1855.

Imports. Exports. National revenue. Income tax. Other sources. 1854. £152,389,053 £97,184,726 £54,774,905 £7,133,039 £47,641,866 143,542,850 95,688,085 59,496,154 14,358,090 45,138,064 172,544,154 115,826,948 65,704,491 16,465,508 49,158,984 1857. 187,844,441 122,066.107 72,334,062 16,915,332 1858. 164,583,832 116,608,756 67,881,513 7,905,525

1856.

55,418,730 59,975,988

The income tax has, as we have before stated, been very effective in raising the revenue at periods of unexpected and unusual demands, like that of the Russian war or the panic of 1857; but the large general prosperity of the country has caused the indirect taxes to rise steadily in amount, notwithstanding the reductions in rates which they have undergone. The ministry of Sir ROBERT PEEL insisted strongly upon the great benefit that was to be realized from the removal of those inquisitorial taxes which were imposed upon many branches of home manufacture, and which greatly retarded the productive power of the country. The results have fully justified the views then held, since, by the removal of them, a degree of prosperity has been reached which enables all taxes to be collected with great facility. The removal of duties on various articles of general consumption has not however had the effect in all cases which was anticipated. Thus, the reduction in the duties on coffee did not have the effect of largely increasing the imports of that article, but the consumption of sugar and tea was immensely promoted by the reduction of the tax upon them. This is because a large and active demand for the latter exists, while the English public are comparatively indifferent to coffee. That article which the people will have will always bear the greatest tax. Tobacco pays 75 cents per pound, with an increasing consumption, while cocoa is scarcely consumed at all at any cost. In Spain and Portugal, on the other hand, the heaviest taxed article is cocoa, and it is the article of most general consumption.

The want of cotton as a raw material in England is being seriously felt, since it is a vehicle through which the sale of a large amount of English labor is effected, and without which their labor not only remains unproductive, but becomes a burden upon the other interests, and at the same time rapidly deteriorates, since unemployed persons lose their industrial habits and the State thereby suffers permanently.

While the revenue of the United Kingdom has been thus improved by reason of the general prosperity of the nation, and the care and skill with which its fiscal resources have been administered, it remains a fact that during the forty-eight years which have elapsed since the wars which created the debt were closed, there has been no progress made towards diminishing the national debt. The efforts of each succeeding ministry have been directed to the payment of the interest and to meet the annual cost of government, while unlooke l-for events, like the China war, the famine in Ireland, and the emancipation in the West Indies add continually to the principal of the funded debt, which stood at £784,420,007 in 1861, or $3,795,000,000. The revenues at present are in so prosperous a condition that Mr. GLADSTONE has proposed further remissions of taxes. The surplus is estimated at £3,874,000; this he proposes to apply-£191,000 to the remission of certain charges on bills of lading; £1,650,000 to a

reduction of tea duty from 1s. 5d. per pound to 1s. per pound, and £2,750,000 to a reduction of income duty, by exempting £60 per annum from all incomes under £200, and to take 2s. from the £ from the tax, making it uniform upon all incomes.

The United States are now unhappily compelled, by circumstances to follow the English example of high taxes. The country is no doubt able to bear the load, but it ought to have the benefit of English experience, in laying that load upon the people, so that it may be most easily borne. If England is able to draw her revenue and not impair the productive powers of the country, the United States Government ought to be guided by the same principle. It is evident that the same rules will not in all cases apply here as in England, but the same general principle should be observed. Thus, we have seen in the above table, that the rent of land yields the largest returns in England. In the United States the same state of things does not exist. The land is largely owned by the occupiers. The most prolific source of the English income tax would, therefore, here fail. Exclusive of the income tax, one-third of the whole English revenue is derived from strong drink, viz.: £19,563,160 out of £59,429,649, and one-fourth the remainder is from sugar and tobacco, which are United States products. In the whole list there are no taxes upon objects of English industry, or the materials of their production. Yet her tax system began with taxes upon all those articles, like the United States tax law now in operation, and which is reported as yielding "alarmingly below the estimates." The stamp taxes will be found to yield better, because they are so easily collected, and require no vexatious local visitations. A large portion of the English stamp revenues are from legacies. It will require sometime to develop those taxes here, but they are the most unexceptionable taxes that can be levied. Then, too, there is no reason why strong drink should not be taxed as high here as in England. The quantity consumed is as follows:

A tax of 50 cents per gallon would give a sum equal to the amount derived from the same articles in England. The duty on the imported liquors is $1 to $2 per gallon, and there is no reason why the whole should not pay at the same rate. Tobacco ought also to pay its $30,000,000 as in England, and could be made to do so without detriment to national interests. In a word, there can be no difficulty in raising money enough by taxation for the purposes of government, if those taxes are only properly laid, and the right principles observed in regulating them.

COMMERCIAL LAW. No. 3.

THE CONSIDERATION FOR AN AGREEMENT.

OF THE NEED OF A CONSIDERATION.

It is an ancient and well-established rule of the common law of England and of this country, that no promise can be enforced at law, unless it rests upon a consideration. If it do not, it is called a nudum pactum, by which words are meant a naked bargain, or, as it is sometimes called, in English words made out of the Latin, a nude pact; and the promisor, even if he admits his promise, is under no legal obligation to perform it.

There are two exceptions to this rule. One is when the promise is made by a sealed instrument, or deed; (every written instrument which is sealed is a deed.) Here the law is said to imply a consideration; the meaning of which is that it does not require that any consideration should be proved. The seal itself is said to be a consideration, or to import a consideration.

The second exception relates to negotiable paper; and is an instance in which the law-merchant has materially qualified the common law. We shall speak more fully of this exception when we treat of negotiable paper. The word "consideration," as it is used in this rule, has a peculiar and technical meaning. It denotes some substantial cause for the promise. This cause must be one of two things; either a benefit to the promisor, or else an injury or loss to the promisee sustained by him at the instance and request of the promisor. Thus, if A promises B to pay him a thousand dollars in three months, and even promises this in writing, the promise is worthless in law, if A makes it as a merely voluntary promise, without consideration. But if B, or anybody for him, gives to A to-day a thousand dollars in goods or money, and this was the ground and cause of the promise, then it is enforceable. And if A got nothing for his promise, but B, at the request of A, gave the same goods or money to C, this would be an equally good consideration, and the promise would be equally valid in law. This rule sometimes operates harshly and unjustly, and permits promisors to break their word under circumstances calling strongly for its fultil ment. Courts have been led, perhaps, by this, to moderate the rule, and to say that the consideration is sufficient if it be a substantial one, although it be not an adequate one. This is the unquestionable rule now, and it is sometimes carried very far. In one case an American court refused to inquire into the adequacy of the consideration-or whether it was equal to the promise made upon it-and said, if there was the smallest spark of consideration it was enough, if the contract was fairly made with a full understanding of all the material facts. Still, there must be some.

WHAT ARE SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATIONS.

The law detests litigation; and therefore considers anything a sufficient consideration which arrests and suspends or terminates litigation. Thus

the compromise, or forbearance, or reference to arbitration, or any similar settlement, of a suit, or of a claim, is a good consideration for a promise founded upon it. And it is no defence to a suit on this promise, to show that the claim or suit thus disposed of would probably have been found to have no foundation or substance. If the claim or suit be a mere pretence, or oppression, and have no reality whatever, and there is no rational possibility of enforcing it, then indeed it is nothing, and any settlement of it is also nothing, and a promise founded upon such settlement rests upon no consideration. But if there be any honest claim, which he who advances it believes to be well grounded, and which within a rational possibility may be so, this is enough; the court will not go on and try the validity of the claim or of the suit in order to test the validity of a promise which rests upon its settlement; for the very purpose for which it favors this settlement is the avoidance of all necessity of investigating the claim by litigation. But for reasons of public policy, no promise can be enforced of which the consideration was the discontinuance of criminal proceedings, or of any in which the public are interested.

If any work or service is rendered to one, or for one, and he requested the same, it is a good consideration for a promise of payment; and not only so, but the law will imply the promise, that is, will suppose that he has made it, and he may be sued upon it in the same way as if he had made it, and will not be permitted to deny it. The rule is the same as to goods, or property of any kind, delivered to any one at his request.

