The Sun.
London, England, 1828-03-18 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 17.

The SPEAKER took the Chair this day at the usual hour.
Some Papers were laid OR thetable, respecting the rates
levied on the parish of Lambeth.
Mr. Alderman WOOD brought up a Bill for amending
the several Acts- relating to the parish of St. Marylebone.
Lord WM. PAULETT brought up the Navigation
Company Bill, which was read a first time.
Mr. CAPEL brought up the Queenborough Oyster
Fishery Regulation Bill.
Mr. ASHURST moved for leave to bring in a Bill for
settling and dividing certain lands in the parish of St.
Giles, in the city of Oxford. The petition on which the
Bill was to be founded came from the Fellows of St. John's
College, Oxford..
Lord ALTHORP opposed the Bill, on the ground
.that
the standing orders had not been complied with.
After a few words from Mr. LYTTLETON, Mr. EvrcouaT,
and the SPEAKER, the gallery was cleared foi'a division,
but we believe the House did not divide.
Lord ENNISMORK brought in a Bill tef enable the
Hibernian Joint 'Stock CoMpany to sue, and be sued, in
the name of the Treasurer.
Sir CHRISTOPHER COLE obtained leave to bring
in a Bill for the establishment of markets at Swansea,
county of Glamorgim.
Mr. GORDON brought in a Bill to enable the Liver-
pool Dock Company to raise more money, which was read
a first time.

Sir W. INGLEBY presented a petition from Spalding,
in Lincoln, in favour of the Aire and Calder Canal.
Mr. HOME DRUMMOND brought up a Bill for the
regulation of the Salmon Fisheries on the River Tay, which
was read a first time.

_
Mr. MANNING brought in a Bill for Consolidating the
several Acts relating to the London Docks, which was read
a first time.

Mr. C. PALLMEn brought up the New Clarence
Bridge Bill, which was read a first time.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

A Messenger from the House of Lords brought up a
Message from their Lordships, stating that the Mutiny
Bill, the Marine Mutiny Bill, and several Private Bills,
sent from this House, had been agreed to by their Lord-
ships, without any amenaments.
Mr. W. SMITH brought in Bill to enable the Thames
Tunnel Company to raise a further sum of money.
The Bill was read a first time.
Mr. D. BARCLAY brought in the Hammersmith
Bridge Bill, for the purpose of giving the Company power
to make approaches.
Mr. HUME brought in Bill for cleansing the town of
Aberdeen.
Mr. SPRING RICE brought in the Galway- Poll Bill.
. Mr. J. SMITH presented a petition from the Rev. Sir
Harcourt Lees, of Dublin, against the Repeal of the Test
and Corporation .Acts. .
Mr. J. SMITH presented a. petition from the Catholic
Inhabitants of'Rossearberry, in the county of Cork, pray-
ing for A.
.111ipe11 of the Roman. catholic disabilities.
The Marquis 'of CHANDUS presented petitions from
the Rector and Inhabitants of Chcrrington, and other

parishes in Buckinghamshire, praying that if 'the House
should think fit to Repeal the Test and Corporation Acts,
sufficient sureties should be provided for the maintenance
of the Established Church. _

