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

for thirty years more Or lees attracted the attention of
the Legislature. The Crown has issued commissions a.:4
Parliament has appointed committees, the labours of
whit h have been eminently judicious and useful. I
should doubt, therefore, under any circumstances, whether it
was wise, or necessary, or eipedisnt on the part of Govern.
ment to call public attention to the character of those insti-
tutions with a view to any change in their management or
character. But if the Government are of opinion that those
endowments are so injurious to the public weal ; if the Go-
vernment are of opinion that the statement of the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer is justified by the facts; if the Go-
vernment are of opinion that this is a question which de-
mands our immediate and careful attention--and there is
nothing to justify such a conclusion in what we see at pre-
sent—they should have brought the subject forward in such
a manner as that we could have dealt with it in a satis-
factory manner. (Hear, hear.) It is totally inadequate
to hold out to us as a sufficient means of remedial agency
that we should apply the income-tax to those institutions.
(Cheers.) As I before observed, every point that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer has raised to-day, and which he has
placed before us with all the aid that ingenious casuistry
could supply, springs from one principle, which is unnatu-
ral and illusory. All his arguments are based on the false
assumption that exemption from taxation is naturally un-
just. lam not surprised that the house and the coun •
try, even in so short a space of time as has elapsed
since the right hon. gentleman made his financial state-
ment, should have been agitated and risen against a pro-
position so monstrous. (Cheers.) It offends all the feel-
ings and traditions which have been cherished in this
country—all our local associations—all that veneration for
the principle of inheritance to which we have so long ad-
hered. (Hear, hear.) We heard arguments to-night which
were a denunciation of endowments, and almost an appeal
for confiscation. (Hear, hear.) That this proposition should
have been introduced as a part of a financial scheme is sur-
prising; that it should have been introduced for so slight a
financial end or object is still more astonishing. (Hear.)
That when it was in their power, not from their own happy
imaginings, but following the sense of the House of Com-
mons, to effect some of those great reductions of taxation
which our advise and public opinion had indicated, they
should have unnecessarily introduced a discussion of prin-
ciples which almost disturb the foundations of the State,
appears to me to be a course of conduct which the most bril-
liant rhetoric cannot justify, and which I think may lead to
consequences that the Government will hereafter regret.
(Cheers.) Sir, I shall only hope that this objectionablepro-
position, which was introduced with so much pomp, and
has been withdrawn in a manner so unpretending, may be
the last of the endeavours to attack the endowments of this
country, of which the wisdom of our times may improve
the application, but which are founded upon a principle
that has contributed to the greatness of this country, and
that I trust this country will always cherish. (Loud
cheers).
Lord PALMERSTON—I am anxious, sir, to answer the
question which the right hon. gentleman opposite asked at
the commencement of his speech—namely, whether the
proposal made by my right hon. friend was his own pro-
posal singly, or was one in which his colleagues also con-
curred. Sir, lam happy to be able to assure the right hon,
gentleman that the course pursued by my right hon. friend
and the proposal he made were entirely concurred in by all
his colleagues. (" Hear," a laugh, and cries of " Divide,
then.") If none of those colleagues rose for some time to
support him, it was entirely because they felt that his ad-
mirable and most convincing speech—(laughter and ironical
cheers and counter cheers)—was both unanswerable and un-
answered. The right hon. gentleman opposite has reduced
his objections to what he called one fundamental point. He
says the whole foundation of my right hon. friend's argu-
ment was that an exemption from taxation was equiva-
lent to a grant from the country. Well, I maintain that
that is perfectly sound. (Hear, hear.) As long as your ex-
penditure is a fixed sum it is demonstrable that if you ex-
empt a portion of the community from contributing their
share to the taxation by which that sum is to be raised, you
do virtually grant them a part of the fund which comes from
the rest of the public to defray your expenditure ; and, there •
fore, when the right hon. gentleman opposite talks of a fal-
lacy, I must say I neverheard such a fallacy as he has sought
to establish by denying that an exemption from taxation is
equivalent to a grant of public money. The right hon. gentle •
man argues, indeed, that it is not so, because he says that the
fact of the exemption implies that it is just. But that is
begging the whole question. (Hear.) No doubt if a person
is justly entitled to exemption, when you concede a right
to him you don't confer a boon. But we deny, and no man
has yet proved, that these charities are justly entitled to
exemption. My right hon. friend has been accused of pour-
ing forth invectives against these charitable institutions.
Why, the most severe things which fell from my right hon.
friend were his quotations from the reports of the Commis-
sioners who were employed and authorised to inquire into
these charities. (Hear.) It was the passages he read from
these reports that contained those condemnations which
hon. gentlemen opposite have endeavoured to represent as
having been the simple expressions of my right hon. friend's
individual opinion. I say, then, that we entirely concurred
in the proposal, and I think my right hen, friend has de-
monstrated that it was founded upon justice and good sense.
(Cries of " Divide" from the Opposition, and "Order.")
The right hon. gentleman opposite has given the key to
the whole secret; for he has said that " local associations"
are adverse to the proposal of my right hon. friend.
(Laughter.) Why, sir, that is really the fact—(Opposi-
tion cheers and counter cheers)—and it was very candid
in the right hon. gentleman opposite so openly and
broadly to acknowledge it. (Hear, and a laugh.) But
that, sir, is not only a motive for individual votes and
opinions ; it is also a ground upon which the Government
are entitled to take, and ought, I think, to take their line.
And if we find that a proposal, howeverjust in itself, how-
ever demonstrably true, is opposed to "local associations"
of the most extensive character, not only in this house, but
all over the country, why we respect those prejudices and
bow to them. (Cheers from the Opposition.) We don't on
that account believe them the less to be prejudices. That
being so, I think my right hon. friend has exercised a very
wise discretion—(laughter and hear)—in not pressing upon
the house—as he had stated at the outset he did not mean
to do—a proposal which upon discussion should appear to
be adverse to its general opinion. Although we think the
proposal right and just in itself, and although we believe
that when the arguments of my right hon, friend shall be
read by the country, opinion out of doors on this subject
will undergo a change (" Oh," laughter, and " Hear, hear")
yet we ts,w to the present state of feeling and of local asso-
ciations ; and I think my right hon. friend has exercised a
sound discretion in the course he has taken. (Opposition
cheers and counter. cheers.)

