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

was thtts laid upon other property, was about £m,ooo. a
year; but besides this there wet a large and growing charge
on the public pttree or the management of these chari4e—
Ilia year £lB,OOO had been 'voted upon the estimates on thiS
account; but therein were not included the expenses for
superannuation and offices; and, altogether, he might esti-
mate the entire expense to the State of, as Lord Eldon said,
restraining the "gross and general breat=h of trust," at from
£40,000 to £15,000. The £216,000 of exemption represented
7 per cent. of the income of those charities ,and the expenses
to the State for management represented 11 per cent, more,
so that the quarter of a million which they cost amounted
to 8i p r cent. of their income, and that was what the State
expended on charities as such. Now, Parliament had from
time to time passed acts to bring the entire expenditure of
the State within the control of the House of Commons
Why was this part of the State expenditure to be shrouded
within the complicated sections of acts of Parliament, so
that Parliament could have no control over it. If Sir R.
Peel, in proposing, in 1812, the income tax, bad, with the
view of keeping charities wrier the eye of the State, re
commended the income tax to be levied on all property
without exemption, hut that the sum of £lOO,OOO, the
amount then levied on charities, were to Le voted from
year to year in their aii, this exemption accorded to death-
bed bequests, which was not granted to the alms of the liv-
ing, would nut stand the scrutiny of the House of Comm one
for a single year—(hear, hear)—and not one-tenth of the
charities now in the enjoyment of the exemption would re-
tain it. The charitable army had been marshalled in a skil-
ful manner; much had been done in putting the best foot
foremost. The claims of Bartholomew's Hospital, of the
orphans of the clergy, of the widows of Dissenting minis-
ters, rang in his ears, and the country was ask. d on their
account to continue a gift of a quarter of a million on be-
half of charities. There were generals who, by putting their
able.bodied in front, and by the proper disposition of women
and boys dressed as men (laughter) won their battles. On
this principal the doubtful part of the charities was kept in
skilful reserve. Charities for the purpose of this inquiry
might be divided into three classes—the small charities,
the middle charities, and the great charities. He included
in the small charities the funds of large charities, which
were distributed in small amounts. By the middle charities
he meant generally stipends of money to the extent of from
£2O to £4O a year, given for the most part to widows and
orphans. But if in the case of the small charities it were
proposed to assist them by the grant of Ss. to each, this
house would scarcely vote a single amount of ss. These
small charities were for the most part given for local poor
and local education. (Opposition cheers.) if they deserved
the toleration of the house, it was the most ;that they de-
served Three times had they been condemned by the
Charity Commissioners, by the Poor-law Commissioners of
1834, and by the Education Commissioners of two or three
years. He had received a deputation that day the charac-
ter and weight of which he would leave them to judge of.
The Bishop of London was a member of that deputation,
and the demand of that deputation was, that the exemp-
tion now existing should be continued as at present. The
predecessor of the Bishop of London had been a Poor-
law Commissioner in 1834, and the commissioners of
1834 had reported very unfavourably of those small cha-
rities, stating that to evils inherent in themselves they
added others of a very injurious and demoralis-
ing kind. The commissioners of 1861 equally con-
demned those charities in their report. He was desirous of
proving to the committee the real state of those charities.
There were several towns and country parishes where there
were enormous charities, as they were called. Now he
