The Sun.
London, England, 1863-04-30 00:00:00

I the winning of
.the Blue Ribbon, so to speak,
of Tory Orthodoxy. A couple of sessions back it
will be remembered that the race run on that
famous Wednesday resulted at the moment
in a dead heat. Contrary to what is the
course pursued under a similar emergency in the
sporting world, the Umpire in the Chair (of the
House of Commons) settles the matter at issue as he
rather whimsically, not to say Quixotically, settled
it: then by giving his own casting vote—that was
in 1861—dead against his own convictions. Doing
so purely out of an over-refined sense of honour and a
wholly exaggerated view of the magnamity required
at his hands as Speaker.
Yesterday, as it happened, the SPEAKER was put
to no such possibility of a threatened fix. Last year,
earlier than this year by nearly a month, last session,
that is to say,onWednesday the 14th of May, instead
of, as n ow, onWednesday the 29th April, the Speaker
had not the fix of 1861, but he certainly again
had the threatening of it! A great deal too much
is said by the parliamentary reporters in some of
our morning contemporaries, to-day, about the
multitude of members thronging into the House for
yesterday's division. The total number voting yes-
terday, as the simple fact shows, being fully
1" thirteen " less than the aggregate voting in
1862. Last year the division paper showed all but
a tie—all over again ! There were 286 for and 287
against the Abolition Bill of Sir JOHN TRELAWNY.
So that then the Bill was thrown out again by a
single vote, only that here the single vote in excess
against it, did not happen to be the casting vote of the
Speaker. This year, that is yesterday, the numbers
showed a difference between the opposing ranks
not of one but of ten —27 5 voting with and
285 against the very badly used, the rejected
and re-rejected Bill of the hon. and learned
baronet the member for Tavistock. Showing, es
we have said, fully thirteen less in this division
list as compared with that of last year. As cir-
cumstances would have it, the noble viscount the
the First Lord of the Treasury was prevented
solely from voting, as he did last year, among the
the supporters of Sir JOHN TRELAWSEY by a sudden
summons from Her MAJESTY to attend upon Her
MAJESTY at Windsor Castle. Otherwise, of course,
by the Premier's vote (if recorded) the majority of
ten would have dwindled to one of nine : even
under those circumstances, however, a very
considerable enhancement of advantage in
this matter to the Opposition. If not the
result—as it certainly is not the result—of any in•
crease in the number of opponents to the measure
on their side of the House (their aggregate being
less by two, as we have seen, than it was last ses-
sion)—the division of yesterday shows, at least, on
the side of the Minority, a notable falling off (a fall-
ing off to the number of eleven) among the sup-
porters of the favourite reform of the Member for
Tavistock,

Notwithstanding the grand flourish of trumpets
indulged in by Mr. WHITESIDE yesterday, when
exultingly quoting the recorded opinion of Mr.
STANSFELD that there could never be any possibi-
lity of a compromise—as suggested again and
again before now, by one or another—we
still hold firmly to the opinion that the hon. member
for Birmingham, hit long since upon the one
" possible" compromise, namely, that of doing
away with the power to levy a compulsory rate,
though interfering no otherwise with the general
arrangements for the carrying on of the Church
Establishment.

It is not surprising that i.. Mr. GLADSTONE'S
proposal to tax Charities should have created great
dismay, and given rise to considerable discontent
among those connected with these important insti-
tions. A meeting was held at St. Bartholomew's
Hospital, at which nearly all the London hospitals
were represented, and several of the charitable in-
stitutions. At this meeting the following resolution
was passed :

" That the meeting considers the proposal of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer to deprive the charities of the ex-
emption from income-tax, which they have always hitherto
enjoyed, to be most impolitic, unjust, and inconsistent.
" That such a measure would be productive of the most
serious consequences to the poor persons who are the objects
of charities; and this meeting, therefore, feels called upon
to take the moat prompt and energetic measures to prevent
the imposition of such a tax, and to invite the other chari-
ties throughout the country to co-operate, by immediately
presenting petitions to the House of Commons against the
proposed taxation, and by communicating with members of
P arliament."

There is great force in what is here stated, and
all impartial persons will fully coincide with the
opinions herein expressed. It is most impolitic of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to call down upon
his Government such opprobrium as will inevitably
fall upon them should this measure be adopted. It
is manifestly unjust to take away from the poor
and afflicted what has been presented to them for
their exclusive use and especial benefit. It is also
highly inconsistent to propose such a plan. If it is
to be taken for granted that large sums are annually
to be extracted from these resources for the destitute,

it stands to reason that a far greater number of in-
firm and sickly persons will be cast back on the State
to support. The plan suggested at this meeting for
the various charities throughout the country to co-
operate and present petitions against the innovation
is an admirable one, and it is to be trusted that this
invitation will be cordially responded to, and that
no local prejudices or class jealousies will intervene
to interfere with the carrying out of so laudable an
endeavour and wise an undertaking. Union is
strength is a well-known adage, and in this case it
is to be trusted that the most complete cor-
diality will reign among those associated in a
cause so worthy of zeal and devotion, and that con-
tains so many incentives for honest exertion and
inducements to perseverance in its maintenance
and defence. Sir STAFFORD NoETIICOTE has given
notice that he will move an amendment on this
clause in committee of supply. This is a Trost
satisfactory announcement, and reflects great credit
on the hon. member. He could take up no better
principle to defend than the interests of those who
are powerless to help themselves, but who appeal to
the charity, the good-will, and the Christian feeling
of their happier and richer brethren. So much has
hitherto been conceded to Mr. GLADSTONE—partIy
because he is so over-rated and over-estimated in
his vocation, and partly because he has great in-
fluence in the House—that those who are likely to
be the victims of his schemes and the sufferers by
his crotchets may be excused if they give way to
despair and count the battle lost before it is fought
in their vindication. Yet, notwithstanding these
doubts and difficulties, this is a case
which, in some respects, may be regarded
as an exception. Cold and calculating
as he prides himself on being in such matters, Mr.
GLADSTONE now will surely pause before he in-
sists on making this affair a sine qua non in his
arrangements. The members of the Legislature will
also be called upon to reflect that before the claims
of party etiquette, and the rigour of Ministerial
adherency, they have a higher duty to perform, to
follow the dictates of their consciences, and not
violate the principles and trample down the interests
that are arrayed against this proposition. Lord
PALMERSTON may yet come to the rescue as he has
often done before, and with his great tact and ad-