The Express.
London, England, 1863-05-05 00:00:00

THE CITY POLICE BILL

Colonel FRENCH ventured to remind the Home Secre-
tary that be had not given any answer to the hon. baronet,
the member for the City of London, as to what was the
ultimate decision with reference to the bill for the amalga-
mation of the Metropolitan and City police. He hoped the
right hon. baronet world relieve all their minds by telling
them that be did not intend to proceed with the bill.

Sir G. GREY said the examiner had not as yet reported
whether the bill was to be dealt with as a private medal e.
He apprehended that any oar conversant with the forms of
the house would allow that it was not in the condition of a
m.vate bill, but dealt with two subjects—the private act of
the City of London, and the public act under
which the Metropolitan police existed. The most
that could be said was that it was a hybi:d
bill, and as such mud pain through a select com-
mittee, and afterwards through a committee of the whole
house. All the examiner had reported was, that if it was a
private act the standing orders were applicable to it, and
it would have to go to the standing orders committee, and
they would report whether the standing orders ought to
be enforced or dispensed with. If the standing orders were
to be enforced, then he behaved the bill could not proceed,
the necessary notices not having been given ; but if they
reported that the standing orders ought to be dispenvd
with, then the bill might go on. He had, however, no power
to exercise an option in the matter.

• The motioo for the adjournment of the house waa then
withdrawn.

(At this dap hie Royal flightier the Priem of Wales en-
tered the home, and took a seat in the front gallery, appro-
priated to peers and foreign ministers.)
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE.

Tits house then went into eonemiteete an Ibis MI.

Clams Iwu wood to. ---
Oa the woad clause, re-enacting the providaws of
former acts as regards the income tax, with certain map-
tioss,