wanted to know upon what ground those parishes which
had no charities for their poor were called upon to give
money out of their own pockets to enlarge the endowments
in favour of the parishes which had those charities, No
greater injustice could be conceived. (Hear, hear.) An hon.
member had said to him that he had betrayed his duty as
member of Oxford University, by proposing to interfere
with the charities of the Established Church, thus propound-
ing the doctrine that as Chancellor of the Exchequer he was
under an obligation, before proposing a fiscal measure, to
ascertain whether the fiscal incidence of such measure would
be in favour of the communion to which he belonged, and
accordingly that he should adopt or reject it. (Hear, hear.)
He would take the class of charities for attendance at
church, which approximated to the character of a spiritual
bribe, for the parties were hardly ever known to attend ex-
cept when the charity dole was to be distributed. There
was not a city in the country which was mere rich in chari-
ties than Coventry, and yet what was the result ? Why that
at the very first appearance of distress the people were pros-
trated ; whereas, if they turned to Lancashire, where there
were comparatively few or no charities, theywould find that
distress was borne for more than a year before any appeal
was made to the public at large. (Cheers.) Application had
been made to him in favour of the " valuable" charities of
Bristol. The charities of Bristol were not valuable, but per-
nicious, encouraging indolence and mendicancy. (Hear.)
He was not going to say that the small charities were all
scandalous ; his argument only amounted to this, that they
had no claim to the public purse. The right hon. gentle-
man then referred to what was known as Jervis's Charity,
which ought to be known to fame. In 1793 Jervis died,
leaving property to the amount of £lOO,OOO, for the benefit
of the poor of three parishes in Herefordshire. There was
one thing which Jervis had forbidden, and that was build-
ing. The population of those places in 1801 was 816; in
1851 it increased 1,222. Why had it increased ? Was it
because trade had increased and higher wages could be ob-
tained ? No ; wages had fallen by 2s. a week. The popu-
lation increased because of the charitable dole. The case
had become so bad and the extent of the demoralisation so
great that an Act of Parliament had been obtained at great
expense to get rid of the evil; and the managers of the
charity did the only thing which Jervis had forbidden.
(Laughter.) They expended £30,000 in building. It was
not a university or college which they built, but a boarding
school fur the children of the three parishes. The real
meaning of which was, that the money of Jervis was to be
supplemented by the money of the State. The right hon.
gentleman next turned to the middle charities, and instanced
the Clergy Orphan Association, the income of which was
£5,000 a year. The income tax at 7d would be £145 a year
upon that property ; and perhaps the right hon. gentleman
the member for Oxfordshire would say that the Govern-
ment were robbing them of that. The charity was for the
orphans of the poor clergy, and let them see what was the
relief it afforded and what was the benefit which the Govern..
ment proposed to confer by the remission of the tax upon
£6O. He would take it there were 5,000 clergymen having
from £lOO to £l5O year, and 2,000 clergymen having £2OO
a year. The reduction to the 7,000 clergymen would be
equal to £7,000 a year, or about £1 per annum to each ;
while the £145 a year which the Government proposed to
take would be but £ll7s lad a year. Upon the small pri-
vate property in private hands there was levied a tax of
more than four times as much as was now proposed to be
levied upon corresponding amounts derived from charity
He next came to a consideration of the greater charities,
and they must be considered under two classes—First, the
great charities of education, such as Christ's Hospital ;
and, secondly, our great endowed hospitals. (Hear, hear

