The Sun.
London, England, 1828-06-17 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF LORDC Jt NL 16

Sir ALEXANDER GRANT and others, floor the
Commons, brought up the Land Tax Cotmnis-
stoners' :Bill, the Larceny Laws (Ireland) Consoli-
dation. Bill, the Criminal Justice (frehind) Bill, the
Bail. in cases of Felony (leeland) Bill.
Mr. FERGUsSON and others brought up the Property-
'in India Bill.
Mr. BANKES and others brought up a Message,
requesting that their Lordships might permit Lord
Viscount Goderich to be examined before the Select
C,m-runittec of the Commons appointed to enquire
into tilt, public buildings under the, direction of the
Board of 'Works.
Leave was giren to Lord Gtidetielt to attend
the Select Committee of the idolise of Commons,
pursuant to their requeA, and his Lordship signified
his assent.
The Messengers were informed that their Lord-
ships would send an RD.; wer by Messengers of their
own.

The Archbishop of YORK presented a petition
from the city of York, praying for the abolition of
Slavery. •
Lord MAYNARD presented a petition from
Colchester against the Bill limiting the circulation
of One Pound Notes.
PENRYN DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
Lord KING said that in.consequence of the in-
disposition • of his Noble Rim' (the Earl of Cal-
narvon) he was requested to move that the order of
the day for the second reading of the Penryn Dis-
franchisement Bill. be read for the purpose of discharg-
ing it. His Nohle Friend expected to be able to attend
on Friday next, and he would therefore fix the
second leading for that day, and moved that their
Lord•:bips be summoned accordingly.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that from
the great extent of the evidence, it was desirable that
a day should be fixed• on which the Noble Lord
would be able' eeitainly to attend.
Lord KING had no doubt but that Friday would
he a perfectly convenient day.
Their Lordships were ordered to be summooed for
Friday.

The Earl of ELDON presented a petition against
any further concession to the Catholics, and also a
petition from certain Merchants and others in Glas-
gow, praying for protection to WeSt India property.
Petitions for the abolition of slavery were pre-
sented from Hertford by the Marquis of SALISBURY,
and from Gainsborough by Lord Goomcn.
Lord KING presented a petition from William
Cobbett, junior, against the Southwark Bridge Bill.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a peti-
tion from certain silk weavers of Macclesfield, pray-
ing that a rate of wages might be established. • I
The- Southwark-bridge and the Aire and Calder
Navigation Bill were read a third time, and passed.
Earl STANHOPE. presented a petition from
Kilburn against the Small Note Bill.
STAMP DUTIES IN INDIA. -
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE held in his hand
a petition from the Merchants, Traders, and other
Inhabitants of Calcutta. The petitioners stated,
that no grounds had been made out; for taxing their
property, and complained that sufficient notice
had not been given them of the grounds on
which they were taxed; they contended that it was
illegal for the Local Goveinment of India to levy, as
it had done, a stamp duty on all the mercantile tran-
sactions within the city, such as the Local Govern-
ment thought itself authorised to levy in the rest of
the country. The petitioners doubted if it were legal
to levy :_;tamp duties in other parts of India, and
were confident that it did not extend to Calcutta.—
They complained that they had calleda-ptiblic meet-
iug at Calcutta, which the Government had inter-
fered to put a stop to. They further• stated that the
measure had been secretly determined by the local
Government, which had secretly communicated its
determination to the Government at home,' Which
had secretly sent out instructions on the Seet to
India, so that the duty was enforced before the peti-
tioners had time to-consider or protest against it.—
On these grounds the petitioners came before their
Lordships for relief. The Noble Marquis concluded
by saying, that he did-not mean to fonnd any measure
on the petition, but thought it due to the interests
of the inhabitants of Calctitta to ask their Lord-
ships to allow the petition to be read at length.
The petition was accordingly read.

Lord MELVILLE would refer their Lordships to
the Act of the 63d of the late King, into which, if
they pleased to look, they would be satisfied that
there did exist a power in the local Government to
Impose the tax. There was one more circumstance
he ought to mention, and that was, that this tax bad
been declared legal by the Supreme Court of Cal-
cutta. The order for its imposition had been sent
out by the'Board of Controul while the late Mr.
Canning was 'at, its head, and he had approved of
the measure, but the Government of India had not
at first leisure to carry it into effect. There was
another imputation against the Indian Government
in the petition, and that was, that they had put
down the means by which the sentiments of the in-
habitants were expressed. Now in that point also
the local Government had acted upon .orders sent
out from home, directing them to prevent tuninhous
meetinn of this kind;, and orders too, if he recol-
lected rightly, that had been sent_out while Lord
Henry Petty was a Member of the Board. of C 011•
tl oul, and which were signed by the name of that
Nobleman himself. He did therefore think, that
the Noble Marquis ought not to haVetoide them the
object of blame in that respect.

