House Tax,
£8,500,000 Legacy Duty,
3,000,000 Assessed Taxes,
£14,500,000 INDIRECT TaxesBritish Spirits,
4,400,000 Wine and Foreign Spirits, 4,600,000 Tea,
500,000 Miscellaneous articles of luxury, 1,000,000 Post Office,
£46,500,000, out of the £50,000,000 needed, is thus provided for. The remainder might be raised by a continuance of the present modified Stamp Duties, till the augmented consumption of the above articles, which would ensue as our population increased and improved, rendered them superfluous ;-or, as Mr. Mill suggests, by raising £10,000,000 instead of £8,500,000 from the House-tax, and by a higher Legacy Duty.
852,389. Now, till 1824, we had a House-tax in Great Britain levied on all houses (except farm-houses) above £5 a year rent. In that year there were
Houses. Rent. Average Rent. Above £5 and under £10, 171,522 £1,161,667 £6 15 0 £10 and upwards,
375,410 10,516,550 28 0 0
9 15 0
In the same year there were
£10 were exempted.
of the tax, the case stood thus-
13 3 0
The Fine Arts in Edinburgh.
ART. III.-1. Kugler's Hand-Book of Puinting— The Schools of
Painting in Italy. Translated from the German of KUGLER, by a LADY. Edited, with Notes, by Sir CHARLES L. EASTLAKE, P.R.A., F.R.S. Second Edition, thoroughly revised,
with much additional matter. London, 1851. 2. Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte. Von Dr. Franz KUGLER,
Professor an der Königlichen Akademie der Künste zu Berlin. Zweite Auflage, mit Zusätzen. Von Dr. TaE BURCKHARDT.
Berlin, 1848. 3. Ancient Art and its Remains; or a Manual of the Archæology
of Art. By C. O. MÜLLER. New Edition, by F. G. WILCKER. Translated from the German by JOHN LEITCH. London, 1850.
For many years past the condition of the Fine Arts in Edinburgh has been to us a subject of the gravest concern, and the period, if we mistake not, has at last arrived when, with some hope of synıpathy, we may impart our solicitude to the more serious portion of our fellow-townsmen.
We have now for a quarter of a century had an annual exhibition of the works of living artists, and what we have fondly called a school has been formed under the auspices of those who, on behalf of the public, have judged and purchased the works which there appeared.
To the school thus created one merit above all the schools that ever existed must be conceded. It has had the glory of testing, by a prolonged and careful experiment, the applicability of one of the favourite doctrines of modern political science to the production of works of art. The laissez-faire system has been tried in the most favourable circumstances. With the influential to countenance it, the wealthy to patronize it, the fair to commend it, and the general public eager, by every means within their reach, to express their interest and sympathy, the art of our country has been left unfettered by one single regulation, untrammelled by one single law either of nature or tradition. No compulsory course of uniform training has checked the vigour of its native growth, no tyrant master has set limits to its freedom, or stamped on its productions the impress of his too dominant thought. On the contrary, every new freak which it imagined, every fresh vagary which it perpetrated, has been hailed as a manifestation of originality and a pledge of progress. It has been romantic, sentimental, pathetic, devotional, genteel, and vulgar ; and in each of these phases it has not only been left in undisturbed possession of its self-complacency, but it has been congratulated by a grateful public on having at last stumbled on the upward path.
We are willing to admit that with institutions it may be as with men, that those who ultimately effect most are neither earliest to exhibit the signs of future eminence nor least prone to the eccentricities and extravagances of youth. But there is a limit to the consolation which this acknowledged fact affords us. If the years of ripe manhood have been reached without one trace of serious purpose in life, if the tastes continue trivial, the occupations desultory and planless, the will feeble, and the aim low, then, with sorrow and reluctance indeed, but with very considerable confidence, we should pronounce that the individual in question, to all human seeming, was destined for no very heroic part. But the rule by which we measure the probability of ultimate individual success is applicable by more than analogy to such an institution as our Scottish Academy, for its effects, if any, must be seen in the character which it has stamped on its · pupils; and he who drew breath on the day of its first opening will now have attained to that period of life at which we feel entitled to expect that the lineaments of his completed manhood, if not in esse shall in posse, at least, be very distinctly traceable.
But it may be well that we at once relieve our readers from any apprehensions of individual fault-finding which these observations may possibly have occasioned, by mentioning in the outset that our concern has reference rather to the manner in which art in general is regarded, as manifested in the artistic productions of this, and we may add other countries, at the present time, than to any deficiency of ability which it has exhibited in the realization of its conceptions. Our animadversions will be directed against its objects rather than its efforts, and our objections to the conduct of our artists will have reference not to what they have succeeded or what they have failed in, but to wbat they have not even attempted.
The advancement which several departments of physical science have recently made, have not only greatly facilitated the imitation of external nature, but have had the effect of directing the attention of artists more exclusively to this, which has been called the primary, but which is far from being the ultimate object of art. By means of a few very simple chemical arrangements and mechanical processes, we can now obtain a mathematically perfect representation of every form, and but one step more is requisite in order to perpetuate in their totality those images of which the changing face of a mirror has hitherto been the only recipient. It is by no means impossible that these inventions may be carried to such perfection as that every object which
The Three Divisions of Art.
greeted the eyes of one generation may be preserved for the gratification of every generation which shall follow. Is this, then, an invasion which science has made on the province of art ? At first sight, in truth, it wears much of this aspect, and may well occasion anxiety to the artist who has assigned to himself no other function than that of servilely imitating nature. Already, in so far as form is concerned, he fights with the Calotypist at a sad disadvantage; and when the domain of colour shall also have been conquered by the latter, his occupation, it would seem, must for ever cease. If mere truth to individual nature is the object to be attained, no human hands will ever rival the looking-glass, which reflects your king or your hero. But will any single reflection, or any number of reflections of the individual face present an image corresponding to the prevailing mental characteristics which entitled 'the individual to the appellation of hero or king! Will it abstract or subordinate the accidental and temporary peculiarities, which in the individual existence interfered with the manifestation of regal or heroic qualities; or will it gather together the specific manifestations of these qualities, and present them to the eye as a consistent and harmonious expression of the character in question? We here come upon the artist's proper function, and viewed in this light it is as permanent as natural imperfection, against which he stands over as an antagonist.
For the sake of distinctness, we shall arrange the few general observations on art with which we think it desirable to preface the more practical part of the present Article under three heads, premising, however, that these distinctions are by no means of so absolute or exclusive a kind as to render the principles which goverr any one altogether inapplicable to the others. We shall speak
1st, Of portrait, or the representation of the idea of an individual, which we shall call individual idealization.
2d, Of the representation of types of particular classes, or specific idealization; and,
3d, Of ideal art, properly so called, or generic idealization.
As individual portraiture is not only the department to which the inventions of which we have spoken have been most successfully applied, and in which the artist has consequently been dragged into immediate rivalry with nature, but as it is the one with reference to which, more, perhaps, than any other, erroneous and unworthy views at present prevail, we shall make no apology before proceeding to the higher branches of artistic endeavour, for dwelling on the duties of the portrait painter with some degree of minuteness. In doing so, we shall endeavour to answer what seems to us the primary question of