£B5O which the Government now invited 13a;liaent to
make it contt ibute to the taxation of the country. To that
statement there. was only one answer, namely, that St. Bar-
tholonact?e, as a recePfacle for the most miserable of the
community, ought to receive a public subvention. (Hear.)
As for hundreds of patients being dismissed from these
hospitals as the rem t of this proposal, his belief was that
none would be dismissed from them, for one of the greatest
objections to the present system was that the absence of
public control abrogated all effective motives for the econo-
mical management of charities. Why should they, for
example, spend a EMU of £220 annually upon a Inner at
St. Bartholomew's? But again, St. Bar tholomew's, as well
as Guy's and St. Thomas's, were thinking of their future
aggrandisement; and at St. Thomas's as much as 15 per
cent. of the income of the charity was spent on reproductive
investments, and on the improvement of its lands. 'Well,
but that was not to give immediate relief to the destitute.
(Hear, hear.) The fact was that the public grant for St.
Bartholomew's would be ten times preferable to absolute
exemption; for with a public grant they let in the light of
day. (Hear, hear.) But if it was proper that Parliament
should make a present of some thousands annually to the
charities of the country, he would ask was it right that the
grant should be confined to institutions that had it comes of
£20,0,0 or £30,000 a year? Was it not fair to remember
the case of the unendowed hospitals of the young and
struggling institutions? The rapid growth of those charities
ought not to escape the notice of Parliament. Strange to
s iy their income grew more rapidly than the property of the
community at large. Within the last 32 years it might be
taken that their income had groan from £1,200,000 to
£3,000,000. The income of what was known as Jones's
Charity, and which was possessed of some 32 acres of land
at Deptford, would, before any long period had elapsed, be
enormous. The charity known as Tonbridge School, and
which now educated 200 young gentlemen, would soon have
an income of £BO,OOO a year. Again, Smith's Charity at
Kensington within a limited number of years would have
an income of £50,000. The Government brought forward
this measure not as one of financial necessity, but as a just
and politic measure ; and although they would not presume
to press it upon an adverse House of Commons, yet they
did not hesitate to commend it to the justice, the equity,
the courage,!and the wisdom of Parliament. (The right
hon. gentleman resumed his seat amidst loud cheers, after
having spoken for two hours and ten minutes.)
Sir S. NOR fHCOTE said The eloquent speech of his
right hon. friend was marked by certain fallacies which
made themselves apparent throughout his remarks. He
(Sir S. Northcote) contended the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, from the idolus specus which he was in the habit of
seeing from his cave at the Treasury, looked on every man
as one liable to pay a tax, and if he took £5 out of the
pocket of one who had £lOO a year, claimed credit that he
had presented him the remaining £95, and made him respon-
sible for the manner in which he spent that £95. (Laugh-
ter.) The authority of all finance was in favour of exemp-
tion to charities ; and this was done on the ground that the
tax was laid not on property, but on persons in respect of
their property. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in this
matter forgot hie observation of a few nights ago, that the
true basis of the tax was equality; for he would seek in the
case of a small income, whether the recipient was drawing
it from charity or from other property, and tax it in the
former case. It was necessary on that night to go into de-
tails. The house had affirmed the principle of the bill on its
second reading, and care must be taken now, if at all, that
individuals were not to suffer from this new mode of taxa-
tion. When they talked of equality, did the Chancellor of
the Exchequer think he would accomplish equality when he
extended the income tax to those charities ? The right hon.
gentleman proposed not to remove the exemptions set forth
in the income tax, such as the stock of friendly societies
when under £2OO, and the like. Did the right hon. gentle-
man mean to leave friendly societies in their present posi-
tion ? He was sorry the hon. member for Rochdale and
the hon. member for Birmingham were not in their places,
as they might be able to give them some information
with regard to the Rochdale Equitable Pioneer Associa-
tion. There had been ranch dissatisfaction created among
some of the trades of that town, owing to the manner in
which this association had carried on its operations. He
found from a printed paper of the association that they
had divided among the members last year upwards of
£17,000 in the shape of profits; and as the Chancellor of
the Exchequer spoke of exemption as a present, was the
right hon. gentleman prepared to make the trades of Roch-
dale give a present to this association with its profits of
£17,000. The right hon. gentleman had brought a great
indictment against the founders of charitable bequests; they
had been told of Jervis and Smith's charities; Smith was a
great sinner because he had left his property to his poor re-
lations, and Jervis was a great sinner because he had not
left his property to his poor relations. (Opposition cheers.)
By this measure the Government were inflicting a blow
upon the recipients of bequests which had been left years
and years ago. If there were abuses connected with those
charities, let them reform those abuses; but let them pro-
ceed upon sound principles, and not in the present crude
manner. He spoke in this matter with a perfectly clear
conscience. He was sitting on a commission that was in-
quiring into the endowment of public schools, and he was
quite sure the commission would recommend many im-
portant improvements in the mode of dealing with these
endowments. (gear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman had
spoken of the abuses of Christ's Hospital, but let him apply
himself to the task of reforming them in such a way as Par-
liament had done with the universities. Let the Chancellor
of the Exchequer deal with the small charities if they were
bad, but let him not come upon the middle charities. (Hear.)
Was the Government, was the house, going to condemn the
policy of the great public endowments of the country ? Were
they prepared to throw all the institutions of the country
upon private charity and State aid—the only two sources
in continental countries ? But in this country they had
great and noble endowments, and if there ever was a
moment when they should be cautious of laying a tax
upon charity it was the present, when the public had
made such munificent contributions towards the relief of
Lancashire distress, The Government might say they
were not going to lay a tax upon voluntary contribu-
tions; but let them recollect that, when a drain of
this kind took place, the ordinary charities must suffer
unless they had the endowments to fall back upon. (Cheers )
The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel suffered a loss
last year of £l,OOO upon their usual income, and other cha-
rities suffered in a similar manner. He asked the Govern-
ment, on the ground of expediency, to reconsider their pro-
position. Daring the autumn not a speech would be made
at any charity, nut a subscription solicited, not a circular
issued, in which reference would not be made to this new
tax, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be pre-
ant to explain that it was no tax. (Cheers and laughter.)
The measure would create discontent and perplexity
throughout the country, and he trusted the Government
would not try to force a measure through that house
against the feeling of the public. He therefore hoped
the Government would withdraw the measure, and not
put them to the necessity of voting on it. (Cheers.) He
hoped the committee would go to a division on the whole
clause and not on the amendment of the hon. member for

