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

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 5, 1863.

In the latter case the tax takes away from a fluctuating
income. Subscribers may drop away, and income may fall
off, and therefore 1 say that if it be light to give money for
the support of the etch poor, it is wrong to the great mass
of the people that you should give it to richly-endowed
institutions in the form of a blind exemption. Now sir, I
believe that I have not stated any extreme opinions. I believe
it might be said that what the government propose, does
sot rise to such cases as Jervis's charity. I admit that, I
admit that it is • very modest demand, for all I ask is that
you should withdraw this public subvention. The applica-
tion of the death duties to these charities would be more
consistent, but they would eat up the corpus of the charity.
One word more. I most before I sit down call attention to
the rapid growth of these charities. Strange to say, it ae-
pears to be the use that the property of these charities is
growing more rapidly than the property of the community
at large. The income of our charities between 1818
sad 18.37, as returned by the commissiou, was 1,209,0001.
In 1862 it woe, as nearly as we could make it out, 3,000,0001.
By oar remissions we can teem 2,609,0001., bat the lands
deposed of raised the sum to above 3,000,0001., being • more
rapid increase than that of the general property of the coun-
try. How is that to be accounted for? I believe it may
be accounted for in this way—that the principal donors were
citizens, and that the gifts were of lends in the immediate
neighbourhood of towns. The consequence is that
this very peculiar description of property has come
in for a larger share of annual increase than the
other property of the country. 1 am not going beck
to Jervis's charity again, but there is Jones's Charity,
at Monmouth, which supports one hundred boys. That
charity his an estate of 3241 acres of land at Deptford, the
value of which will, I am told, be in a few years enornuoualy
increased. Then there is the Tunbridge School, in which
200 young gentlemen are maintained at an expense of about
4,000/. • year, but it is estimated that in no very long time
their lands will be worth 80,0001. • year. (Hear, hear
Again, there is Smith's charity at Kensington—and
I am justified in including this class of charities,
because I asked the magnificent assemblage which
I received to-day whether they pleaded for the
London hospital alone, or for the miscellaneous ohm :ties
all over the country, and I received a loud and universal
" Yes " from the whole deputation. They said Cosy were
to be all held sacred from the contribution which I am
obliged to wring from the whole of the rest of the commu-
nity. When the working man appeals to me on account of
his wife and children, or his failing trade, I have no inns-
diction, 1 ourot pity him ; bat Smith dies, goes the way
of all flesh, and bequeaths his property for all time to his
poor relations. What is the cooseqrence I By
bequeathing the money to his poor relations be
offers an irduceirent to those who are not
I poor to become so. Flourishing men, young nun
who have the difficulties of life before them, are dis-
gusted with their work, bermes they know that if they are
successful in their meer they will rot be eligible :or the be-
quest of their progenitor. If, on the contrary, they are pro-
fligate enough to become poor, they will then come in
for a portion of Smith's charity. (Oh, oh.) It is true
diesipation lead, to poverty, sod poverty is the condition
of sharing in Smith's chanty. (Hear.) lam informed that
when the Wessel this property fe'l in, which they will do at
no distant date, its value will be iramend to 50,0001.
it-year, and taking this with the increase of the other
charities the exemption, which is now a quarter of • million,
will amount to 500,C001. a year. (Hear, hear.) I have de-
layed the house loog, but I felt that 1 had to state the case
to an adverse assembly, and it was my duty rot to shrink
from the task. It was my duty on my own part, and on
that of my camp* to show that we bad net made this
propoial lightly, but were fully justified in the demand we
made. I felt that we were opening up • gronod which was
new and untrodden, and I am con Pieced that, how-
ever Articular motives or particular interests might
produce a mower tory pre sure, this discasion could
not remain without it fruits. I have stated that
the charities of England are not at this nr.crent exempt.
the exemption being exclusively confined to pea dealer in-
stitutions. I have stated that the growth of their wealth
has base more rapid than that of the wealth of the rest of
the country. I have stated that the uses of many of three
charities have berm declared irdifferent, others bad, and fur-
ther that government in the case of the middle char:ties has
remitted one half the taxation. I have shown that a
smith portion of these charities have any claims for public
wan* and that if they had, it would be monstrous to make
such public grant by way of exemption, which selects
for its objects those who do not want it, and
leaves to their struggles those who do. Those are the pro-
positions upon which we stand. We propose this measure
not as one o. financial necessity, but as a just measure. I
shall not revert to the hard words which have been ap-
plied, hut of this I am sure, that no person would have given
it • more cordial and conscientious support than the col-
league whom we all on this bench so deeply lament, and
of whim it may be mid, as it was said of one of old :