After a few words from Earl DARNLEY . and the
Marquis of LANSDOWNE, the petit'on was ordered to
he laid upon the table-.

•KING'S BENCH PRISON.
Earl GREY, in presenting a petition from an
individuair whose name we understood to be Robert
Sterne Tighe, said, that the petitioner was a person
of very respectable family, and had been affluent,
but was now in difficulties, and at this time a pri-
soner in the King's Bench. The object of the pe-
tition was, to bring before their Lordships,a case of
hardship, and to complain of. injustice. which the
petitioner alleged to have been exercised towards
him by the Marshal of the King's- Bench; with
respect to the granting of the Rules of that prison.
His. Lordship here explained the Object of 'obtaining
the Rules—the responsibility imposed 'upon, the
Marshal—and the manner in whieh he indemnified
.
himself, by taking
,securityafrorn the prisoners. The
petitioner couiplaimed that there; wa no. specific
sum required as the price of .obtaining this advan-
tage, and that nothing was regulated by the practice,
but that the Marshal had the power of demanding
whatever he deemed necessary' for the allowance of
the Rule The petitioner stated that he had paid 40/.
but notwithstanding that payment, in consequence of
a further detainer being lodged against him, he had
been deprived of the liberty he wished to ptl,l9iise, and
subjected to six months' close' confincinent,.without
having been guilty of any infraction of the rules of the
plison. The. Petitioner had already applied for re-
dress to the Secretary of State for file Home Depart-
ment, and to the Court of King's Bench; but failing
to obtain redress there, he respectfullr approached
their Lordships,, and requested them to take into con-
sideration the means of affording a. remedy to the
evils of which he complained.. Such was the case
which he (Earl Grey) had, in pursuance of duty 'pre-
sented to the notice of their Lordships. Of the facts
his Lordship knew nothing; butif truly stated hi the
Petition there was a well founded subject of Com-
plaint. He could not believe 04 hlante wit's to be
attached to 'either of the two quarters to which the
Petitioner had previously applied. The Tome .De-
pertinent at the time in question was.under the di-
rection of his Noble Friend near him and it was im-
posiible to suppose that any person could come be-
fore that Noble Lord with a serious complaint of any
kind, and nevertheless fail to meet with 'attention
and to obtain redress, unless it was beyond hiS power
to grant redrets7=lllol7r h regard
to the Court of King's Bench, nobody could enter-
tain a higher respect for that Court or for the Noble
and Learned Lord who there administered'his high

~.~.Z„5

Office than he had ; and he was quite confident that
when the application came before him the com-
plaint would have been immediately redressed,
if it had been possible to redress it. He lamen-
ted that an evil of this kind should exist, without
any one having the power to redress it ; but he
onsted the-period had now arrived when its recur-
rence might be prevented. It occurred to him that
the office of MaAal of the King's Bench should be
regulated:. Prom the mere circumstance that the
thief emolument of the Officer depended 011 the
fee. which he received oar' the rules, it must neces-
sarily happen that many complaints would arise as
to the manner in which they were. granted. The
only way to obviate the complaints was to -make
new regulations as to the payment of the Office.—
The Marshal should be paid a fixed salary, and not
by fees. He-should have a salary adequate to the
importance of his office—perhaps 2,0001. or 2,500/,
aiear—and he should be under the r•ontroul of the
Court of King's Bench, or, if that was too great an
addition to the dutie‘already imposed upon the Judges
of that Court, he should be under the controul of some
officer of that Court. He wished to say distinctly,
that there ought to be no legislative diminution of
the emoluments of the present ittabhal, who bad held
the office for thirty-six years, or, if there was any
such diminution, it must be on the principle of com-
pensation. He ventured to throw out these sugges-
tions for the cons deration of the Noble and Learned
Lord who presided over the Court to which the
Marshal was a Ministerial officer. His Lordship
moved that the petition be brought up.
Lord TENTERDEN would state the informa-
tion which he had been able to obtain. It appeared
by the Report of the Commissioners appointed to
inquire into the fees received by the officers of the
Courts of Law, _that the fees claimed by the Mar-
shal were filed and definite. Those paid upon the.
rules -had been in proportion to the debt on which
the prisoner wets detained. Ten gni:lea's were ori-
ginally demanded for the first hundred pounds, but
that sum had been reduced by the present Marshal
to eight guineas. The responsibility of that officer
was very great. He was answerable for the custody
of every prisoner, and must, consequently, be the
judge of the security to be demanded from him when
he obtained the rules. It was true that when a
•

