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

- . --
cited to it, but the conviction of the Government wi

that it was a wise one, and that it was a very mild and
temperate compromise—nay, that it was an equitable, and
even in a high degree a lenient compromise in regard to the
great mass of the charities. But havieg made that state-
.

went he was bound at once to make the admission that it
was a proposal which ought only to be carried with the free
and deliberate sanction of Parliament, and that it was not

one in respect to which the influence of the Administration,
either in a greater or less degree, ought to be made to bear.
The question was new to public discussion ; but he had a
confidence in the fairness and justice of the House of Com-
mons which induced him fearlessly to appeal to it for a fair
and candid hearing of the case. He might be told that Mr.
Pitt and Sir Robert Peel were both against his proposal;
but he should demur to such an assertion. The income tax
under Mr. Pitt was a personal tax, and it was hardly pos.
sible for him to have got at the revenues of corporations.
In reality, it was under Lord Sidmouth that the exemption
of charities from the income tax was inaugurated, and at
the time little was known of the charities of the country,
except that they were in a state shameful to those who had
the administration of them. Such was the description of
their conditions placed on record by Lord Eldon—no re-
forming or radical authority. But then Six Robert Peel
had been quoted as the author of the exemption. Why, in
the session:of 1845 a bill was introduced by Lord Lyndhurst,
acting on behalf of Sir Robert Peel's Government, propos-
ing a tax of 6d upon all charities. There could be no doubt
that 19-20ths of the charities of the country were constituted
of deathbed bequests. Deathbed bequests were restrained
by law in most countries ; but in our country they were only
restrained when they took a particular form, a remarkable
instance of the freedom which was permitted by the law of
England to individual caprice. Still a deathbed request could
not be regarded as charity in the same high Christian sense as
when a man dealt with that which was his own. (Hear.)
It was not to be denied that such bequests might have their
origin in laudable motives; but, on the other hand, it was
equaly true they too often proceeded from motives not laud-
able, and that they were only made out of that which it was
impossible for man to retain. The 10 per cent. charge on
legacies was not a char,4e upon charities. If the tes-
tator wished to give the entire sum in charities, he left it
free from legacy duty, and the 10 per cent. was a charge
upon the testator's estate. L, was not wise for the State to
give temptations to death •bed bequests. He had proceeded
on the assumption that an exemption was a gift, and that
what the State remitted a man it gave to him. It was not
wise to give temptations, in the rim of gifts of public

money, to men to endeavour to immortalise
utitthemselves as
founders. (Sensation.) He might be wrong, b
seemed
an anomaly that a man might to the day of his death enjoy
the accumulation of his wealth, and then unite to that en-
joyment the merit of almsgiving by a will opened when he
was gene, and have the fame of btiug the founder of a par-
ticular institution, when, if ho had been content with the
common lot of making provision for individuals, his name
would have passed into oblivion. The gift of public money
to encourage this, in the form of an exemption, was obtained
at the expense of the public. He was aware of X 150,000 be-
ing left to charitable uses becauee the testator had an aver-
sion towards his relatives—(laughter)—and he put it to the
committee whether it was fair that the Legislature was called
on to encourage by gifts of public money such a disposition_
If the State did not interfere with the wills of private indivi-
duals, so as to interfere with their gold in this manner, at
least it ought not to assist bequests so going. And whatever
cost to the State to those exemptions in favour of death-
bed bequests, the Legislature became responsible for them;
however mischievous or scandalous any of them might be,
it assisted such with a gift of public money. But this was
O OOto
a portion of taxation. Now, the income of
18
of thzello7oioteod,
King-
dom from property amounted to from

£190,000.000 a year. Of this property one-sixtieth, or

£3,000,000, was possessed by public charities in a legal sense.

The taxation imposed on this £190,000,000 was about
£13,000,000 a year, of which one• half was paid in income
sax, The amount of exemption enjoyed by charities, which