usual way by the signature of the collector. Professor Seligman does not say this or anything like it, but makes a distinction between "so-called stamp taxes," which are "nothing but taxes on production levied by means of a stamp" on the one hand, and "taxes on transportation and communication," "on acts and transactions," and "transfers of capital as between lender and borrower " on the other hand. The former he admits "do not really form a distinct kind of taxes," which is true; and the latter, he implies, really do form a distinct kind of taxes, properly known as stamp taxes, though they are not always receipted by stamps, while many other taxes often are so receipted.

In

I suspect that the secret of the defects of Professor Seligman's part ii., "The Doctrine of Incidence," is to be looked for in the excellence of his part i., "The History of the Doctrine of Incidence." the 166 pages devoted to this he gives an excellent summary of the views of early and late writers, which must have involved an immense amount of research and many long months spent among the books which are dealt with. A worse preparation for a dissertation on the theory of the subject at the present time can scarcely be conceived. The ideal book would be written by some one who was well acquainted with the modern theory of value, and who had a thorough grasp of the general organization of production, but had never set eyes on any work or chapter of a work upon taxation. Such a one would not be troubled with all the absurd assumptions which we find it impossible to get rid of as, for example, the assumption that the whole income of the community is first divided into rent, wages, and profits (or some such categories) among individuals, and that then these individuals are made to give up certain portions of their incomes to the State, which forthwith puts those portions on the fire or throws them into the sea. He would perceive, on the contrary, that the State, the community in its corporate capacity, is one of the original sharers of the income produced, and bring its share properly into the scheme of distribution.

EDWIN CANNAN.

LE TRAVAIL AUX POINTS DE VUE SCIENTIFIQUE, INDUSTRIEL ET SOCIAL. Par ANDRÉ LIESSE, Professeur d'Économie Industrielle et de Statistique au Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers. [525 pp. 8vo. 7 fr., 50 cents. Guillaumin. 1899.]

Professor Liesse's book, though at first blush-and at first blush only-it may appear a little rambling in its discussion of labour from

a curious variety of points of view, will have to be welcomed as a valuable and very opportune addition to the economic literature of the day. In truth, there is nothing rambling about it. There is a vast deal of ignorance still prevailing, so M. Liesse maintains, with regard to the labour problem. In endeavouring to correct it, he appears to be addressing himself more particularly to the working classes. But he has censure for the employers as well. Something like fifty years ago, so he reminds us, labour rose in mutiny against conditions which were unquestionably harsh and oppressive. It stopped not to con

sider what differences there are between labour and labour. It knew not how to distinguish one kind from another. Like its direct foes, it assumed in its haste that labour must mean expenditure of muscular effort only. With the sole exception of Tolstoi, so Professor Liesse now finds, economists and writers on labour questions have abandoned this untenable position.

Everybody now recognizes the superior value of head labour, of skill, of invention, be it on the employer's side or on the workman's. For the same truth has an application to active as to passive employWe still generally identify the employer, the entrepreneur, far too much with "capital." Capital may be his, but it may also be merely borrowed. In any case, it is not the same thing as the administrative lead undertaken in an industrial enterprise-risk, skill, and whatever else belongs to it. As regards the precise value to be put upon every effort, mental or muscular, which contributes to the mass of national production, we are still badly at fault. M. Liesse tries to introduce order into chaos. He begins by a painstaking inquiry into the physiology of labour, the wear of tissue and expenditure of vital force which every effort involves. And he finds that even under this aspect mental labour "takes it out" of the labourer far more than does muscular; it consumes more nutriment; it cannot be sustained for the same length of time. There are some very interesting facts brought together in this section, which makes up not quite one-fourth of the volume.

Next, Professor Liesse discusses his subject from an “industrial” point of view, speaks of division of labour, of the uses of machinery, short and long hours, apprenticeship, easy and "intense" labour, various methods of remuneration, overtime employment, etc.,-all this, once more, with frequent drafts made upon a rich storehouse of observation and careful thought. He adds an interesting chapter on the employer's share in the common work, discussing the questions of capital, competition, self-employment of labourers, the advantages and drawbacks of huge emporia of business. On the foundation so laid in 349 pages,

our author, in conclusion, builds up his most important argument-that regarding the relative position of employers and employed, and the means that both have at their command for ensuring justice for themselves. He is all for peace, and values the right of combination and organization on the part of labour. He more particularly does full justice to one most important and valuable effect of our British trade unionism, which must, in the long run, make for peace-that is, its remarkably fruitful educational action. But he is altogether opposed to hard and fast rules, the forbidding of overtime, a fixed number of hours, etc. What are intolerably long hours in one employment, so he holds, may be insufficiently short hours in another; that overtime employment which must be a hardship to one man, may be a godsend to his neighbour. Professor Liesse's book certainly deserves to be read, and it ought to make the labour question more intelligible, and help to hasten its solution.

HENRY W. WOLFF.

LOCAL VARIATIONS IN WAGES. By F. W. Lawrence, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. [90 pp. 4to. Longmans. London, 1899.]

