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

£B5O which the Government now invited Parliament to
make it contribute to the taxation of the country. To that
statement there was only one answer, namely, that St. Bar-
tholomew's, as a receptacle 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 resmt 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 sum of £220 annually upon a dinner at
St. Bartholomew's? But again, St. Bat 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 incomes of
£20,0U0 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
say 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 grown 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,land 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 12HCOTE 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 ho
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 his 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 much 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 bon. 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 entlowment of public schools, and he was
quite sure the commission would recommend many im-
portant improvements in the mode of dealing with these
endowments. (Hear, 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 ail 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-
sent 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
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
to tax poverty—the poor, the wretched, and the miserable,
and to deprive poor children of education. Rather than
tax 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 Eo inexpedient a measure. He
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. lie 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 It. CECIL said there appeared,to 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 til

he could be fired with greater effect. Referring to the speech

of the Chancellor of tho Exchequer, the noble lord said ii

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. He

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