" Juatindrotu mina
Qui fait i• Tenerie et eervantimeimus 113qui."

We propose this as a just, as a politic measure. We do not
presume u a government, by any means which a govern.
meat might dream of, to prams it on an adverse house. The
house is responsible ; we do not wish to show undue obsti-
easy ; we defer to its opinions ; but we reserve to ourselves
the power of deciding upon the way in which this question
is at a future time to be considered. We have proposed
this measure to the house as consistent with every principle
which has governed administration for the last 20 years ;
as being just to the taxed community, and fair ti the
labouring poor ; favourable to the great object of elevating
their character, as well as of improi tog their condition. In
proposing this measure we feel oonelves, impregnable and
invulnerable to all rude reproaches, and we recommend it
to the courage, the wisdom, and the justice of the House
of Commons. (Loud cheery.)

Sir B. NORTHCOTE argued that the effect of the pro-
posed plan would be to double the pressure of the income
tax on numbers of persons connected with charities, and
endowed schools especially. He objected to peas the clause
in its present shape on the mere promise that hereafter ex.
ceptienal cases of hardship would be dealt with. He de-
nied that the proposed plan would operate to correct theme
abase, which bad been enumerated, and which be-
longed to the class of death-bed bequests; the re-
forming process being that of laying an income tax
upon them. There lay at the root of this proposi-
tion the principle of reducing the means of assist-
ance of the sick and poor to private charity and state
greets, and abolishing that class of charities which under
the name of endowments was peculiar to this country
He hoped the clause would be rejected at once by the
house.

Mr. MA G IJI R E opposed the clause, illisstratinc its bad
effect' by its operation in certain endowed schools in Cork.
Lord H. VANE also stated himself to be unconvinced
by the arguments of Mr, Gladstone, and be could not agree
to his proposal.
Mr. W. MARTIN claimed exemption for country
hospitals.
Lord R. CECIL said that the whole of the sophistical
speech of Mr. Gladstone wu a long indictment against
charities, against the benevolent, and against the poor. He
deprecated the fierce attack which had been made on the
dead founders of so many of our best charities ; but, what-
ever may have been the motives which influenced those
bequests, the question now wu whether the succour and
aid which bad been afforded to the poor should or should
sot be still secured to them intact