Christ's Hospital enjoyed the most illustrious patronage,
and those who were connected with it no doubt exercised
their powers under excellent principles and with the best in-

Rochdale, and that it would be negatived by a large majority.
Mr. MAGUIRE considered the proposal an unwise one,
and unworthy so great a statesman as the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. He was opposed to the imposition of the tax
on charities. He considered it absurd to say that the State
was giving them a boon. The proposition was no other than

tsntions. By the calculation of 8 per cent. Christ's Hospi-
tal received annually £6,000 from the pockets of the people,
not one shilling of which, he contended, was the hospital
entitled on any ground of right or principle to receive.
(Hear, hear.) Christ's Hospital was founded for the poorest
of the poor, "the fatherless and motherless children, and
the sick, sore, and impotent people." Who were, he asked,
"the sick, sore, and impotent people" who were now to be
found in Christ's Hospital? (Hear, hear.) Why, they had
gradually improved in circumstances, and had worked them-
selves up in society with the increak ing wealth of the nation,
and now they were children of persons with incomes of
£2OO, £3OO, £4OO, and in some cases £5OO per annum.
(Hear, hear.) H e denied that that class of persons was for
one moment entitled to call on Parliament for a public vote
in aid of education for their children; and no man would
dare to ask in that house for a vote of £5,000, £5OO, or even
£5, for such an institution. (Hear, hear.) The governors
had said that, by the imposition of the income tax, they
would have to pay £2,000 per annum; and by the use of
those faculties with which he was blessed, he found that
that sum represented anincome of about £70,000 per annum,
including of course that amount which was now paid by
the receivers of salaries belonging to the institution, because
where some service was rendered, it was not a charity, and
the person did not escape income tax; thus the poor curate
who does something for his income paid the tax, whilst
the poor knight, of Windsor, for instance, who really did
nothing, paid nothing. (Hear, hear.) Christ's Hospital
had 500 governors, who came into the possession of their
office by the payment of £5OO each; and it was a spirit
stirring reflection to find that there were between 15 and
16 men ready annually to pay £5OO each to the hospital.
The £5OO was not merely alms, but for obtaining a vested
right-12,000 presentations. After referring to the work-
ing of the charity, and exposing many of its abuses and in-
consistencies, he proceeded to show by contrast the differ-
ence between that institution and King's College, and then
passed to the consideration of the endowed hospitals, select-
ing St. Bartholomew's Hospital as an illustration. That
hospital had an income of £36,000. It now paid £2OO per
annum income tax, and by his proposition it would be in-
creased by £B5O. Against this was to be placed the advan-
tages derived by the hospital from the increased value of
land, arising from recent beneficial legislation as well as
benefit from the great reductions that had taken place of
late years in our customs tariffs. The income of the hospi
tal in 1841 was £31,335, and in 1861, 20 years after the im-

to lax poverty—the poor, the wretched, and the miserable,
and to deprive poor children of education. Rather than

as them it would be better to reform their abuses.

