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

PETITIONS-.

ByLord Hotham, against subjecting charities to the in in
tax. Petitions to the same effect were presented b;citi:
Ingham, Durham; and from Charing-cross hospital; Si;
F. Smith, several, from Chatham; Mr. Henley, Oxford;
Mr. Bentinck, Norfolk ; Mr. Alderman Copeland, Mr.
Walter, Mr. Pullen, Sir B, Bridges, Mr. Farrer, Mr. Alder-
man Salomons, Mr. Clay, Hull; Mr. Hankey, Mr.
Baines, 30, Mr. Cox, 4, the Lord Mayor, several, Sir S.
Northcote, several, Mr. Wynne, Sir F. Farquhar,
Lord J. Manners, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Ayrton, Sir J.
Duke, several; against the amalgamation of the Metroplitan
with the City Police; Col. Sykes, praying for a modifica-
tion of the fire insurance duty.
TURKEY.

Mr. GREGORY gave notice that on Friday the 29th he
should call the attention of the board to the condition of
Turkey and its dependencies.
WIDOWS AND CHILDREN OF SEAMEN.
Mr. LIDDELL gave notice that on Friday, on the mo-
tion for going into committee of supply, he should call at-
tention to the subject of erecting residences for wives,
children, and widows of seamen in connection with sea-
men's barracks, in accordance with the recommendation of
the Royal Commissioners of 1861.

THE SEA QUEEN.
Mr• PEACOCK gave notice of his intention on an early
day, to mods for some correspondence with Earl Russell
and Mr. Seward with respect to this vessel.
THE LOAN SOCIETIES ACT.
Mr, NOliali asked the Secretary to the Treasury what

course the Government intended to pursue with reference
to the Lean Societies Act, which would expire in Auguet
next?

Mr. F. PEEL replied that the AO 'would be renewed as a
permanent act.

AUSTRALIA.
Mr. MARSH asked the Under Semetary of State for the
Colonies whether any, and if any what, petitions had been
received within the last three years at the Colonial Office,
for presentation to her Majesty, from different districts in
Australia, praying for separation from the existing colonies,
and the formation of new colonies?
Mr. FORTESCUE replied that three petitions were pre-
sented in 1%1 from New South Wales praying for a sepa-
ration; in 1862, one from Victoria to the same effect. These
were the only petitions.
THE ISLAND OF SONIBRERO—THE UNITED
STATES FLAG.
In reply to Mr. Maguritt,
Mr. LAYARD replied that Ibis island was the property
of the British Crr wn. A British officer, on visiting the
island in his ship, found the United States flag displayed
He desired it might be taken down, and cn a refusal he
directed one of his officers to take it down, and this was
accordingly done.

PRISON MINIS FERS BILL.
In reply to an HON. MEMLER,
Sir G. GREY stated that he should proceed with this
bill on Thursday next.

THE SHANNON.
In reply to Col. FRENCH,
Mr. F. PEEL said the report of the commissioners had
not yet been received.
AMALGAMATION OF THE CITY WITH THE
METROPOLITAN POLICE.

Sir J. DUKE asked if, after the report of the standing
orders against this bill, he intended to proceed with it ?
Sir G. GREY recited what he stated the other night,
that the committee of Standing Orders had reported that
as the usual notices had not been given in November, and
which were requisite for a private bill, the orders of the
house had net been complied with respect to the bill. The
bill had been referred beck to the Standing Order Commit.
tee, and until the committee again reported nothing could
be done.

