The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-25 00:00:00

INDIA.

Mr. VANSITTART asked the Secretary of State for
India whether it was true that he had issued instructions
to remove the seat of Government of the North-Western
Provinces from Agra to Allahabad ; if so, whether he had
any objection to the production of the correspondence re-
lating to the same ?

Sir C. WOOD said that he had given no such instruc-
tions, and there was no correspondence that he was
aware of.

TIE ARMY.

In reply to Mr. CONINGRA.II,-.
Sir G. C. LEWIS stated that Lieut.-Col. Charteris, who
entered the army in 1840, but who had not completed the
term of 2.5 years on his recent retirement on half pay, ex-
changed with an officer who had served the required period,
according to the Royal warrant.

DRAINAGE-IRELAND.

In reply to Mr. BAGWELL,

Mr. PEEL regretted that it was not the intention of the
Government to author ise a continuance of the former sys-
tem of arterial drainage.
HORSE DUTY.

Mr. HUNT asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether,
in consequence of the small number of horses kept for hire
in some parts of the country, and the difficulty expe-
rienced by the county constabulary in obtaining horses
on hire from licensed persons, the Government
would consider the propriety of recommending to Parlia-
ment to exempt from duty horses hired for police service,
on the same principle on which an exemption was now
allowed by law in the case of horses hired to convey pri-
soners to gaol ?

Mr. PEEL replied that it was not desirable to multiply
exemptions. The licensed persons paid a high duty, and
there was no necessity, at the present moment, to inter-
fere with their trade.

EAST INDIA (REUNION).
Mr. CAVE moved for copy of any communication from
her Majesty's consul at Reunion, respecting the condition
of natives of British India held to labour in that island.
Mr. LAYARD explained that the attention of the Go-
vernment was directed to tho subject, and they would do all
in their power to protect the natives from being held in un-
willing slavery.

After a short discussion, in which Sir M. Farquhar, Sir
J. Elphinstone, and Mr. H. Seymour took part, the motion
was withdrawn.
INCOME TAX.

Mr. HUBBARD rose to move, as affirming the prin-
ciple of an income tax, that the incidence of an
income tax touching the products of invested
property should fall upon net income, and that the net
amounts of industrial earnings should, previous to assess-
ment, be subject to such an abatement as may equitably
adjust the burthen thrown upon intelligence and skill as
compared with property. The hon. member said the con-
sideration of the question of revenue and expenditure
became more important when they considered that the in-
direct taxation of the country was now narrowed to a few
articles, and that tea and sugar, the most important of these
articles, were bearing war duties. Nothing could be more
natural than that there should be a loud cry for the reduc-
tion of the war duties ; but a cry as loud would be raised
for the reduction of the income-tax, because the tax was
not only unpopular in itself, but that the existence of it was
a memorial of broken faith, and the utter fallacy of all pzo-
phetic finance. But there was nothing in the nature of the
income-tax to make it unpopular, or unfit it for the purposes
of revenue; yet, nevertheless, it was viewed with detesta-
tion and alarm ; and that could only be because it was not
offounded upon any definite principle. It was not an invention
of their
own days, hut had come to them from the dark ages
w osp
pf finosesan,
acn with
e ace;
e it had only been introduced for temporary pur-
Bu t h
at p r
Under these circumstances it
place the income-tax upon a legitimate
had many years ago attracted
it,;
yassurancea there
tha thattli s itsda y dayssw er
e were
nu m bnumbered.ered
now?
was th® duty of the house to
basis. Circumstances
his attention to the working of
the income-tax ; and although the conclusions of the com-
mittee ho had moved for, and the weight of opinion in
that house, were opposed to him, still his conviction in
the soundness of his own views remained unaltered. A
heavy bill of indictment had been brought against him for
the course he had taken on this subject. This indictment
had charged him with having propounded an impracticable
scheme—(hear, hear)—that the scheme would create
greater anomalies than it would remove; that it was at-
tempting class legislation, that he was violating the compact
L made with the fund-holders, that he Was taking an unfair