The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-22 00:00:00

PA RLIel MEM AR Y CO MMITTEES.

INCOME AND PROPERTY TAX.
At the sitting of this committee on Friday, Mr,
Hubbard in the chair,

Newmarsh, secretary to the Globe Insurance
Company, was examined, and stated that he was
entirely of opinion that it was unjust to tax per-
manent and temporary incomes, or what might be
called incomes arising from industrial pursuits, in
the same ratio. He was also opposed to any form of
graduation. The present act, in his judgment., erred
against both these rules. He had loJked over some
discussions on this subject in the House of Com-
mons during the last 19 years, and also in the
House of Lords. In the latter assembly he found
Lord Brougham moving, on March 14, 1842, a re-
solution to the effect " that it was expedient to
make a distinction between incomes arising from
capital and incomes arising from labour," Sir F.
Baring said in the Houac uf Commons that
"the tax was not a just or equal tax. Was it fair
to demand the same amount of tax from permanent
annual incomes and incomes derived from industry ?
No tax could act more unequally, unjustly, or op-
pressively." Similar sentiments were expressed by
Lord L-lisdowne and Mr. Milner Gibson ' • and Mr.
Gladstone, in his celebrated speech on April 15,
1853, said that in his opinion, " it was perfectly
plain that the income tax was not adapted for a
permanent fiscal system' unless they could remove
its inequalities ;" and on May 1, 1854, Earl Gran-
vot..nirt 4g ha wu.a,:onvinced that if there was any
one thing more strongly proved than another at
that time, it was that itwas absolutely necessary that
the Government should either abolish the income
tax, or modify its operations." Witness would
abolish all exemptions. He believed that nearly all
the difficulties attendant on collecting the income
tax arose from exemptions on real property. The
witness read a paper from Dr. Jarvis, of Boston,
U.S., president of the American Statistical Society,
to show that property in the States was.taxed with-
out any exemptions, referring especially to the
State of Massachusetts, of which Dr. Jarvis is a
native. There it was the duty of the assessors to
ascertain the amount of property which each per-
son possessed, either in land, houses, ships, rail-
ways, money in hand, and property of every.
description. This tax might essentially be called
an income tax, because it was arrived at by capi-
talising all the property of the State.
After hearing some further evidence the pow."
mitte adjourned.

BOARD OF ADMIRALTY.
The select committee appointed to inquire into
the constitution of the Board of Admiralty met
again on Friday—Mr. Henley, M.P., in the chair.
Among the members of the committee present were
Sir J. Pakington, Sir James Graham, Sir F. Baring,
Sir H. Willoughby, Lord C. Paget, Mr. Deedes, Sir
J. Elphinstone, Captain Duncombe, Mr. Stansfeld,
Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Clay, Mr. Corry,
&c.
The Duke of Somerset again attended the com-
mittee, and was examined by Sir F. Baring with
respect to the accounts, the manner in which they
were kept, and the various checks which had been
introduced to secure accuracy. His Grace was
under examination when the committee adjourned.

POOR RELIEF IN THE METROPOLIS.
The committee met again on Friday ; Mr. Vil-
liers in the chair. A considerable number of the
other members were present.
Mr. W. Gilbert, secretary to the Metropolitan
Society for the Relief of Distress, was called and
questioned by the chairman as to his authority for
Mating NYW
a letter QllllO had WrattAl that the

C//7
'proviiont, now eriuting for the
houseless poor are disgracefully in)
liis reply was—l think that t:
persons being thrown on private
during the last winter is a proof that The pro _on
for them is insufficient. From that circumstance I
infer that the: provision made by the poor law is
insufficient. In Paddington 16,000
peibona relieved by private charity, and the
number relieved in the City Union by private
charity was 47,000.
Mr. Bowring, the clerk to the City of London
Union, who was exa'nined on a former day, was
called, and gave some additional evidence, after
which the committee adjourned.

MEMBERS OF JHE S OCK.EXCITANGB
Ai%,IJ IHE BUD9B7'.

The petition to the House of Commons from the
members of the Stock Exchange has received about
400 signatures; it is a very short one, and is as
follows :—" To the Honourable the Commons of the
United Kingdom in Parliament assembled, the
humble petition of the undersigned members of
the Stock Exchange of the city of London
Your petitioners humbly pray • your honourable
house not to repeal the paper duty levied upon.
paper while the duties at present levied upon
tea and sugar press so heavily upon the poor."
The petition is to be presented this evening by
Mr. Disraeli.