fresh detainer. was lodged against a prisoner who had
already obtained the rules, he was called within the
walls, but the Petitioner had represented that he
was obliged to give new securities and new fees for
the whole debt. That was not the fact. The. Mar-
shal stated, that the new security and the new
fees were only for the additional debt; but the
Petitioner might so speak of the practice of calling
in the old securities, to ask them whether they were
willing to re-execute the bond into which they had
at first entered. That, however, was but reasonable,
as men might be willing to become security for a
man whose debts amounted to 1,0001.; but unwil-
ling to remain security even for that sum, when they
found his debts was doubled. in this case the peti-
tioner obtained the rules in January 1824, -and, in
December of that year a fresh detainer for 1,888/.
was lodged against him. He was called within the
rules, and required to find fresh securities for the
additional sum, but the Marshal said he would not
press him at that time for the additional fees. The
Marshal, however, then inquired for the original se- •
curities, in order to call on them to re-execute their
bond. He then discovered that one of the securities
was the Sheriffs' officer who-had arrested the pri-
soner, and the' other was a man procwred by the
Sheriffs' officer to beCome security with him. The
Marshal was, of course, dissatisfied with these secu-
rities, and required others. His Lordship then ex-
pressed his approbation of the suggestions made by
the Noble Lad who presented the petition, and
again spoke of the high responsibility of the office,
and the very proper °manner in which, up to this
time, the Marshal had discharged its various 'duties.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, it was per-
fectly true, that the petitioner and several other
persons 'had made an application to him, while fill-
ing the office of Home Secretary, which he found it
not in his power to grant; neither, he believed,
could it have been granted by the Noble and Learn-
ed Lord- who- presided in ' the Court of King's
Bench, constituted as the oftlee"of Marshal at pre-
sent was. He was glad the qUestion had been
brought forvrard, as it would lead to an amendment
of existing system.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

A petition ►►•ai presented from Radnor, on the
subject of a Duty on Foreign Wool.—Laid on the
table.

The Earl of ROSEBERRY moved the third
reading of the Scotch Lunatics' Regulation Bill.—
The Bill was read a third time and passed.
On the Motion 'of the Earl of MALMESBURY,
the Lunatics' Regulation Bill was read a third time
and passeA.
On the Motion of Lord COLCHESTER, the
Irish Linen Trade Regulation Bill went through a
Committee.

• Messages from the House of Commons brought
up the Archbishop. of Canterbury's Registrar Bill;
it was read a first time.

PAROCHIAL SETTLEMENTS—(SCOTLAND).
The -Earl of ROSETIERRY moved that the
House should resolve itself into a Committee of the
whole HoUse upon the Law of Parochial Settle-
ments in Scotland.

The House having resolved itself into a Corn-
niittee, , ,

Lord 'MELVILLE assured their Lordships that
this was a Bill which required their' most serious
.consideration.- The true-and real object was "to ex-
clude firm settlement the Irish' poorer classes i'Vho
annually visited' Scotland ; but it was not, he sup.
posed, thought decent to exclude the Irish only, and
therefore it was thought proper to include natives of
England also. He maintained that any law of this
kind ought to be so framed as to bear equally upon
the inhabitants of the three branches of the empire ;
that an Englishman or an. Irishman should be equally
privileged in Scotland with its natives, and vice
versa. Besides, this bringing in of the pedple of
England was contrary to the 4th article of the
Treaty of Union with Scotland, which provided
that the natives of the two countries should enjoy
equal privileges in both countries, unless where
there existed some law to the contrary. Now the,
law propOsed by the Noble Earl opposite was at va•
'lance with this clause. Were they by this Bill to
prevent the labouring Irish from that intercourse
with -Scotland from which •they derived 'so much,
advantage at present ? if this were to be' done,
there was-no end to the extent to which the argu-
ment might be--carried. It was his intention to
move, as an amendment; to omit the words
" not being natives of Scotland," by which
omission the Bill 'would stand conformably to
its tide, Viz.., it would go to alter. the. LaW of Settle-
ment in Seotlatid: But, he confessed, that he was
not altogether ptepated tnsupport his own Amend-
. ment, or, in other words, to support the-Bill when
so amended,* Before such au important 'alteration
was' made in the Law of Scotland, he thoUght time
ought to be given to the people of, that 'c entry to
consider of the measure. • He' hoped, therefore, that
after the Amendment was :adopted; the Noble Earl
would not press the Bill, further' uring the present
Session. He thought, too, that if it were, to be
passed it would be.better to .fix;the periodteof gaining
a settlement of dive years, instead of seven.

The Earl of ROSEBERRYf
the szid,Baifiti,eri.tme,herattaillitalyd
passed on a preceding stage :o
was not his intention- to press his opposition to the
proposed amendment to a division but at the same
time, if any other Noble LOrd shtnild third( fit to
take'sbch a course, he trusted he might held hiiiiietf
at liberty to side with 'him upon it. The'Noble
V6count whOnpposed the Bill, and whose• amend-
ment would have the effect of annihilating its prin-
ciple, told their Lordships that this was the -first
time different principles of legislation had been pro-
posed for the three component parts of the enipkre.
Now, he contended that 'they 'started decidedly
different systems of Poor LAN's ill the three Conn-
The Nobfe Earl opposite (the Earrof Lime-
rick) • had admitted that the superabundant popu4-