The Sun.
London, England, 1862-05-16 00:00:00

rious and permanent incomes is undeniable. He
knew that the former could not bear the taxation
which the latter could ; and notwithstandin4 all
his ingenuity, and the necessities of his official
position, he could but confess that he retained his
opinion uttered nine years ago. That is, that even at
sevenpence in the pound, the Income-tax could not
be justified as a permanent part of the national reve-
nue, and that it was, of course, much less justifiable
at ninepence. With Mr. GLADSTONE'S scrupulous
conscientiousness he finds it now, as he found it
then, impossible to resist the evidence of its being
one of the most unequal, unjust taxes in existence,
and adapted only to great emergencies.
But we beg to suggest to Mr. GLADSTONE that
besides retrenchment, economy we should rather
say, of our expenditure, he has the resource of
honestly equalising our taxation. He wants five
millions in taxation ; if we get that, he Lays, we
might then dispense with the ten millions income
tax. He relies on the expenditure on taxed arti-
cles of consumption for recouping the rest, and
we have no doubt he is right. But if our aristocracy
will not give him economy, he should offer them
equality of taxation, which would either bring
them to their senses, or throw the burdens with
which they saddled the nation, equally ou the
shoulders of the high and the humble. Five mil-
lions would soon be made by placing aristocratic
and plebeian taxation on a level. Thus, there is—
Firstly.
The Legacy and Succession Duties.
These are calculated at so low a rate for real pro-
perty, for vast estates that go from father to son, to
maintain family, not national greatness, that if real
and other property were dealt with equally we
should have two millions there.

Sseondly. Probate Duties. Real property does
not pay these at all, It is one of the most unjust
and cruel differences between class and class which
our taxation now makes. At least two millions
would be provided by equalisation here.
Thirdly. There is the Land-tax. The assessment
has not been revised since the time of WILLIAM 111.
Landlords are actually paying on a value of their
property which has multiplied in many cases several
times over. It is not easy to say what the gain of
a fair assessment would be to the revenue, one or
two millions certainly.

Fourthly. It is not often noticed, but the fire
insurance duty is a duty in favour of the landed
aristocracy entirely. The possessors of all other
property are obliged to insure it against damage by
fire. Land cannot be damaged by fire; but that is
no reason why, like combustible property, it should
not pay the same tax of three shillings per cent. on
its value; that is, if the other kind of property pays
it. The amount would indeed be large, but not more
than fair. An estate worth £lOO,OOO would pay £l5O
a-year, and could afford it, as well as the manufac-
turers who insured one hundred thousand pounds'
worth of combustible property. Indeed, the land-
lords would still have the advantage, because they
would be spared an office premium in addition.
Probably not less than two or three millions would
come in from this source. As the matter stands,
the landed aristocracy gain every way ; for, besides
the self-exemption of land, they have exempted the
produce of their land. Farming stock pays no fire
insurance duty.

We will not, however, enlarge further on the
subject at present. We only repeat that, if Mr.
GLADSTONE'S colleagues cannot economise down to
the sixty-five millions, which would save us the
ten millions income tax, he ought to ask them to
raise the other five millions by abolishing class

;axation.