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

the object of the compromise being that he corporations
in question, seven in number, should con inue to rt ceive
the differential dues and duties on shipping for such
a term of years as would enable them to lay 13,1 a surplus
I sufficient to maintain their charities then existing. The
period of expiration of the longest of these le4ses was
1872. The institution in which he was himself most in•
terested was the Trinity House of Hull, and that institu-
tion would cease to receive its differential dues and duties
on shipping in the year 1872. The calculation was a close
one, but the result of it showed that at the expiration of
Vie period there would be a sufficient surplus to maintain
the existing charities. If the right hon. gentleman came
down upon the surplus to the extent of £550 a year, it
would he insufficient to meet the requirements of the
charities. If the proposhion were persevered in, he
hoped the right hon. gentleman would make an excep-
tion in favour of these dues.
Sir J. FERO U - SON said he hoped the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, in making the statement he had promised
with re- pect to the extension of the income tax to chari-
ties, would give the House more detailed information as
to the institutions which would probably be affected by it.
Mr. BAINE 7 said, though approving of the budget as
a whole, he could not give his consent to the proposal for
taxing charities.
The LORD MAYOR disapproved of the extension of
the income tax to charities, remarking th.tt its practical
eff,ct wo .Id be to deprive the several charities of the
means of doing good equal to the extent of the tax to be

Mr. BASS would be glad to know on wt at principle it
was proposed to retain the tax on delivery orders.
The CHANCELLOR of the k.X..:HEQUER said that
there was no " omnibus" bill on the table of the house; he
feared he would be obliged to make au omnibus speech after
the discussion which had taken place. He would therefore
endeavour to satisfy the minds of the hon. members who
had spoken, with respect to their comments and questions,
and the house would excuse him if he did so with as much
faithfulness as he was able. To begin with the noble lord
who commenced this deba e, he was sorry to be obliged t., ex-
press dissent from the statements which had been made by
him ; except with regara to the general dictum very properly
laid cown, that it was the duty of the house to bestow great
attention upon every financ al proposition submitted to it.
The noble lord said the measure could not be persevered in,
because the word used in the resolution was " chargeable," in-
stead of " charged." The noble krd was entirely wrong, and
the distinction between those wards had nothing to do with
the question. If the noble lord had taken pains to attend to
the meaning of the technical language which was necessary
in a financial measure, he would have found that wha< he
thought was not cnarged was charged. The charge of the
duty, in technical language, was a prior operation, which
was made according to law, and applied to property in cha-
rities as well as to every other description of property. The
noble lord stated that there was a certain proportion of pro-
perty exempted altogether; but to that he should answer
tL•at the exemption was not made according to law, but was
done at the discretion of the !executive Government, from
the almost hopeless task of bringing very small properties
under the charge. He might here say that he agreed with
the noble lord that it was not desirable ho should anticipate
the statement on the subject of charities which h, had to
make to the house on the part of the Government ; but at
the same time he was bound to say that the statements of
the noble lord were so wild in their nature, that he was
obliged to take noti:•e of the exaggeration which pervaded
them. Among other things, the noble lord said the effect of
the proposition would be to discharge some hundreds of in-
mates from St Bartholomew's Hospital. Had the noble lord
ascertained the cost of patients itt the London hospitals, and
the burden which would he cast by this proposal on St.
Bartholomew's Hospital ? He would show what the nature
of that burden was. He could not speak minutely or pre-
cisely, because his knowledge of the cost of cases in the hos •
pitals was only derived from statistical documents. The
cost of an in-patient in the London hospitals generally was
£25 a year; the cost in St. Bartholomew's was perhaps a
little higher ; but the noble lord would probably set him
right.
Lord R. CECIL—As the right hon. gentleman wished to
be accurate, he might tell him, on the authority of a state-
ment made by the treasurer of Sr. Bartholomew's, that the
result of the proposal on that hospital would be that ,everal
hundreds of in-patients and several thousands of out• I a-
tients would be annually excluded from the benefits of the

institution.
The CHANCE LLO H. of the EXCHEQUER continued
—He was bound to receive with respect any statement
coming from such a quarter; but this he should say, that
the amount of tax which would be laid upon the property
of St. Bartholomew's would be little more than £7OO. Its
income was £36,000 a year. and, after deducting £261, which
was now paid from a little more than £l,OOO, the gro.s
amount which would be levied and the addition which would
be charged under the new arrangement would be a little
more than £7OO. What compensation it got for that sum he
would show at a future period. The noble lord the member
for Stamford complained that he had attempted in committee
to force a final discussion upon the subject, and had abridged
the opportunity for discussion. He had done no such thing,
nor had he in any way aeparted from the usual forms. The
hon. baronet who followed the noble lord argued that the
imposition of the email charges, which it was now proposed
to repeal was a false step ; but he (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) was not prepared to admit any such conclusion ;
for although he thought that it would be inexpedient that
those charges should permanently remain, yet at the time
they were imposed they were necessary instruments for et •
fecting great financial relief to the country and great ad-
ministrative reforms. His hon. friend the member for Derby
asked why nor also give up all the other charges imposed in
1860. But he saw no reason why a charge, because it was
imposed in 1860, should be given up in 1863 The charge
which was called the "penny impost" entailed considerable
labour, was an impediment to the c.rogress of business and oc-
casioned an expenditure of a good deal of time, but the charge
in which the hon. member was interested did not entail
anything. of the kind. And it was the intention of the
Government to adhere to the declaration he had made in
their name about 'he surplus, which in the present state of