(From the Morning Herald.)
We have reason to believe that an amendment
to Mr. Gladstone's resolution on the income tax
will be moved this evening by Mr. T. Baring,
M.P. for Huntingdon.

(Fi-om the Morning Post.)
We hear that the Conservatives are making a
strong whip to oppose Mr. Gladstone's budget.
It will have been observed that, in the debate in
the House of Lords on Friday, Lord Derby'
bleared- his decks for action by throwing over-
board his heavy lumber, such as his Austrian and
Was, of course,
matters now
a,
now stand, it is clear
anti-Italianbidforoffice. .As
tendencies.
mt
that the great fight of the session will be on the
Chancellor of the Exchequer's fluanetal measures.

MR. GLADSTONE'S SURPLUS: IS IT REAL ?
(From the Economist.)
On a careful survey of the admitted facts, it
appears to us certain that Mr. Gladstone has taken
a sanguine view of the casual receipts he antici-
pates, of the casual incomings that may fall in, as
well as of the regular revenue on which he relies.
The surplus of the budget is in consequence a
magnified surplus. It is a surplus to deal tenderly
with. Does Mr. Gladstone deal tenderly with it
His warmest admirers, and on many points we are
among his very warmest, cannot say that he does.
He takes off from the permanent revenue of the
country more than his surplus—more than his
surplus even as his own calculations make it. He
reckons his surplus at £1,961,000, but he takes off
from the permanent revenue of the country—
One penny of the income tax
Paper duty 1,300,000

£2,400,000
It is true that in the present year he has a nominal
surplus of £400,000, for he only takes off three-
quarters' income-tax this year, and half a year's
paper duty, dating from Aug. 1 ; but in subsequent
years the revenue will suffer the whole diminution
we have stated. Only parts of the proposed reduc-
tions will be in operation during this financial year,
but the whole will be in operation during the next.
And it is further to be remembered that the mere
expectation that the paper duty is to be repealed
in the autumn will greatly diminish the revenue to
be derived by the Excise between this period and
that. The paper manufacturers will properly and
reasonably manufacture only the minimum whieh is
possible. When the duty is taken off, the actual paper
in the country will be reduced far below the ave-
rage, and the revenue will have suffered in conse-
quence. Mr. Gladstone did not say that he allowed
for this circumstance, but it will certainly and ine-
vitably diminish his Excise revenue to the extent
of the actual surplus, whatever it may be. There
will scarcely be a question that the reduction of the
income tax has a prior claim to every other remis-
sion whatever. It presses more hardly, not of
course on the richest persons who pay it, but on
that subordinate, numerous, and straitened class of
persons whom we call the lower middle. class.
Clerks with £2OO a year would feel relieved by
the diminution of the income tax more than by
anything else ; and if a fair person will compute
the comparative pressure on different classes,
they are probably the most burdened
class of all. Moreover, one penny taken off the in-
come tax is not taken off for ever. It may be
reimposed if the public necessities require it. A.
reduction of a Customs or an Excise duty is difficult
to place ; an abolition ()nee made is made for ever.
Of indirect taxes, we think it tolerably certain that,
apart from political considerations and all recent
and temporary antecedents, the tea and sugar
duties have a superior claim to the paper duty.
We do not underrate the importance of the lat-
ter. But, nevertheless, the great outstanding fact
remains, that a reduction of the tea and sugar
duties, and especially of the former, would
be a relief to the whole multitude of the
lower classes in their closest and most intimate
necessities ;'and with this no refined, theoretical,
and, so to say, invisible considerations, such as can
be urged in favour of the reduction of the paper
duty, can in pure political economy, in the view of
an abstracted calculating reasoner, for a single mo-
ment effectually compete or contend. The conclu-
sion, therefore, of simple, pure finance is, that we
have hardly a greater surplus than Is sufficient to
justify a repeal of one penny of the income tax ;
that this reduction has a preferential claim on that
surplus; and that among other diminutions of taxa-
tion—among diminutions of indirect taxation, the
abolition of the paper duty is not that which can
show the most pressing need, or the most clear
im-
mediate advantage.