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHRQUER--This de-
bate having been brought to a close, we have no further
meam of ascertaining the opinion of the home. I stated in
my previous address that it was not the intention of the
government to press this merely official proposal upon the
house unless it were disposed to receive it. Oar opinion
upon it are fixed sod clear, but as the debate has come to •
close without any independent member declaring himself in
the same sense as the governmeet, the state of things has
' arisen which I am bound to say I contemplated as not im-
-1 possib'e ; sod it would not be oonsisteut with what I have
I already said if I were to take the sense of the committee
upon the clause. (Load opposition cheers.)
Mr. DISIRAELI—The announcement which the right
hon. gentleman has just made appears to we to be a very
rational detelmiaatace. (Chcers and laughter.) At the
same time I never heard an announcement for which I was
lees prepared by the speech in which a proposition was in-
troduced by her Majesty's government. (Hear, hear.) I
should net have risen to make any remarks after the last
observation of the right boa gentleman bad it not been
preceded by • speech which appears to me to have intro-
duced to the coesideration of the home, principles which
were so dangerous—l might even say, so momtrous—
that I thought it would hardly become the
house to allow the debate to eke. in silence
without attempting to obtain souse evidence that the opinion
advanced by the right hon. gentleman was at least shared
in by his colleeg ass—(opposition cheers)—and especially by
the first minister of the crown. (Renewed thefts.) The
speech of the right hon. gentleman was answered at the that
by my hon. friend the member for Stamford, who displayed
• thorough knowledge of the subject, and who dealt., as I
think, with a master band, with those glittering fallacies
which had been introducd with such confidence to the
consideration Mittel:louse of Commons. The delete WOnt.n,
but no one roes on the part of the government to answer
the objections which had been made to the proposition. I
think it was due to my hoe. friend, and due also to the
house, and to the character of the government generally,
that • reply should have been offered to objections brought
against • proposition made with so much confidence—l will
Dot say so much dictation. (Hear, bear.) I should not
nosier ordinary circumstances have risen on the withdrawal
of • measure made with such parade, bad not occasion been
taken to inculcate principles of policy to which the govern.
meat might recur on future occasions as having received •
met of sanction from the silence of the house. The opinions
promulgated by the right hon. gentleman, therefore, ought
sot to be allowed to pass without notice. The right hon.
gentleman lathed • short time ago his general financial
statement. When I listened to it I was extremely anxious that
it should pass, considering its main features--should meet
with no organised opposition. I contented myself with the
reflection, that in the course of the diermaion the objection-
able parts of the scheme would disappear, or be withdrawn
without being painfully obtruded upon the home. I was
nations for that, for the honour of the Home of Cowman,
because the budget introduced by the right hos, gentleman,
la its main features, was the budget of the House of Com-
mons. (Hear, hear.) Last year the house was, called upon
~consider whether it was not expelisat to
weasel the government that a large redectioe el
public expenditure was essential, as by tbat means aloe*
a reduetioa of taxation could be obtained. We were this
tail that a redeetioa of expeoditare by limy ecoalderabi•
111110111% wee perfectly illusory, sad that no one said
pa-
tare to leash the array and navy without being guilty of