the finances of the country they proposed to reserve, and
steadily to resist to the best of their power all attempts at its
diminution The hon. baronet the member for Evesham said
that this was not a moment, for pressure, and therefore not

a m ,naent when any small addition to the revenue of the
country ought to be proposed. The ground on which they
rested, and on which they desired to stand or fall, was
simply the ground of fairness and justice. If their proposals
were just to the country, let the house adopt them ; if

they were unjust, by no means let it import any unjus

charge into their financial system, even if the necessities
of the country were greater than they were. The hon,
baronet also said that during the last two years there had
been a deficiency of £.5,000,000. He was at a loss to dis-

cover it; for, although there was a deficiency in 18J1-62,

the surplus in 1861••63 more than restored the balance. His
hon. friend the member for Buckingham had revived the
whole subject of the income tax, and had put to him six

questions. But with the greatest respect he should beg to
be relieved at the present time from answering them. (Hear,

hear.) They had already had two debates on the income

tax, and if a third were required it was impossible to mil a
up a general discussion of this kind with that upon the

stages of the financial bill of the year. _ The hon. member

also demanded that he should give him his views as to the
future of the income tax. He was entitled to make that de.

mand ; but in complying with it he (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) was also entitled to limit it to what was safe

_ .
and prudent. (Hear, hear.) He certainly had had warn.
ings on the subject. (Laughter.) In 1853 he made a corn.
putation, and submitted it to the house, upon the belief than

the expenditure of the country was likely to continue at the
level at which it then stood. In 1857, after the Russian

war, the disposition of the country led to a great augmen-
tation of that expenditure. He resisted it, but he was in a

minority. They had now a different scale of expenditure,

and most certainly, having once seen it raised, it was not
for him to determine what might be in future years the pro-
spective wants of the country, or to venture on any rash
prophecy as to what would be its expenditure. (Hear.) He

however saw no reason why the limit of its expenditure

should rise higher. He saw great reason to hope that it
might fall lower, but beyond that he was not disposed to go.
(Hear, hear) With respect to the creation of revenue, in his

opinion, if the country could meet its expenditure with a sum

of horn £63,000,000 to £65,000,000, then at some future and
short period of time it would be possible to carry on the
government of the country wirhout resorting to an income

tax. (Hear, hear.) The question whether they should
reslrt to an income tax in time of peace was one of the

gravtat that could be conceived, because while on the one
hand objections could be urged against it, on the other hand,
the recommendation of the tax was that it had the tendency
of equalising the burden of taxation as between the higher
and lower classes of society. (Hear.) An hon. member
(Mr. Hunt) wished to know what the effect would be if the
£6O deduction were carried through all classes of income.
The means of computation which they had at command
were only of a partial character ; but the result might be
thus stated. They took the area of taxation of incomes
between £lOO and £l5O a year at £13,600,000 ; and upon
that the relief would amount to £160,000. Between £l5O

and £lOO the amount was .0,222,000, and on that

would cost V40,000--ihe sum of both being £300,000.
They took the amount of the higher class of incomes at

£17,77C0,000. The extension of the £6O deduction to that

class would amount to £514,000, and over and above

the others, giving as the cost of deduction on all classes a
sum of £911.001. He did not know what effect that state-

ment might have on the mind of the hon. m ember, but he
be a
thought it was conclusive that it would wanton and
purp iseless waste of public money if they were to extend
the exemption upwards as suggested. (Hear.) It might be
said that it would be convenient to persons with incomes of
£3OO, but he owned that he was not willing to depart from
the traditional limit which always recognised the sum of
£2OO as the highest amount at which the exemption should
attach. (Roar, hear.) The hon. baronet (Sir J. Fergusson)
referred to charities with mixed receipts from endow-
ments, fees, and contributions, but in their case
the proposal of the Government only referred to
charitable endowraents. With regard to passing tels, he
received that morning a statement of the case from
which he understood that there was a compact batween the
Government and the parties, and if it turned out to be so,
the case would by no means fall within the proposal, His