No person can make another his debtor against that other's will, by a voluntary offer of work, or service, or money, or goods. But if that other accept what is thus offered, and retain the benefit of it, the law will, generally, imply or presume that it was offered at the request of that other party, and will also imply his promise to pay for it, and will enforce the promise; unless it is apparent, or is shown, that it was offered and received as a mere gift.

A promise is a good consideration for a promise; and it is one which frequently occurs in fact. But it is said that the promises must be mutual; and sometimes questions of this sort have arisen; if A promises to live with B two years, for the purpose of learning a certain trade, but B makes no express promise to teach, and A leaves at the end of one year, it has been said that B cannot recover damages, because there was no consideration for A's promise, inasmuch as B made no promise. But we should rather say in such cases, that, if A performed his promise, he might have an action against B on his constructive or implied promise to teach; and that this constructive or implied promise to teach was a sufficient consideration for A's promise to stay with B.

So, if A says to B, "If you will deliver goods to C, I will pay for them," although there is no obligation upon B to deliver the goods, and therefore no mutuality in the contract, yet, if he does deliver them, he furnishes a consideration for the agreement, and may enforce it against A. There is also an exception to this requirement of mutuality in the case of contracts between infants and persons of full age. For though the infant may avoid his contract, the adult is bound, as we said in speaking of infants.

An agreement by two or more parties to refer disputes or claims between them to arbitration, is not binding upon any of the parties unless all have entered into it.

This principle, that a promise is a good consideration for a promise, has

been sometimes applied to subscription papers; all who sign them being held on the ground that the promise of each is a good consideration for the promises of the rest. But they are not often promises to each other; being generally the promises of all the subscribers to some third party, who makes no promise. The law on the subject of these subscription papers, and of all voluntary promises of contribution, is as yet somewhat unsettled, the cases not being reconcilable. The prevailing rule, we think, however, is this no such promises are binding, unless something is paid for them, or unless some party for whose benefit they are made-and this party may be one or more of the subscribers-at the request, express or implied, of the promisors, and on the faith of the subscriptions, incurs actual expense or loss, or enters into valid contracts with other parties which will occasion expense or loss. As the objection to these promises is the want of consideration, it may perhaps be cured by a seal to each name, or by one seal which all the parties agree to consider the seal of each.

It is to be regretted that the law does not regard a merely moral consideration as a sufficient legal consideration; but so it is. Thus, it has been held in this country, that a note given by a father to a party who had given needful medicines, food, and shelter to his sick son, who was of full age, was void in law, because there was no legal consideration. And the same doctrine was applied where a son made a similar promise for food and support to his aged father. If, in either case, the promise had been made before the food or other articles were supplied, or even a request made before the supply by the party promising afterwards, then the supply of the food and support would have been a good consideration. But they had all been supplied before any request or promise, and nothing was left but the moral obligation of a father to compensate one who had supported his son, or of a son to support his father; and this the law does not deem sufficient to make even an express promise enforceable at law.

OF ILLEGAL CONSIDERATIONS.

If the whole of a consideration, or if any part of the consideration of an entire and indivisible promise, be illegal, the promise founded upon it is void. Thus, where a note was given in part for the compounding of penalties and suppressing of criminal prosecutions, it was held to be wholly void and uncollectable. And where a part of the consideration of a note was spirituous liquors, sold by the payee in violation of the statute, such note was held to be wholly void. But if the consideration consists of separable parts, and the promise consists of corresponding separable parts, which can be apportioned and applied, part to part, then each illegality will affect only the promise resting on it; for in fact there are many considerations and many promises.

If the consideration be entire and wholly legal, and the promise consists of separable parts, one legal and the other illegal, the promisee can enforce that part which is legal.

When a law provides a penalty for an act, that act is held to be illegal, although it is not expressly prohibited.

OF IMPOSSIBLE CONSIDERATIONS.

No contract or promise can be enforced by him who knew that the performance of it was wholly impossible; and therefore a consideration which