Lord H. VANE was unable to agree with the argu-
ments used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in sup-
port of the Government proposition. For the first time,
and contrary to all authority and precedent, the Govern-
ment proposed to subject hospitals to an income tax. In no

other country would the proposition to tax hospitals be en-
tertained for a moment. The strongest disapprobation to
the measure was entertained throughout the country,
Great abuses, no doubt, existed in the smaller charities, and
that they possessed large funds which might be better
appropriated ; but that was no argument for their adopting
so unwise, so unjust, and so inexpedient a measure. Be
hoped the committee would reject the clause.
Mr. W. MARTIN spoke in favour of the exemption of
county hospitals, which were not in the habit of entering
150 cases annually. The funds and subscriptions of
county hospitals were limited, and they had no means of
raising large annual sums. He considered it was for the

interest of every county that there should b 3 an hospital
within its limits, and he had no doubt that people would
cheerfully submit to their exemption from the tax.
Lord R. CECIL said there appearedito be no supporter
of the.measure on the Minisierial side of the house. No
doubt they would have the Solicitor-General by and by, for
he appeared to be the only solitary barrel the Government
had loaded ready to fire, and he no doubt was kept back till
he could be fired with greater effect. Referring to the speech
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the noble lord said it
was a furious attack on charitable institutions and the
donors, and that he had spoken with bitterness of the liv-
ing, and raged with absolute fury against the dead, lie
condemned what he called the sophistry of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, and said that his speech was unworthy
of a great statesman. He defended the memory of the donors
of charities from the unworthy motives attributed to them
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The only question
involved in the issue before the committee was, whether the
recipients of these charities received more than £lOO a year,
for if they did not, then, as a matter of bare justice and
right, they were entitled to be exempted from the tax. It
was in compensation to such people that they were ex-
empted from the operations of the Probate and Succession
Duties ; for by the policy of our law the rich alone were
subjected to that tax. In telling the committee that the
great hospitals should be taxed, because they had gained so
enormously by the commercial legislation of late years, the
right hon. gentleman was excelling his usual sophistry;
while he seemed to envy the heritage of the poor, and to con-
sider that it was a great national calamity, as he dwelt upon
the circumstance of these hospitals becoming every day
richer. (Hear, hear.) But the truth was, the right hon.
gentleman could not have selected a more unhappy mo-
ment for mooting such fanciful philosophy than in those
days of Lancashire distress ; and therefore it was to be
hoped that the committee would reject the proposal by a
large majority. (Cheers.)
A slight pause then ensued, and no member rising to
address the committee, although the benches on both sides

position of the income tax, it had increased to £36,030.
h(Hadearder)iveWd fromhat the
leeariesfloart
io aidn bc
consequence
enns e
qt hueenbceenoe
ffi t
theth eopheorsaptiitoanl
of the income tax in reducing taxation ? Taking the con-
sumption of tea, which was 3,2461 b, at 5d per lb, that reduc-
tion was equal to an endowment of £192 148 7d ; sugar and
treacle, £B2 15s; soap, £26 2s 6d; butter and eggs, £l4l 2s
3d; spirits, £9B 15s 10d ; and wine, £2BB 13s. The reduc-
tion on drugs and medicines was Z 415; making altogether
a difference of £1.245 per annum in favour of the hospital.
Well, adding to that amount 50 per cent, for other articles
of food, and for articles of clothing, end for building mate-
rials,
of a tliell2,ll.l6c4f:lnmanedtadthxaaittrhSornt;;Bhgahrtthtlaheoeleornhenideuanwct'eeisodlin
voosafplduiuteatloiefws,apisnrodapeseburttmoyr
bXeln,4efi4o,
tretcoegievtalier dbymsakt,inzgarthi3,o3loo7masswetl:eagdaiirnesottthp:csuunmiaroyf