Sir J. FERGUSSON proposed an amendment to include
in the exceptions a section of the act, 25th and 26th Vic-
tor* cap. 22, directing that no asseisom shall be appointed
far duties under schedules A and B.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the
amendment, which was negatived.
On clause 3, by which it wee proposed to charge charitable
Institution. with the tax,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed
I that the question which he wished to raise was whether the
law should be changed which gave an immuaity to all
charitable bequest.. He confessed he could not see upon
what grounds that special exemption was to be made,
although he was quite prepared to modify the clause so
as to prevent the tax falling upon (nods which were dis-
posed of in the shape of foamy. He wee prepared to say
that 19-20ths of the charities which it was proposed to tax
were derived from death-bed bequests. The income of
the country, as gathered from the income-tax returns,
was about 18C or 190 millions a year, of which about
three millions belonged to charities. Those charities
he divided into three classes—the small, the middling, and
the great. With regard to the first mentioned, he bad no
hesitation in saying that, so far from being valuable, they
were positively pernicious, by tending to pauperise the
people and destroy their serve of independence and self-
reliance. As an illustration he mentioned the case of Jar-
vies Charity, which consisted of 100.0001., left to the poor
of three parishes is Herefordshire. This was to be doled out
to the inhabitants, but under no circumstances was any por-
tion of the fund to be expended on buildings. The fund, how-
ever, accumulated so fast that the trustees were can.
palled to come to parliament for an act to enable them to
expend 30,000/. upon the construction of a boarding school
for labourers' children, thereby doing the very thing which
old Jarvis solemnly declared should not be done. Of the
middle charities a favourable type was to be found in the
Clergy Orphan School, which had an income of 5,000/. a
year, and which it was proposed should be taxed at 1451.
a year. The person who supplied clergy orphans were poor
clergymen, and it was proposed by the present scheme
of the government to remit taxation in favour of
that class to the extent of 7,0001: a year. The insti-
tution called Christ's Hospital was an apt illustration
of the great charities. It enjoyed public contributions to
the extent of 6,0001. a year. and it had an income
of at lout 70,0001. It was originally intended for "sick,
sore, and destitute children ;" but such was not the class
who were now admitted to its benefits. Oo the contrary,
the present inmates were the children of persons with in-
comes from 2001. to 6001. a year, while the governors in m-
hos for a payment of 5001. received a vested interest in
1,600 presentations. It had been urged that if charities
were taxed 500 in-patients would be deprived of the
benefits of St. Bartholomew's Hospital aloes. The
revenue of that institution was 36,0001. a year, and,
. after deducting the income tax paid by the officers,
the sum which the state would take from the
hospital would be 8501. a year. This, however, was hut a
partial return for the advantages which the income tax had
conferred upon the hospital. The reduction of the wine
I duties was equivalent so 238/. per annum in favour of the
hospital, and the reduction of the duty on foreign drugs to '
415/., whilst the remission of the duty on articles of food
consumed was 1,2141. So that from these sources alone
I the hospital was benefited to the extent of 1,867/. a year.
If to this were added 1,4401. for the improved annual value
of the property the institution had derived a substantial
advantage equivalent to 3,307/. per annum. The right hoe.
gentleman continued—Now I am bound to say it was not my
wish to criticise the management of hospitals of this kind,
upon which everyone must look with so much respect, but
when I have it throat in my face that the numbers of
patients moat be diminished in consequence of the pro-
posal of the government, I must give some attention to this
part of the subject. Ido not believe that these patients
will be dismissed, I do not see any evidence that such an
extreme will be necessary. I know that when the free-trade
measures were under discussion gentlemen said they would
have to dismiss their workmen in consequence of the aboli-
tion of protection. Those gentlemen did not tell lies, they
were merely not aware of what might be done by more eco-
nomical arrangements, but the result was that no workman
was dismissed. One great objection to pensioning them
great establiahmente az the public is, that you annul all
motives for economical management. There is no public)
opinion brought to bear ma them ; the press knows nothing
of them, parliament knows nothing of them ; and it is too
much, I say, to believe that these hospitals are admini-
stered by angels and archangels, who required no super-
vision. (Hear, bear.) We all require criticism, superri.
sloe, and rebuke, and therefore I object that even St.
Bartholomew's should have a blind exemption which removes
• all motive for monoosied management. If you drive me to
lit by saying that a tax of 1201. will came 500 patients
to be dismissed, then I ask why is 2541. spent
on a dinner? (Cheers.) If, when the public give 2,3504,
a return of 850/. is objected to, it is fair to ask what do you
, mean by eating in an hour 150 Fatigue& (Laughter.) Then
there are Guy's and St. Thomas's. Will they have to die-
. miss a hundred patient.? Why, they are adding three or
, four thousand a year on reproductive isverinte in lands.
inlay do not °Define themselves to deal with sick men, for
my hon. G kind the member for Bath says that the trustees
of St. Thomas's Hospital spend 15 per cent of their income
on improvement.; in land. I say that this is a matter
for the house to consider, and also whether the
growth of these hospitals should be entirely re-
moved from the control of either prase or parliament
while subventions are to be annually continued. I do not
believe that one patient will be dismissed ; but if there
were, private charity would supply the void. I am going,
however, to make • larger 000CM10013, and to say that a pub-
, lie grant might be given for the purpose. Why not? It had
never bees thought that the relief of the sick was a proper
subject for grants from the Exchequer ; it may still be so
thought, but what I venture to say with the utmost confi-
dence is, that a public grant for St. Bartholomew's would
be ten times better than the exemption which is now
• demanded. With a public grant we know what we are
about. We let in the light of day ; the public become
parties, and arbitrary will is dethroned. But there is alio-
, ther matter to consider of still greater importance. Are
I there no ucendowed hospitals? Are there sot the
Usdver-
sity Hospital, Rises College, Westminster, Chariaccroes,
sad St. Orinree's ? (A Voice—" Si. George's se miaowed.")
Yea, I believe it has a small endowment. (A Voice—" The
Free Hospital.") Let it be granted sad conceded, which
has never yet been conceded, if you will, that parliament
ought to make aprovision of some thousands a-year
; towards the cure of the sick poor is Loudest. I want to
know whether it is just, politic, or ratioaal, that sash
grant should be confiDed to institutioes which have biomes
of 25,0001., 30,0031., or 35,0001. a year. which are in so
degree ieflormeed by opinion from without, or whether it
would not be more rational to give it to young sad strug-
gling institutioos, some of which cannot keep their beds
open, and acme el wheal have the bead& of this cuseglios.