THE "NO HO USE" ON FRIDAY.
Lord R. MONTAGU called attention to the "no
house" on Friday, and moved the adjournment of the house
in order to enable him to do so. He urged that by the stand-
' ing orders framed is 1862, which had been constantly vio-
' lated by the Government, the Government ought to have
' made a house on Friday.
Mr. D. GRIFFITH seconded the motion, and declared
that the Government must have made it known that they
did not desire a house, For there were several members in
the lobby.
Mr. B. COCHRANE spoke to the motion.
Lord PALMERSTON regretted that no house was
made on Friday, and therefore not enlightened by the con-
clusive answers which the Government would have given.
(Laughter.) It certainly had been understood that the Go.
vernment were to make and keep a house on Friday.
(Hear,) There was, however, a fellowship on the part of
hon. members in regard to making a house for members with
whose motives they sympathised, the Government contri-
buting its quota. It appeared on Friday that there were
several members in the lobby. But they had now been
sitting three months, and this was the first time there had
been "no house." He might say, however, that the
Government would do their best to make and keep a house
on Friday. (Hear, hear,)
Mr. DISRAELI thought that the motion would be
sufficiently answered by the promise of the noble lord. It
certainly was understood that the Government should se-
cure the house on Fridays.
THE CITY POLICE.
Col. FRENCH pressed the Government to state their
ultimate intentions with respect to the proposed amalgama-
tion bill.
Sir G. GREY replied that if the standing order com-
mittee reported against the bill it could not be proceeded
with ; but if they reported that the standing orders should
be dispensed with the bill could be proceeded with.
Lord R. MONTAGU withdrew his motion.
VISIT OF THE PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF
WALES TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS THIS
EVENING.
Shortly beforefi o'clock the Prince of Wales, accompa-
nied by Lord Alfred Paget, entered the peers and diplo-
matic gallery, It was currently reported that the Princess
of Wales was in the Ladies' Gallery, over the Reporters'
Gallery. His Royal Highness appeared in excellent health
and spirits, and seemed very much pleased by his visit.
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQT:ER
the house went into committee on this bill.
Clause 1 was agreed to.
On clause 2,
Sir J. FERGUSSON called attention to the defective
mode of levying the income tax. He objected t) the pre-
sent plan of centralisation, and moved to add to the end of
the clause words repealing the 44th section of the previous
Act, "directing that no assessor shall be appointed for
duties under Schedules A and B."
A long discussion then ensued as to new assessments
under Schedule A.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated
that the hon. baronet was mistaken in supposing there was
a new assessment last year under that schedule.
The amendment was negatived without a division, and
the clause was agreed to.
TAXATION OF CHARITIES.

On clause 3,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
rose to redeem the pledge which he had given to the com-
mittee; and undoubtedly the question which he was about
to raise was one of sufficient magnitude and importance to
justify a separate discussion with regard to it. He should
altogether decline to embarrass himself and the committee
by entering upon peculiar cases which might be urged on
peculiar grounds. The question which he desired to sub-
mit was, whether charitable bequests should continue to
enjoy their preeent immunity from direct taxation, while
such heavy charges were undertaken by the State in the
interest of charities. It was, however, his intention to pro-
pose the insertion in the fourth clause of a certain qualifi-
cation to the enactment which obliged trustees to draw from
any other fund in their possession rather than to make any
deduction for income tax in the case of a recipient of a
small dole. Will respect to the general proposal, he
was not ignorant of the opposition which had been ex-
cited to it, but the conviction of the Government was
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 having made that state-
ment he was bound at once to make the admission that it
wa• a proposal which ought only to be carried with the frqe
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 ho 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 eharities 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 Sit Robert Peel
had been quoted as the author of the exemption. Why, in
the session:of 1345 a bill was introduced by L,rd 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
equally 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 charge 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. It was not wise for the State to
o
give temptations to death-bed bequests. He had proceeded
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 form of gifts of public
money, to men to endeavour to immortalise themselves as
founders. (Sensation.) He might be wrong, but it 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
par-
ticular gene,a and have the fame of-being the founder of a par-
e o mmroinusltittuotfiontlla,kwinhgenp,
rifovhiseiohan
ford bienednivcidonotalezthwisitnhatrahee
would have passed into oblivion. The gift of public money
to encourage this,
ft
abl thee
usesp b 1
becausec. l l e
in the form of an exemption, was obtained
be-
ing lthee left
expense
w tashea
charitable tweastraetoorf £blasdoa,onoaovbeer--
sion towards his relatives—(laughter)—and he put it to the
committee whether it was fair that the Legislature wasi called
p
.
on to encourage by gifts of public money such a d
If the State did not interfere with the wills of
privasteoisnidtliovni.
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
a portion of taxation. Now, the income of the United King.
dom from property amounted to from £180,000,000 to
£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
tax, The amount of exemption enjoyed by charities, which