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 5, 1861

were crdwdedi the question was then put from the chair,

w:sen,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUEk- said,—This
debate having ben brought to a c'ose, we have further
means of ascertaining the opinion of the committee upon the
proposal submitted to them. It was certainly not the in-
tention of the Government to press this as a merely official
proposal on the part of the Executive upon the notice of the
house, unless the house itself showed a disposition to receive
it. Our opinions upon it are fixed and clear ; but as the
debate has come to a close without any independent member
having declared himself in the same sense, I am bound to
say that I think the case has arisen which I contemplated
earlier in the evening, and that it would not bo consistent if
we were to take the sense of the committee upon the clause.
(Loud Opposition cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI—I must say that the announcement
which has just been made appears to me a very rational de-
termination. (Cheers and laughter.) At the same time, I
never heard an announcement for which I was less prepared
than by the speech of the right hon. gentleman in which this
proposition was introduced. (Hear.) I should not have risen
to make any remark after the last observations of the
right hon. gentleman had they not been preceded by a
speech which appears to me to have introduced to the con-
sideration of the house principles so dangerous—(hear,
hear)—l would even say so monstrous—(hear, hear)—that I
think it hardly becomes the house, after having heard such
an address from the Government, to allow the debate to
close in silence without attempting to obtain some evidence
that the opinions which have been advocated to-night by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer are at least shared by his
colleagues, and especially by the First Minister of the
Crown, (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The speech of the
right hon. gentleman was at once answered by my hon.
friend (Sir S. Northcote) with a thorough knowledge of the
subject, and touching, as I thought, with a master hand
those glittering fallacies which had been introduced with
such confidence to the attention of the house. (Hear,
hear.) The debate went on. No one rose on the part of
the Government to answer the objections which had been
made to the proposal of the right hon. gentleman, and
I think it was due to him, due to the house, and to the
character of the Government that some answer should have
been made to the objections urged to a proposition brought
forward in a tone of so much confidence,—l will not say of
so much dictation. Sir, under ordinary circumstances,
when the Government had withdrawn a measure put for-
ward with so much parade I should willingly have remained
silent. But here occasion was taken to circulate principles
of policy to which the Government may recur upon sub-
sequent occasions, as if those principles had received some
sanction from the silence of the house ; and the opinions
which have been promulgated by the right hon. gentleman
to-night appear to me to be such as should not be allowed
to pass unnoticed. (Hear, hear.) Some short time ago the
right hon. gentleman introduced his general financial state-
ment, and when I listened to it I was extremely anxious
that it should pass, as to its main features, without any
organized opposition, for I felt confident that in the course
of the discussion which would arise the objectionable parts
in it would disappear and be withdrawn, without
being painfully obtruded upon the attention of the house.
For such a result I was anxious for the honour of the House
of Commons, because the budget of the right hon. gentleman
in its main features was the budget of the House of Com-
mons, Last year the house was called upon—never mind
who called upon it for the decision; let us not stop now to
consider on what side of the house he may sit—was called
upon to decide whether it was not expedient in the state of
our finances to counsel the Government to make a consider-
able reduction in the public expenditure, seeing that by that
reduction alone could the requisite relief in taxation be ob-
tained. (Hear,) We were then told that reduction of expen-
diture to any considerable amount was perfectly illusory,
that no one could venture to touch the great sources of ex-
penditure in the army and navy, and that the man was guilty
of subserviency and servility to France who could for a mo-
ment, in however moderate a tone, intimate the wisdom, the
policy, and the possibility of such a course. This session
has brought forward a very different view of public affairs.
Economy is possible. It is not subserviency or servility to
France to obtain by the most salutary and legitimate means
a reduction of the public burdens. And I say that for the
great measures of reduction brought forward by the Govern-
ment we are indebted to the House of Commons, and not to
the Government ; that it is the House of Commons which
has reduced the tea duty and the income tax, and that in
those main features it is the budget of the House of Com-
mons. (Hear.) Sir, I regretted to find that along with
these some remarkable features of eccentric invention were
again introduced by the right hon. gentleman, as if to vin-
dicate his title to financial originality, and renew his claims
to the wonder and gratitude of an admiring Parliament.
(Hear, and laughter.) I was very much interested in op-
posing the tax upon carriers, for I could realise, with many
other members, especially those on this side of the house,
the amount of ingenious vexation which that extraordinary
device would certainly have secured. (Hear, and laughter.)
That tax, however, disappeared before the order of
battle could be formed. (Hear, hear.) Then there was
the plan for taxing clubs. After listening to the bewilder-
ing rhetoric of the right hon. gentleman I hardly know
whether it has passed; but if it is any consolation to him to
feel that though defeated by the charities he has at last been
