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

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening,
The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour.
THIRD READINGS.

The following bills were read a third time :—London.
Tilbury, and Southend Railway and Mersey Docks and
Harbour.

The Skipton Gas Bill was considered and ordered to be
read bi third time.

PETITIONS.

Petitions were presented by Sir H. STRACEY, from the
Governors of Middlesex Hospital, against the imposition of
the Income tax on charitable restitutions; an HON.
MEMBER, from the London Hospital, to tha like effect ;
an HoN. MEMBER, Haverfordwest, against the amalgama-
tion of the City police , Sir DE L. EVANS, the vestry of
St.. Martin's, Mr. Cox, Fin►bury, Mr. KNATCHBULL-
HUGESSEN, Sandwich, to the I ksk effect; Mr. BRIGHT,
Birmingham, fora reduction of the fire insurance duly, and
Manchester, in favour of closing public-houses on the
Sabbath; Mr. PEASE, from the women of Sccckport, to
the like effect ; Sir F. CROSSLEY, West Riding of York-
shire, to the same effect ; Mr Cox, Finsbury, in favour
of marriage with a deceased wite's sister; Mr. HENNESSY,
in favour of the independence of Poland.
STAMPS ON DELIVERY ORDERS.
_ _

Mr. BASS asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether he would state the amount or computed amount of
revenue which has been derived from stamps on delivery
orders ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained
the mode of levying the tax, and said the estimated amount
was £40,000.
HOMES FOR WIVES AND CHILDREN OF
SAILORS.

Mr. ADDINGTON asked the Secretary to the Admi-
ralty, whether in the naval barracks now building, and
ordered to be built at the different dockyards, provision
would be made for the accommodation of the wives and
children of sailors, in the same manner as existed at present
for the families of soldiers in military barracks.
Lord C. PAC-ET explained that the matter had been
very carefully considered by the Admiralty, and they had
come to the conclusion that it would not be advisable that
they should construct naval barracks, with a view to the
accommodation of the wives and children of sailors. These
barracks were very different to military barracks. Soldiers
went with their wives and families from one barracks to
another ; but when a sailor, who was temporarily lodged in
the naval barracks, went to sea, his wife and children would
have to be turned out, if previously admitted, which would
be a very painful circumstance. The Admiralty would
not lose sight of the suggestion made with respect to the
education of sailors' children.
LUNATICS IN IRELAND.

Mr. M'EVOY asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland
whether the Government would this session introduce a
bill to extend to Ireland such provisions of the Act 16 and
17 'Vic., c. 97, as would enable magistrates to commit dan-
gerous lunatics direct to asylums instead of to county gaols
as now.

Sir R. PEEL explained that new gaols were building
which would afford the requisite accommodation, when the
law, as suggested, would be altered.
SCHOOL OF NAVAL ARCHITECTURE.
Sir J. PAKINGTON asked the Secretary to the Admi-
ralty, whether the board had considered the necessity of
a revival of a school of naval architecture ; and whether,
in the event of such an institution being established on a
basis approved by the Board, they would be disposed to ex-
tend to it encouragement and support.
Lord C. PAGET replied that the Admiralty was deeply+
impressed with the absolute necessity that existed for the
revival of a school of naval architecture. Any proposals
made with that view would receive favourable considera-
tion from the Admiralty. The subject was under consi-
deration.
COLONIAL BISHOPRICS AND THE IRISH
CLERGY.
Mr. LEFROY asked the Under Secretary of State for
the Colonies if any of the five colonial bishoprics which had
been vacant had been offered to any of the Irish clergy ?
Mr. C. FORTESCUE explained the nature of these
vacancies. He had heard it said that, Lancashire, which
has as large a population as Ireland, had never had any of
her clergymen selected to fill colonial bishoprics. (Laughter.)
One Irish clergyman had been already selected to fill one
of the vacancies, and doubtless the noble lord at the head of
the Government would be glad to appoint eligible candidates
from the Irish clergy as vacancies occurred. (Hear, and
laughter.)

SEIZURE OF THE ALEXANDRA.
In reply to Mr. WHITESIDE,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he was unable
to state when the question would come on for trial.
CHICORY.
In reply to Sir E. CODRINGTON,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained
that the course pursued was the same as on former occa-
sions. The duty would be levied by resolution, and imposed
so soon as it received the sanction of the house.
THE GALWAY CONTRACT.

In reply to Lord DUNKELLIN,
Mr. PEEL stated that the details of this contract had
not been finally settled.

C ARLTON-TERRACE.