Mr. lIENLEY—Sir, I will not now enter into the question
whether the Government have not made a blunder in this
matter. (Cheers and laughter.) But, as the noble lord has
spoken of the feeling of small associations or of local associa-
tions, I would just say that I believe they comprise the whole
country (cheers) ; because the whole is made up of parts. If
there is one thing more true than another it is that the en-
tire country does not take the same view which the noble lord
and his tight hon. colleague think to be so just. (Cheers.)
The right hon. gentleman has done me the honour to say
that I use very mild language. (A laugh.) I suppose

ho alludes to the opinion I expressed the other evening that

it was a queer sort of justice to r.)1) the poor. (Hear.) I was
informed on that occasion by a right hon. friend of mine
who sits near the right hon. gentleman, that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer was the last man in the world who could
be supposed to do any such thing as that—(a laugh)—as
the finAncial and commercial legislation with which his
name had been indentified would prove. Now, I am one
of those persons who, in an ordinary way, look at the
measure which is before this house, and I don't trouble my
head or caria.halfpenny about the motive or antecedents
of those who propose it. It is quite enough to do to see
whether the measure itself is good or bad according to
the best light one can get upon it. But the speech
of my right hon. friend the member for the city of
Oxford naturally set one a thinking. (A laugh.)
Now, what has happened ? No man is more ready to admit
than I am that the species of legislation to which my right
hon. friend alluded has been carried on for the last 15 or
16 years with the best of motives, with the great hope and
expectation and, it may be also, with the result of increasing

the material wealth of all classes of the community. But
what else has been going on during the same period ?
Material wealth, deck it out as you will with flowers of
speech, means money, and money is Mammon. (Laughter.)
Well, to secure those results and carry the same principles
further, the Chancellor of the Exchequer joined hand-in-
hand with those who made an attack—under the name of
reforming them—upon the old endowments of the Univer-
sity which he represents. What was the main thing that
he did there? He destroyed the Christian character of
the education. (Oh, oh.) I will say what was done, and
then you may say " ch, oh I" if you please. He com-
pelled, and those who acted with him compelled, the Uni-
versity to give her education and tender her honours to
Jew, Turk, heretic, and infidel. (Oh, and laughter.) That
fact can't be denied, and I say it destroys the Christian
character of the education. (Question.) What followed ? In
1860 and 1861 an attempt was made by the Government to
change the character of the education of the lower classes,
and to dissever the Government from the religious educa-
tion of the people. This house then rejected and forced you
to take back your proposition. Well, let those two schemes
be viewed together. I am not going to draw the conclusion,
but the speech of the right hon. gentleman must set people
thinking whether Mammon, guided by the tree of know-
ledge, will not bring us to this simple principle, "rem,
quocunque modo rem." We could not have had a more
striking instance of this than the speech of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. The principles he has laid
down are nothing but " Mammon and the tree of
knowledge," and they are utterly inconsistent with any
other principle of any kind. (Hear, hear, and oh,
oh I) lam extremely glad that this clause is withdrawn,
for I think it was exceedingly objectionable in every respect.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. LOCKE was astonished at the indignation of hon.
gentlemen opposite, for not long ago a bill had been intro-
duced by the right hon. gentleman the member for Wilts
for making charities liable to poor-rates, and it was then
treated by them as a mere business matter.
When the Chairman put the question that the clause
be withdrawn awe were e 9149 cries of "Divide I" but ulti-