The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-01 00:00:00

hon. friend the member for Leeds said in a portion of his
speech that they would turn out patients and persons now
in the enjoyment of incomes from charitable sources. '1 hat
was not the case, because the bill contained a provision for
the protection of individuals, and also another important
provision, that where there was a margin of other funds
from which the tax could be met, in no case should a de-
duction be made from those persons who were beneficiaries,
or recipients of the charity under fixed allowances. He
would undertake to show, when the time arrived, that so
far from the property of charities being in a worse position
then the care of individuals with less than £lOO per an-
num, it would be on a much better footing. The question
was very intricate, and he confessed that he had some diffi-
culty in obtaining the knowledge he required in reference
to it, but he should be prepared to make a clear and full
statement when it came on for discussion on Monday next.
It was desirable that they should approach the discussion
of the matter in a comprehensive manner, and he assured
the house there would be no desire to precipitate a decision
on it, but to give every opportunity for it• being thoroughly
sifted. The proposal had been made on the ground of strict
justice, and it would be for the house to adopt or reject it.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE argued that it was unuesirable
to enter into a general discussion on the subject before the
proper time. Though he disagreed with his noble col-
league that there was any impropriety in the course
adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, yet he was
struck with the observation that it would have been de-
sirable to have hed a previous discussion in committee on
resolutions which would have put the house in possession
of much of that information without which it was impos-
sible to arrive at a proper decision upon this complicated
question. The bill was now before them, so Mr as
he could judge front it. no provision was made for pro-
tem ing particular funds, such as the Patriotic Fund.
He considered it was desirable that early information shou' d
be given on various matters on which the public mind was
forming itself, in ignorance of the Government proposal
The right hon. gentleman had said, in answer to a question
put to him. that it was proposed to put the tax on endow-
ments, and not en voluntary contributions. Now, he (Sir
S. Nortbcote) wished to know what would be done in the
case of a fund such, for instance, as that which had bees
subscribed for the Lancashire distress The committee were
in possession of more money than they could expend at
once, and, with a view to economy, it was funded and
drawn out as re quired, and he wished to know if that would
be considered hargeable to the income tax. Ha asked the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the house and the
country information to what extent the Government in-
,euded to modify the bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, with the
indulgence of the house, said the object of the Government
was to lay a tax upon the great mass of public endowments,
and endowments were understood to mean investments of
a permanent character, as distinguished froie investments
of a temporary charac'er, and held as it were for a floating
purpose for carrying out the aetails of philanthropic plans.
Religious societies depend on their annual subscriptions,
and they were charged to their full extent, and in order to
meet their engagements it was requisite for them to hold
small sums in reserve v hich they sold out in the course of
the year. The proposal of the Government would make
provision for exempting those cases, but he did not think
it wise to perplex the bill with minute details in regard to
theft. Ample notice would be given fur the consideration
and discussion of the subject.
Mr. WALPOLE said it was difficult to comprehend the
nature of the Government proposition. He thought the
tax would press heavier on the funds of the Bartholomew
Hospital than had been represented by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer. The income was stated by the right hon.
gentleman to be £30,000, and the tax no more than £7OO
per annum, but 7d. in the £1 on that sum would amount to
upwards of £l,OOO per annum.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the hospital now paid on the officers' dwelling-houses and
salaries about £.260 a year.
Mr. WALPOLE said that he never understood that the
bill was intended to apply to voluntary subscriptions.
The important proposition the right hon. gentleman the

Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to address him-
self to was, whether the recipients of those charities
were to be treated as separate individuals, or whether the
trustees of the charities would be treated as individuals
receiving incomes on which, as individuals, they would
have to pay income tax. Every principle laid down for
taxing charity property had forced itself to th it distinction.
The legacy duty of 10 per c.nt. was applicable to charities,
where the property was given to trustees in a lump sum for
general distribution; but if it was left to pay sums not ex-
ceeding £l5 to each of the recipients of the charity it paid
no duty, because the sums to be paid were under £2O, the
minimum at which legacy duty was paid. That was a
distinction that ought always to be kept in view in dealing

with charity property.
Mr. BAGWELL said the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would experience considerable opposition from Irish members
on the point of taxing charities.