Mr. LOCKE asked the First Commissioner of Works
whether he intended to complete Carlton-house-terrace upon
the vacant ground where the Riding School stood ; and
also whether he would propose, during the present session,
the continuation of the carriage-way from the Mall in St.
James's-park to Charing-cross ?
Mr. CO WPER replied that the terrace would be con-
tinued in the vacant ground, and iases had already been
granted by the Crown. It was not his intention this year
to prepare a new carriage way. The committee, it was true,
had reported in favour of it, but omitted to indicate how
the expense was to be defrayed. As some houses would
have to be taken down, great expense would, of course, have
to be incurred.

THE WAR IN AMERICA.
THE MAIL BAGS OF THE PETERHOFF,
Mr. FOSTER desired to ask the Under Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs if he was correct in the surmise
that satisfactory information had been received this after-
noon from America with respect to the mail bags of the
Pe tell off.

Mr. LAYARD—I have to state that to-day a very satis-
factory despatch has been received at the Foreign-office
from Lord Lyons. It states that Mr. Seward had directed
that the mail bags of the Peterhoff should be sent to their
destination without being opened. (Hear.)
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the
second reading.

Lord R. CECIL said that it was proposed by section 3
of the said bill to impo.e a new charge upon the people,
but that the said proposal had not been referred to a com-
mittee of the whole house, as the custom and order
of the house required ; and he moved that the
order for reading the said bill a second time be dis-
charged. He said he should not have persevered with his
motion, but addressed himself to that portion of the
Budget which proposed to tax charities ; seeing that it
would act so unjustly, he was satisfied the House of Com-
mons would never consent to adopt it. He stigmatised the
eagerness with which the right hon. gentleman was pressing
on his Budget.

Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY objected to the imposition of a
new tax of this objectionable nature.
Sir F. CROSSLEY was satisfied the House of Commons
would never agree to perpetuate so much injustice as to tax
the revenues of charitable institutions, which the Legisla-
ture had ever been careful to exempt, as much as possible,
from taxation.
Mr. HUBBARD spoke with respect]to the income tax
part of the budget, and characterised the new scheme as
inconsistent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could adopt
no more satisfactory mode with reference to the income tax
than to consolidate all the statutes upon the subject, place
them on the table, and take the decision of the house upon
them. The hon. member expressed his satisfactionwith the
proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the
income tax on incomes under £2OO a year, so far as regarded
ncomes from industrial sources; but as regarded incomes
from realised property, he said thfe
rreiguhcttihonont.ogtehnetleman,
in applying the same principle o
oo
nr he ef w;6lnsc
nv3n
lated an essential principle
com-
mencing a graduated system.
sound accep'ed principle of political economy, or o
fixed incomes from £lOO to £2OO, was not wfarsranted by any
ofT hteaxeCantiCoen;Slf.
legisla-
tion, The right hon. gentleman had introduced a graduated
scheme of assessment which appeared to him to be exceed-
ingly dangerous, and which might lead to all kinds of diffi-
culties, and would have the effect which the right hon.
gentleman himself deprecated, of setting class against class.
Passing to another portion of the scheme, he came to a
principle in which be could not concur, provided no ques-
tion should arise as to mere definitions, namely, that of a
uniform tax upon incomes. But what were incomes for the
purposes of taxation? There were incomes from the gross
rents of lands and houses, the productive earnings of indus-
try, and the repayment of money lent. Were these sources
of income to be taxed alike ? It they were classed diffe-
rently, why should he subject them to a uniform tax; and
if they were not classed differently why remit the tax upon
that portion of a man's income which represented the pre.
miurns upon his life policy ? He hoped the right hon. gentleman would favour them with some explanations upon that point.
Mr. CLAY said he wished to call the attention of the
right hon. gentleman to a case of peculiar injustice with
respect to the proposition affecting charities. When the
Harbour Dues and Passing Tolls Act was introduced by
the right hen. gentleman the President of the Board of
Trade, affecting the interests of the Trinity House and
other analogous corporations who received dues on ship.
ping, th.Ye was a great deal of discussion, sshich resulted
Da a compromise afterwards sanctionLd by Parliament;

be borne in mind that no loss of life had been reported oh
board the vessels, notwithstanding the tremendous fire they
had been exposed to.
The Duke of SOMERSET thouzht they had been too
far off to do much mischief. The town was five or six miles
distant according to the map, and within 600 or 600 yards
of these forts would have been a very disagreeable position
for any vessel to have remained in while shelling the
town.
Their lordships then adjourned.