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

was thus laid upon other property, was about £216,000 a
year; but besides this there was a large and growing charge
on the public purse for the management of these charities.
This year £lB,OOO had been voted upon the estimates on this
account; but therein were nut included the expenses for
superannuation and offices ; and, altogether, he might esti-
mate the entire expense to the State of, as Lord Eldon said,
restraining the "gross and general breach of trust," at from
£40,000 to X 45,000. The £216,000 of exemption represented
7 per cent. of the income of those charities ,and the expenses
to the State for management represented 11 per cent. more,
so that the quarter of a million which they cost amounted
to 81 pr cent. of their income, and that was what the State
expended on charities as such. Now, Parliament had from
time to time passed acts to bring the entire expenditure of
the State within the control of the House of Commons.
Why was this part of the State expenditure to be shrouded
within the complicated sections of acts of Parliament, so
that Parliament could have no control over it. If Sir R.
Peal, in proposing, in 1842, the income tax, had, with the
view of keeping charities under the eye of the State, re •
commended the income tax to be levied on all property
without exemption, but that the sum of £lOO,OOO, the
amount then levied on charities, were to he voted from
year to year in their ail, this exemption accorded to death-
bed bequests, which was not granted to the alms of the liv-
ing, would not stand the scrutiny of the House of Commons
for a single year—(hear, hear)—and not one-tenth of the
charities now in the enjoyment of the exemption would re-
tain it. The charitable army had been marshalled in a skil-
ful manner; much had been done in putting the best foot
foremost. The claims of Bartholomew's Hospital, of the
orphans of the clergy, of the widows of Dissenting minis-
ters, rang in his ela', and the country was asked on their
account to continue a gift of a quarter of a million on be-
half of charities. There were generals who, by putting their
able-bodied in front, and by the proper disposition of women
and boys dressed as men (laughter) won their battles. On
this principal the doubtful part of the charities was kept in
skilful reserve. Charities for the purpose of this inquiry
might be divided into three classes—the small charities,
the middle charities, and the great charities. He included
in the small charities the funds of large charities, which
were distributed in small amounts. By the middle charities
he meant generally stipends of money to the extent of from
£2O to £4O a year, given for the most part to widows and
orphans. But if in the case of the small charities it were
proposed to assist them by the grant of ss. to each, this
house would scarcely vote a single amount of ss. These
small charities were for the most part given for local poor
and local education. (Opposition cheers.) If they deserved
the toleration of the house, it was the most ;that they de-
served Three times had they been condemned by the
Charity Commissioners, by the Poor-law Commissioners of
1834, and by the Education Commissioners of two or three
years. He had received a deputation that day the charac-
ter and weight of which he would leave them to judge of.
The Bishop of London was a member of that deputation,
and the demand of that deputation was, that the exemp-
tion now existing should be continued as at present. The
predecessor of the Bishop of London had been a Poor-
law Commissioner in 1834, and the commissioners of
1834 had reported very unfavourably of those small cha-
rities, stating that to evils inherent in themselves they
added others of a very injurious and demoralis-
ing kind. The commissioners of 1861 equally con-
demned those charities in their report. He was desirous of
proving to the committee the real state of those charities.
There were several towns and country parishes where there
were enormous charities, as they were called. Now he
wanted to know upon what ground those parishes which
had no charities for their poor were called upon to give
money out of their own pockets to enlarge the endowments
in favour of the parishes which had those charities. No
greater injustice could be conceived. (Hear, hear.) An hon.
member had said to him that he had betrayed his duty as
member of Oxford University, by prt posing to interfere
with the charities of the Established Church, thus propound-
ing the doctrine that as Chancellor of the Exchequer he was
under an obligation, before proposing a fiscal measure, to
ascertain whether the fiscal incidence of such measure would
be in favour of the communion to which he belonged, and
accordingly that he should adopt or reject it. (Hear, hear.)
He would take the class of charities for attendance at
church, which approximated to the character of a spiritual
bribe, for the parties were hardly ever known to attend ex-
cept when the charity dole was to be distributed. There
was not a city in the country which was mere rich in chari-
ties than Coventry, and yet what was the result ? Why that
at the very first appearance of distress the people were pros-
trated ; whereas, if they turned to Lancashire, where there
were comparatively few or no charities, theywould find that
distress was borne for more than a year before any appeal
was made to the public at large. (Cheers.) Application had
been made to him in favour of the " valuable" charities of
Bristol. The charities of Bristol were not valuable, but per-
nicious, encouraging indolence and mendicancy. (Hear.)
He was not going to say that the small charities were all
scandalous ; his argument only amounted to this, that they
had no claim to the public purse. The right hon. gentle-
man then referred to what was known as Jervis's Charity,
which ought to be known to fame. In 1793 Jervis died,
leaving property to the amount of £lOO,OOO, for the benefit
of the poor of three parishes in Herefordshire. There was
one thing which Jervis had forbidden, and that was build-
ing. The population of those places in 1801 was 816; in
1851 it increased 1,222. Why had it increased ? Was it
because trade had increased and higher wages could be ob-
tained ? No; wages had fallen by 2s. a week. The popu-
lation increased because of the charitable dole. The case
had become so bad and the extent of the demoralisation so
great that an Act of Parliament had been obtained at great
expense to get rid of the evil; and the managers of the
charity did the only thing which Jervis had forbidden.
(Laughter.) They expended £30,000 in building. It was
not a university or college which they built, but a boarding
school for the children of the three parishes. The real
meaning of which was, that the money of Jervis was to be
supplemented by the money of the State. The right hon.
gentleman next turned to the middle charities, and instanced
the Clergy Orphan Association, the income of which was
£5,000 a year. The income tax at 7d would be £145 a year
upon that property ; and perhaps the right hon. gentleman
the member for Oxfordshire would say that the Govern-
ment were robbing them of that. The charity was for the
orphans of the poor clergy, and let them see what was the
relief it afforded and what was the benefit which the Govern-.
ment proposed to confer by the remission of the tax upon
£6O. He would take it there were 5,600 clergymen having
from £lOO to £l5O year, and 2,000 clergymen having £2OO
a year. The reduction to the 7,000 clergymen would be
equal to £7,000 a year, or about £1 per annum to each;
while the £145 a year which the Government proposed to
take would be but £ll7s ltd a year. Upon the small pri-
vate property in private hands there was levied a tax of
more than four times as much as was now proposed to be
levied upon corresponding amounts derived from charity,
He next came to a consideration of the greater charities,