a conqueror of the clubs, he may cherish that consolation
this evening. (Laughter.) It is possible that before our la-
bours terminate that eccentricity may also disappear from
the budget of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) But
to-night our attention was called to an invention of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer which was of a much more
serious character than those just referred to. This is
ano-
ther unnecessary novelty in our finance—one in itself ob-
jectionable, but still more objectionable from the manner in
which it has been introduced, and the principles with
which in discussion it has been associated by the Govern-
ment. (Cheers.) Now, to-night, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer called on us to tax the charities of the country ;
and he would have been perfectly justified in making
that appeal if he could have established a case which
would have recommended itself to our consideration.
(Hear, hear.) I am quite sure that if the principles on
which he recommended that course were such as would have
satisfied our reason, no sentimental objections would have
prevented the House of Commons from responding to his
appeal. But he laid down a principle which is the basis of
all the injudicious arguments which he has treated us to this
evening. This principle is, that the charities which are
exempted from taxation may be looked upon as donatives of
the ts 7 tate. That was the basis of the entire of the eloquent
harangue to which fur two hours we listened with so much
pleasure and with much more surprise. (A laugh.) What-
ever train of reasoning, whatever novelty of argument,
whatever new conception the right hon. gentleman ad-
vanced, that may be taken as the fundamental principle
of his policy and his harangue—a principle which I say is
utterly false in its premises, and equally fallacious in
its consequences. (Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the
Exchequer assumes that exemption from taxation is the
same as a contribution by the State of an equivalent
amount of money to the person or the property. (Hear.) Is
that so ? I deny it. (Hear.) Yon may have an injudicious
and unjust exemption, as unquestionably you may have an
injudicious and unjust tax ; but an exemption, if founded
on justice, is founded on the assumption that you have esta.
blished your claim. On that principle you ought not to be
liable to the tax, and the exemption is a just one. That
exemption is not a privilege--it is a right. (Cheers, and a
cry of hear.) An hon. gentleman says "Hear," as if the
onus In ob4ndi was upon me to show that this exemption is a
just one. But we have not got as far as that. The argu-
ment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is founded on
what he deems the abstract truth that any exemption is a
donation from the State. I deny the principle which is
advanced. I say we have a right to assume that the exemp-
tion is founded on justice, and that there is nothing in the
abstract assumption which for a moment justifies the posi-
tion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making it the
foundation of an attack upon our charities. It is for the
House of Commons to decide whether they believe the
claim of these charities to be exempted from taxation is just
in itself. (Hear, hear.) That is an entirely different pro-
position from that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
namely, that exemption is a contribution to the person or
property. What we have to decide to-night is whether the
exemption enjoyed by those charities is sound in principle
or not. (Hear, hear.) Having laid down that principle,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer proceeded, in a strain of
argument, or I should rather say invective, against the in-
stitutions which enjoy the exemption. The greater part of
his speech was directed not against the intolerable state of
affairs which allowed a large portion of property to be un-
justly exempted from the incidents of taxation, but was an in-
vective against the very nature of this property, against the
very conditions on which it existed, against the principle
which has called it into existence, against the practices and
traditions of an ancient country. (Cheers). The right hon.
gentleman, proceeding always in that line, and weakened
and embarrassed, in spite of all his ingenuity, by the false
course on which he had started, was obliged to misdescribe
the character of the income tax itself. He argued through-
out that it was a tax on property, while, if there be anything
clear, anything universally acknowledged in finance—and
this I think my hon. friend the member for Stamford put
before the house in a conclusive manner—it is that the in.;
come tax is a tax on persons, and not on property. Being a
tax on persons, we naturally ask why are those persons who
are not in the enjoyment of the amount of income at which,
under your ordinary regulations, the tax commences--
why are they to be liable to this impost, while others
enjoying the same or a larger income are free? The
answer is, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer
chooses to entertain views of those endowments different
from those which have always influenced Parliament for at
least the last century and a half, and opposed to the opinions
and convictions of the country. (Cheers.) And what is the
remedy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for all those
evils—for all that vicious principle which is the foundation
of the endowments of England, for all that mismanagement,
for all that impolitic state of affairs which he denounces
with so much power ? What is his remedy for the enor-
mous imperfections in the old bequests—from the evils in
those petty charities which he has called forth from their
obscure existence--for the abuses:connected with those mag-
nificent endowments for hospitals and colleges which have
contributed so much to the promotion of education and the
development of benevolence in this country ? (Hear, hear.)
Why, it is the application of the income-tax. (Hear,
hear, and a laugh.) The condition of cur chorale* has