The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-19 00:00:00

very satisfaction, but the ex-

)rt of British troops

being allowed a pas-

ypt.
n population were quite elated at the re-

Affghanistan

It appears by a return moved
imes of barristers appointed
ime employed, fees alid
I 5 they received £32,0/9 ; in
222 ; in 1838, £30,537 ; in
; and in 1811, £30,357.
"4".•-A general court of the governor
3f the Bank of England was held on Wed-
Furpose of electing twenty-four directors for
r. The following gentlemen were proposed,
re no other candidates at four o'clock, they
obe duly elected :—Robert Barclay, Edward
lan, Bonamy Dobree, Charles Pascoe Grenfell,
1 Hodgson, John Gellibrand Hubbard, Charles
Alfred Latham, William Little, James Mal-
t. John Mildmay, James Morris,
John Horsley Palmer, James Patti-

lumpar
rde Noi

'earse, Charles Pole, David Powell, R'il
Robinson, Thomas Charles Smith, Thomas Mat-
plait), and Francis Wilson, Esquires ; Sir John
, Bart.; William Thompson, Esq. and Alderman.

600
700
800
900
1000

One person

Seven.
Eight.
Nine
Ten

rNCOME

,me, at the rate of £2 18s. 4d
£l5O to £2OOO.

chewing the charge uponIIJO
per cent., from
X s. d. £
.... 4 7 6 1100
.... 516 8 1200
.... 815 0 1300
• 11 13 4 1 100
• 11 11 S 1500
.... 17 10 0 1600
.... 20 S 4 1700
.... 23 6 8 1800
.... 26 5 0 1900
.... 29 3 4 2000
SCALE 2.
Shewing the SAVING to a family in a year, at 9d. a week for
each individual, from the reduction in provisions, from
one person to twenty in a family.
£ s. d.
1 19 0 Eleven ..
3 18 0 Twelve ..
5 17 0 Thirteen
716 0 Fourteen
9 15 0 Fifteen ..
11 14 0 Sixteen..
13 13 0 Seventeen
15 12 0 Eighteen
17 11 0 Nineteen
19 10 0 Twenty

X S. d.
32 1 8
35 0 0

37 18 4
40 16 8
43 15 0
46 13 4
49 11 8
52 10 0
55 8 4

58 6 8

X s. d.
21 9 0
23 8 0
25 7 0
27 6 0
29 5 0
31 4 0
33 3 0
35 2 0
37 1 0
39 0 0

We have repeatedly asserted, in answer to the arguments
against the Income Tax, that the parties who will have to
pay it will be so much relieved by the changes in the New
Tariff, that the former impost will be more than covered by
their gains in the necessaries of life. A contemporary, the
Church and State Gazette, has rendered good service to the
public by entering into some very minute details on this
subject, and illustrates the truth of our statement by the
three following cases :

FIRST CASE

A man, his wife, and three children, supported with an in-
come of £2OO per annum, arising from the husband's
salary as a clerk.

After hewing very conclusively the reasons which have
brought him to the conclusion, our contemporary gives the
following resume of the gain which this supposed gentleman
will effect by the new Corn Bill and the new Tariff:—
On his Bread he will save £2 1 8
Fresh meat 4 11 0
Salted meat..
Fish, herrings, &c.
Coffee
Potatoes
Table beer
Boots and shoes •1 4 0
Candles

Saving. £l2 10 2
Deduct Income Tax, not quite

Benefit from Sir Robert Peel's plan

£6 10 2

No claim is made in these calculations for the reduced
prices of fruit, rice, lard, onions, seeds, woods of all kinds,
cotton, hair, linen wool, cocoa, straw hats, and a variety of
other articles.

SECOND CASE

A tradesman with a wife and three children, with a net
_ income from business of £3OO per annum. _ _

On Bread he will save
Meat
Salted provisions
Fish
Coffee 1 6 0
Potatoes
Boots and shoes "
Candles
Beer
Rice, lard, wearing apparel

Saving
Deduct Income Tax, not quite 9 0 0

Benefit from Sir Robert Peel's plan £8 3 10
THIRD CASE.

A private gentleman with an income of £5OO per annum
arising from the public funds, but with which he has also
to support himself, a wffe, three children, and probably
two servants.
On Bread he will save
Fresh meat
Ham, salted meat
Fish
Coffee
Potatoes 0 12 6
Boots and shoes
Candles 0 18 0
Rice, &c., and wearing apparel
Beer
Luxuries ! 3 0 0

Saving
Deduct Income Tax not quite

£26 6 10
15 0 0

Net saving in this case, by the Income
Tax and New Tariff £ll 6 10

We are sure that our contemporary, so far from exaggera-
ting, (with the exception of the article of coffee, in dealing
with which he has overlooked the fact that the duty of 15d.
upon foreign has been, in practice, reduced to 10d. or ls.)
has understated the advantages which will result from
the proposed alterations in the Tariff, for the consumption of
articles is estimated at a lower scale, and the rate of reduction
at a lower rate, than would have been perfectly justifiable.
But as the object is to convince by undeniable facts, perhaps
the course he has adopted is the preferable one.

THE DIVISION ON THE REPORT OF THE

INCOME TAX

Against
For the the Majority
Motion. Motion. For Against
ENGLAND .. Counties .. 108 8 100

Boroughs.. 134 125

Universities 4 4
WALES .... Counties .. 9 1 8

Boroughs

SCOTLAND.. Counties .. 13 6 7
Boroughs..
_4 23 19

IRELAND .. Counties .. 17 19 2
Boroughs.. 13 13

306 202
By the above statement it will be seen that, taking the
aggregate returns from the counties, without reference to
country, there is a majority of 104 in favour of the tax; and
from the cities, boroughs, and universities (omitting the
boroughs of Ireland, which will be only very partially affected
by the tax), a majority of 4 in favour of the government
proposition.