and they must be considered under two classes—First, the
great charities of education, such as Christ's Hospital ;
and, secondly, our great endowed hospitals. (Hear, hear.)
Christ's Hospital enjoyed the most illustrious patronage,
and those who were connected with it no doubt exercised
their powers under excellent principles and with the best in-
tentions. By the calculation of 8 per cent. Christ's Hospi-
tal received annually £6,000 from the pockets of the people,
not one shilling of which, he contended, was the hospital
entitled on any ground of right or principle to receive.

(Hear, hear.) Christ's Hospital was founded for the poorest
of the poor, "the fatherless and motherless children, and
the sick, sore, and impotent people." Who were, he asked,
"the sick, sore, and impotent people" who were now to be
found in Christ's Hospital? (Hear, hear.) Why, they had
gradually improved in circumstances, and had worked them-
selves up in society with the increa- ing wealth of the nation,
and now they were chi dren of persons with incomes of
£2OO, £3OO, £4OO, and in some cases £5OO per annum.
(Hear, hear.) He denied that that class of persons was for
one moment entitled to call on Parliament for a public vote
in aid of education for their children; and no man would
dare to ask in that house for a vote of £5,000, £5OO, or even
£5, for such an institution. (Hear, hear.) The governors
had said that, by the imposition of the income tax, they
would have to pay £2,000 per annum; and by the use of
those faculties with which he was blessed, he found that
that sum represented an income of about £70,000 per annum,
including of course that amount which was now paid by
the receivers of salaries belonging to the institution, because
where some service was rendered, it was not a charity, and
the person did not escape income tax ; thus the poor curate
who does something for his income paid the tax, whilst
the poor knight, of Windsor, for instance, who really did
nothing, paid nothing. (Hear, hear.) Christ's Hospital
had 500 governors, who came into the possession of their
office by the payment of £5OO each ; and it was a spirit
stirring reflection to find that there were between 15 and
16 men ready annually to pay £5OO each to the hospital.
The £5OO was not merely alms, but for obtaining a vested
right-12,000 presentations. After referring to the work-
ing of the charity, and exposing many of its abuses and in-
consistencies, he proceeded to show by contrast the differ-
ence between that institution and King's College, and then
passed to the consideration of the endowed hospitals, select-
ing St. Bartholomew's Hospital as an illustration. That
hospital had an income of £36,000." It now paid £2OO per
annum income tax, and by his proposition it would be in-
creased by £B5O. Against this was to be placed the advan-
tages derived by the hospital from the increased value of
land, arising from recent beneficial legislation as well as

benefit from the great reductions ihat had taken place of
late years in our customs tariffs. The income of the hospi •
tal in 1841 was £31,335, and in 1861, 20 years after the im-

position of the income tax, it had increased to £36,030.
(Hear.) What therefore had been the benefit the hospital

had derived from legislation in consequence of the operation

of the income tax in reducing taxation ? Taking the con-
sumption of tea, which was 3,2461 b, at 5d per lb, that reduc-
tion was equal to an endowment of £192 l4s 7d ; sugar and
treacle, £B2 15s; soap, £26 2s 6d; butter and eggs, £l4l 2s
3d ; spirits, £9B 15s 10d ; and wine, £2BB 13s. The reduc-
tion on drugs and medicines was £415 ; making altogether
a difference of £1,245 per annum in favour of the hospital.
Well, adding to that amount 50 per cent, for other articles
food, and for articles of clothing, and for building mate-
rials, he found that St. Bartholomew's Hospital was debtor
to the income tax, through the reduction of duties, in a sum
of £1,167, and through the enhanced value of property
£1,440, together making £3,307 as the direct pecuniary '
benefit received by St, Bartholomew's, against the sum of