Mr. Lawrence has set himself to deal with one part of the problem of the variation of wages, in investigating the differences between the wages paid in the same trade in various towns, which are for the present purpose taken only from England and Wales. The inquiry is further restricted to artisans paid at time-work rates, as the inclusion of the piece-work system would have greatly increased the difficulty of comparison. I believe that Mr. Lawrence is a mathematician; and this would account for the ease with which he moves about among statistics and handles diagrams. His general scheme falls into two parts, distinguished by a difference of method which he has described. by using the terms "extensive" and "intensive," first applied to this purpose by that indefatigable coiner of economic phraseology, Professor Marshall.

In the first part Mr. Lawrence has taken a large number of all sorts of towns, including representatives of the great industrial areas of Lancashire, Yorkshire, the Black Country, and South Wales, as well as more isolated towns, such as capitals of counties or heads of agricultural districts. The largest group of trades dealt with is that ranged round the building trade, which has obvious advantages as the measure of comparison is over a wide area. However large a particular industry, like the iron trade, may be, it is in the nature of the case local, and therefore unfitted to become an index in these inquiries.

VOL. IX.-No. 4.

20

At the same time there is about the selected group a certain sensitiveness to general conditions of local prosperity, which seems partly to neutralize the value of the evidence, obtained from statistics, as a result. If a town is thriving, it will make greater demands on the building trade and its ancillary employments; work in them will be done at high pressure, and it follows that wages will be high. If a town is stagnant, as e.g. Hereford-to appeal to Mr. Lawrence's favourite instance-a bad effect cannot fail to be exercised on this group of trades. Mr. Lawrence does find, as a matter of fact, that "the large towns show the highest wages," and the large towns are probably also the growing towns. He goes further, and indicates that a certain level of wages is maintained over a greater area than a single town. Another important result is, that where wages are high in one trade in a neighbourhood, the same is likely to be true of most other trades. Moreover, it appears that artisans' and labourers' wages vary together.

Mr. Lawrence further proceeded to make personal investigations in a number of towns selected from different parts of the country, Bristol and Cardiff, Birmingham and Derby, Sheffield, Leeds and Bradford, Rochdale and Manchester, Hereford, Brighton. As observations are more interesting than statistics, this part of the work appeals more to the general reader. Mr. Lawrence scheduled a number of questions, which he put to local secretaries of trade unions, dealing with the conditions of labour and wages. These results are printed in the present volume.

One of the most curious topics discussed by Mr. Lawrence is the difference in habits and tastes between the working classes of the north and south of England. The south sets more store by house room; hence rent is a larger item in the family budget of expenses. The northerner thinks more of recreation, visits to the seaside and theatre, etc.

Mr. Lawrence does not seem to be altogether consistent with himself in treating of the connexion between the level of wages and the standard of living. In one place he quotes approvingly a saying: "It will be generally found that the larger the town the higher the wage, because the greater are the demands for social life." Elsewhere we meet with the following: "It would be ridiculous to take the expenditure of one town artisan and say, 'These are his conventional necessaries, therefore his wage is what it is,' when in reality the level of his wage is the cause of that amount of expenditure." In any case, it appears to be going too far, if we assert that the level of wage is the cause of the standard of comfort. It is only one of the conditions on which the standard depends. If a class were incurably thrifty, we

should have as much right to call their rate of income the cause of thrift. Probably there is the usual interaction between the two groups of facts before us, so that neither is purely the other's cause or effect, and whichever part they play, they only do so partially. Mr. Lawrence, observing that the workmen in the north more often begin work after breakfast, attributes this to their greater sturdiness and independence ; from which it would appear that the temperament of the labourer is something which the employer has to respect. If the artisan's expectation to be allowed to postpone work till after breakfast is so far backed up by spiritual qualities that it is yielded to, why should not a similar expectation to be paid enough to be able to satisfy certain social cravings be likewise effective; or what has happened in a successful strike?

There are many other propositions in this book which provoke discussion; but space only allows me to express a hope that Mr. Lawrence will find time to extend his labours in this direction.

H. M. CONAcher.

HIGHER LIFE FOR WORKING PEOPLE. By W. WALKER STEPHENS. [132 pp. 8vo. 3s. 6d. Longmans.

1899.]

London,

Works on social reform often provoke the question whether it is true that to remove the symptoms of the disease of the body politic will do as much good as the writers evidently think. For, in the first place, the existence of the misery around us undoubtedly tends to its own cure by drawing out the latent sympathy and unselfishness in men, and it is only by men being changed that a radical cure can be effected. Secondly, is not this the final cause of human pain and wretchedness, which is allowed to exist in the world? Could our characters develop without it? Is it not for our sakes, to force us to be unselfish, that they are smitten? And, if so, is it not to be compared to the travailpangs by which men come to their second birth, rather than to be set down as simply diseased symptoms? If any one regards these things simply as superfluous weeds, let him look at societies from which they have been partially eliminated, such as that of the English in India, or of undergraduates at Oxford, and note the moral laxity that prevails among them.

This is not, of course, an argument for acquiescing in these evils, for their end, like that of fuel, is to be destroyed, and to raise our moral temperature in the process. But it is an argument against directing our attack too exclusively against the "symptoms." From Mr. Walter Stephens's book you would hardly guess that there was a disease