Mr. HENLEY said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
informed the house, with great candour, that this was an
Intricate question, and that he had experienced some trouble
and difficulty in understanding it. If it was so intricate
and difficult as the right hon. gentleman had stated, how
was it possible that any hon. member unconnected with the
Government could underst.nd the question he would be
called upon to vote on Monday with the imperfect informa-
tion they then possessed? The intricacy of the subject

showed its importance. He understood the right hon.
gentleman to say that the operation of the measure was not
to be retrospective, but there was no information on that
point. He had tried to form the best opinion he could upon
the bill, but it was like a thick hedge, through which no
man could get hisleyes, much mole his head and body.
(Laughter.) He hoped the house would have more time to
consider the matter. The right hon.gentlemandescribed this
as a just measure, but it was the first time he (Mr. Henley)
had heard it said it was just to rob the poor; and he ven-
tured to say that that was the first time such a notion of

justice had entered the head of a Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. The right hon. gentleman considered it right
to tax the poor, the halt, the lame, and the blind, and
that was his new system of justice. It was, however,
to be hoped that the house would have time to fully dis-
cuss that new code of justice before they were asked to
adopt it. He thought the proposition should be printed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained
tbat he said the new tax would take between £7OO and £BOO
a year from St. Bartholomew's Hospital. With regard to
the intricacy of the question his remark had reference not
to the intricacy of the proposition, for that was very plain,
but to the present law. The Government proposition was
very intelligible, but if hon. members wished for further
information he should be ready and willing to give it.
After a few remarks from Lord LOVAINE,
Sir M. FARQUHAR said the proposal was of great im-

Portanco and of universal interest to the public, and it was
de-irable to know the precise effect of the Government pro-
position. He called upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer
to allow ample time for the consideration of his proposal.
Lord J. MANNERS said the house did not want any
explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the
existing law. Hon. members on both sides were perfectly
conversant with the law, at d, what was more, they were
perfectly content with it. (Heat.) What they wanted to
know was the intention of the right hon. gentleman with
respect to that law.
Lord H. VANE must also join in expressing a hope that

hho qw-stion would not be pressed upon thehousetuiti

sufficient time bad been allowed for consideration. (Hear,

hear.) There was no doubt that a very strong feeling had

arisen adverse to the proposal, and that it was regarded by
very many as a retrograde policy. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON recommended that the Chancellor

of the Exchequer should take until to-morrow to deciae as
to his course. In his view the right hon. gentleman ought

to make an 0' planatory statement on Monday, and then
allow of a sufficient interval for deliberation, before calling

upon the hon.e to come to a vote with respect to the proposal.
Mr. MALINS pronounced the proposal to tax charities
a most impolitic one, although he considered the budget as
a whole the best which the right hon. gentleman had ever
produced.

Mr. KINNAIRD concurred in the recommendation that
ample lime Should be allowed for the consideration of the

questioa.

Mr. CARDWELL impressed upon the house the desira-
bility of refraining from a discussion of the subject piece-
meal, but to await the explanatory statement of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer on Monday.
The bill was then read a second time.
STOCK CERTIFICATES TO BEARER BILL.
On the order of the day for going into committee on this

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose to
I explain its provisions. He said that the machinery for
the administration of the public debts of the country
was somewhat peculiar; still it was most adairable for
its purpose, and was marked with the greatest possible skill
and rfticiency by the Bank of England, as well as by the
Bank of Ireland. Nor, in introducing this bill, did the Go-
vernment desire to make any fundamental change in the
system, although at the same time it was capable of im-
provement. In the first place, it did not offer the greatest
possible facilities to those who found it necessary to borrow
money on the security of stock ; and therefore, an important
object of this bill was to establish the most perfect freedom
in regard to the borrowing of money on the security of stock,
by the creation of stock certificates payable to bearer, which
might be transferred from hand to hand with the same faci-
ity as a bank note. Ihe bill would be a greet convenience,
and bring more buyers and holders into the market, It
would also create dewing in stock in foreign and provincial
markets at present almost unknown. Though an anti►
centralising measure, and one likely to affect to a certain
extent the business of the broker and banker, it had been
received with general approval in London, The provisions
of the bill were as follows—lt proposed to give every holder
of stock the option of exchanging his registered stock for
certificates to bearer, with interest payable by coupon. The
period for which interest sh uld run was a matter for consi-
deration, which would be determined upon the best advice,

if the bill passed into law, tiaough it was not likely that it
would be for less than five years or for more than ten years.
The transfers of stock into these new certificates would only
be, in round numbers, carrying them down as low as certifi-
cates of XiO, capital representing a yearly interest of 30s,
and a half-yearly interest of 15s. The benefits of the bid