subservience and servility to France, We nevertheless In-
slated in a moderate toes on the wisdom, the policy, and
the poesibility of such a course. This session has brought
forward • very (Merest view of public affair.. Ecouomy in
possible. It is not now subserviency or servility to France
to obtain by most legitimate means a material reduc-
tion of the burdens of the people. For this great
measure of reduction we are indebted to the Homo
of Commons, and not to the government. It is
the House of Commons which has reduced the tea duty
and the incometax. (Cheers.) I regret to find that with
these great features of the budget some remarkable ma-
stiff* of an eccentric character wan introduced by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, apparently intended to display
his financial originality, and to resew his claim upon the
wonder •of en admiring parliament. (Laughter.) I was
very much amused at the tax which was proposed to be
levied upon carriera' carts. I knew that it would realise
the utmost amount of ingenious vexation, but that proposi-
tion disappeared before the order of battle could be formed.
Thee there was the proposition for taxing clubs. One
hardly knows, such was the bewildering rhetoric of the
right hon. gentleman, whether that has been defeated or
not ; but if it is, it will be a consolation to the right hon.
gentleman, defeated by charities, to know that he has at
least conquered the clubs. I give him the benefit of that
SUOMI, though it is possible that before oar labours termi-
nate that eccentricity also may disappear from the budget
of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) To-night our
attention is called to an invention of a much more serious
character than those I have mentioned—another unneces-
sary novelty, in itself objectionable, but still more so from the
manoerin which it has been introduced, and from the principles
which in the discussion have been associated with it by the
government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer called on us
to tax the charities of this country. He was perfectly
justified in that appeal if he could have established a ease
that would have recommended it to our coneideiation. If he
had done so, I am sure that no sentimental objection would
have been offered to his proposal by the Howe of Com-
mons. But he laid down a principle which was the basis of
the arguments with which he has treated us this evening.
That principle is, thaVeremption from • tax is to be looked
upon as • donative from the state. (Hear,
bear.) That is the foundation of the right honourable
gentleman's glittering oration of two home and • half,
to which we listened with such great plemmre, but with
more surprise. (Hear, hear.) Whatever his illustratioes or
his arguments, they
may all be traced to that one funda-
mental doctrine, which, I contend, is fallacious in its oon-
aequeccea, and utterly false in principle. (Cheers.) The
Chancellor of the Exchequer sesames that exemption from
taxation is the same as a contribution from the state. Is
that so? (Cheers.) You may have exemptions that are
injudicious or unjust, but an exemption founded upon jus-
tice is not • privilege, it is a right. (Cheers.) An hon. gen-
tleman says "Hear, hear, as if the onus pro-
handl were upon me to show that charities
were justly exempted. But we have not gone so far as
that. The argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is
founded on the abstract principle that exemption is a dona-
tion from the state. Well, I deny that. We have aright
to assume that the exemption is founded upon justice ; and
there is nothing in the abstract nature of au exemption to
justify the right hon. gentleman in making an attack upon
the charities. It is for the house to decide whether the
exemption is just or not, but that is entirely different from
the principle land down by the right boo, gentleman ; and
what we have to decide to-night is whether the exemption
hitherto enjoyed by our chanties is one sound in print eor
not. The Chancellor of the Exchequer set oat wit the
assumption that the exemption of charities from the
action of the income tea was in point of fact • privilege
and a usurpation ; and than be proceeded with his wilt-
meet, or rather his invective, against the institutions
themselves. A great portion of his speech was directed
not against the intolerable state of affairs, which allowed
poi .ions of property to be exempted from the incidence of
tare:ion, but it was an invective against the very nature of
this property, andagainst the condiUonsuuder which itexits,
and against the principles, customs, habits, and traditions
of an ancient wintry. The right hon. gentleman pro-
ceeded in his course, weakened and embarrassed by the false
principle upon which he started ; and was compelled to mis.
describe the character of the income-tax itself, arguing that
it was • tax upon property, though nothing is more clear
than that it is • tax upon persona. Being • tax upon
persons, we are neoesaarily 'Naked, why are persons to be
liable to the tax who ate not enjoytog that amount of
income which you exempt under your general ulailone ?
They are to be made liable because the Chancellor of the
Exchequer chooses to entertain views of the endow-
ments of the country different from those which
have always influenced parliament during the last century
and a-half, end entirely opposed to the conv!ctiona
and requirements of the country. (Hear, hear.) And what
is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remedy for all them's-
conduct of these charitable establishments, and for all the
impolitic state of affairs which he denounces with so much
power? Why his remedy for all the numerous evils of the
old charities—for the petty charities which be has called
out of their obscurity, and for those magnificent endow-
meets, whether hospitals or colleges, which have does so
i much for the stability of the country—is to put them
' ander the income tax. (Laughter.) If her Majesty's go-
vernment thought it desirable to all attention to the state
of these endowments, with a view to their reformation, I
think it questionable whether the time is apt for that
sort of inquiry. Within the last thirty years their midi-
' tion has 'Amami the attention of her klajedy's govern-
merit and of parliament. A commiesion u well
as several committee, hrve investigated them, and
the results have been very advantageous. I there-
fore think it eery doubtful whether, under the cit.-
' cumstances, it was wise and expedient of the government to
call public attention to these institutions with a view to any
change in their character. But if the government is of
opinion that the state of our public endowments is so per-
nicious—if they are really of opinion that the statement
made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is justified by
facta—that this is a grave question which demands our
instant attention—eoene adequate measure ought to be
brought forward. It is totally inadequate to hold out that
the income tax should be applied to these institutions. I
think that every point which the Chaacellor of the Exche-
quer has raised. with all the exertions o: successful casuistry,
bas entirely failed, and it has failed because, as I ventured
to state when I rose, they all spring from one principle, the
foundation of which is entirely illusory ; it is from the
false assumption that exemption from taxation is essentially
unjust. lam not surprised that the country and the house
should have, in so short a space of time, risen in agitation
against a proposition so monstrous. (Cheers.) It offends
all the feelings and traditions which has been cherished in
this country, all our local associatioes, all the veneration for
the principle of inheritance which has been so long held in this
country. We have heard arguments to-night which have
been denunciations of endowments, and almost a plea for
confiscation. (Hear, hear.) That they should have ever
been
.produced as a part of a financial scheme is indeed
amazing ; that they should have been introduced with so
slight a financial object is still more astonishing. But when it
was in the power of the government, not of their own happy
imaginings, bat following the strong sense of the country as
represented in the House of Commons, to effect those reduce
lions of taxation which oar advice and the public opinion
had indicated, that they should have thought lit under those
circumstances unnecessarily to introduce the discussion of
principles which disturb almost the foundations of society,
does appear to me to be • course of conduct which the
meat brilliant rhetoric cannot justify, and which may load
to consequences which the government may afterwards
regret. I shall only hope that this remarkable proposition,
introduced with so much pomp and withdrawn in • manner
so unpretending—(cheers)—may be the last of the endea-
vours that will be made to attack the endowments of this
country which the wisdom of the time iu which we live
may improve by the application of the principles on which
they are founded. Commissions and committees have already
offered ample suggestions for that object, but the endow-
ments themselves are founded on • principle that has coo-
tributed to the greatness of this country, and which, I
trust, this country will always cherish. (cheers.)

