middle-men the quality of the beer, tea, etc., would be raised, and
adulteration diminished.

Thirdly, The fall in the price of tea and beer would bring down the
price of all competing drinks: it would at first diminish the
consumption of competing drinks. The cheapening the price of some of
the prime necessaries of life would be to some extent divided between
capital and labour. As in the case of wheat, the labourer would be
made better off, while the profits of capital would be raised. A
general and permanent improvement in all trades would result, except
possibly in those of the tea-dealer and brewer--but I do not think
they would lose. I see no end to the developments from Universal Free
Trade: we can only gain some idea of what they would be by tracing as
far as we may what the results of Free Trade in one article--wheat--
have been; and in doing this we must recollect that before 1846 the
quantity of wheat imported was trifling compared with the present
importation.

To this scheme of direct taxation Edward Wilson objects, "Taxation
should fall on expenditure, not on income." It is true that our
object must always be to encourage accumulation, and discourage
destruction of capital (expenditure). Practically, it does not appear
that a heavy income tax diminishes the taste for accumulation in
England: it does increase the tendency of large capitalists to invest
their capital out of England, so as to avoid the State charges on
capital in England. But the capital in England and the quantity of
English capital invested abroad are already so enormous that the
"tendency" of an increased income tax may be disregarded. Lastly, it
may be objected, Would the sixteen-pence income tax levied as you
propose (or nearly so) raise L40,000,000? At the time of the Crimean