Lord PALMEBSTON—I will venture to answer the
question which I understand, for was absent at the mo-
ment, the right bon. gentleman asked when he rose
to address you. lam told be asked whether the proposal
made by my right boo. friend was his own proposal !simply,
or whether it was a proposal which hie colleagues also con-
curred in. lam happy to be able to assure the right boo.
gentleman—(cheers}—that the course pursued by my right
hon. friend—the proposal by him—was entirely concurred
in by all his colleagues—(cheer., and oppceition cries of
"divide" and "order ")—and if none of his colleagues rose
for some time to suppont him it was entirely from the con.
viction that the admirable and most convincing speech of
my right bon. friend was unanswered and unanswerable.
(Cheers and counter obeeze.) Atoll event., for some period of
the debate it required no support from any of his colleagues
who sat near him. Now, sir, the right hon. gentleman
opposite has reduced his objections to what he calls
one single fundamental point. He says the whole foum
datioo of my right hon. friend's argument was that exemp-
tion from taxation was equivalent to • grant from the coun-
try. I maintain that that is perfectly true. (Cheers.) So
long as your expenditure is a fixed sum, it is demonstrable
that to exempt a portion of the community from contribut-
ing their share by which the sum is to be realised, you do
virtually grant them what is equivalent to a contribution.
And therefore, when the right bon. gentleman talks of
fallacies, I must say I never heard of such a fallacy IN that
which be attempted to establish by saying that exemption
from taxation is not equivalent to a grant from the public
revenue. He says no, because exemption implies justice.
That is begging the whole question. No doubt if a party is
justly entitled to exemption, them when you concede a
right you do not confer a boon. But we deny, and
no man yet has proved, that these charities are
justly entitled to exemption. My right hon. friend
Las been secured of pouring forth invective against these
charitable institutions. Why, the most severe things that
fell from the lips of my right hon. friend were quotations
from the commissioners who were employed to inquire into
sad report upon these charities. It was their reports which
cootained these denunciations which hon. gentlemen oppo.
site have endeavoured to represent as the expressions of my
right hon. friend. Well, sir, I say that we entirely concur
in the proposal, and I think my right hon. friend has de-
monstrated that it was founded in justice sod good sense.
(Cries of "Divide.") But the right hoe. gentleman oppo-
site has given the key to the whole secret. He has said that
local associations are adverse to the proposal of my right
hon. friend. Well, sir, that is really the fact. (Comer-
vative cheers.) That is the simple truth. and it was candid
of the right hon. gentleman openly to bring it forward. But
that is not only emotive for imlividual votes and opinions,
bat it is also a ground on which the government are en-
titled and ought to take their lime, and If we end