Lord W. PAULETT presented a petition from the Pro-
testant Dissenters of Darlington,. praying for a Repeal of -
the Test aiad Grporation Acts.
Lord LOWTHER presented a petition from the
Alaltsters of Kendal and its. Vicinity, against the Malt
Regulation Act. •
Mr. ASHURSt presented a petition from the Free-
holders and Inhabitants of Horsefair in Oxfordshire, against
the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts.
Bir H. SMYTII presented a petition from the Corpora..
tion of Colchester, praying that in the event of a Repeal of
the lest and Corporation Acts the House would take care
that the interests of the Established Church should not be
impaired. • -
Mr. D. W. HARVEY said, the petition presented by his
Hon. Colleague -certainly had the Corporation Seal affixed
toit, but so far from being the petition of the Corporation
of Colchester in its aggregate capacity, it was the petition
of a very small minority. The Corporation of Colchester
consisted of 48 members, but the meeting at which this
petition was agreed to consisted of twenty-one members,
and they were not unanimous in carrying this petition.
The petition, although brief, embraeed a great many topics,
and he should therefore wish his lion. Colleague to move
that the petition be read. The petitioners protested against
the march of liberal principles—(laughter)—against the
granting of privileges to men who were avowedly hostile
to a connexion between Church and State, and against the
relief sought for by the Roman Catholics. The petitioners,
not satisfied with having in .s 0 many 'sentences entered into
those protests went further, and asked that House to protect
the Sovereign from being robbed of the allegiance of his Isyal
subjects. Whilst he was on his legs he begged to notice a state-
ment made by the Right Hon, Gent. the other night, that
_the Test and Corporation Acts produced no practical in.:
convenience. On the death of the late Recorder of CM-
chester two eminent Barristers presented themselves as
candidateS, and upon that occasion the practical incon-
venience resulting from those Acts was not very trivial,
and the anxiety manifested by certain Members of that
Corporation to prevent Dissenters from obtaining a footing
in it iv-is not attempted to he concealed ; for one of the
Aleinllers asked the candidate who had the majority.
of votes, whether he had received the sacrament within the
presefibed 'time, 'and that 'gentleman- having replied in the
negative, the votes given for him were rejected. He should
not have thought it-necessary to have made these observa-
tions If the petition had come from any private -
or from any number of individuals unaccompanied with
the dangling dignity of the Corporation Seal.
Mr. WM. SMITH said he knew, of his own knowledge,
that there'were. riot more than half of the Corporation
present When thialictition was agreed to.
The petition Wei" then brought up and read, and the
reading excited seimc laughter.
Sir NV. INGLEBY braught np a petition from Spilsby,
Lincoln, against *Malt Act.
-BRITISH WOOL TRADE.

Th 4 Hon: Member also presented petitions from sonic
parishes in the- comity of Lincoln, praying for the pro-
tection of 'the British- Wool Trade.

Mr. HEATHCOTE said, he really thought the condition
of the British Wool Grower was such as to call for the -irnme-.
diate interposition of Government ; - whilst wool retained its
price the •evil• was 'not felt—but when it fell very low the
manufacturer, as Well as the agriculturist, felt the injury.
Within the last week, however, the price of wool, which
was already very law, had still further declined. He
therefore called upon the Right Honourable Gentleman,
whom lie saw in his -place, to.state whether Government
intended to relieve' filo agriculturists from any part of the
evils which pressed on them. The House and the Mi-
nistry no doubt had been occupied with other subjects, but
he, and those: Mombers who came lately from the country,
could testify the extreme interest which the agriculturists
felt on thi4 subject, -and he hoped Ministers would come
forward and give the country the satisfaction of knowing
what they intended to do.
Mr. Secretary. HUSKISSON said, that in the absence
of his Right Honourable Friend, the President of the Board
of Trade, he-would not enter upon this subject, nor even
state the priticiple.upon which his Majesty's Government
had come to the decision, that by granting the protection
which the Honourable Gentleman alluded to they would
not relieve, but, on the contrary, would injure the agricul-
turist.—(Hear, hear.)
CORN LAWS.

Mr. BARING said he was not desirous to prolong the
debate which had risen on this subject. The answer of
the Right Hon. Secretary was most important, and he fully
concurred with him that, by granting the - protection
which the Hon. Member (Mr. Heathcote) seemed
to desire, he• • would injure the manufacturer without
rendering any relief to the wool-grower.--- There was
another subject, however, on which he thought the Govern-
ment called on to afford some information. The House
had been sitting for several weeks, and the Easter holidays
were fast approaching, it was therefore most important
that Ministers should state when they intended to introduce
the proposed measure on the subject of the Corn Laws.
On a subject of such general interest to the country, he
thought that at this period of the Session it was not too
much to ask when it was the intention of Goveinment to
bring forward that Measure ?
Mr. Secretary PEEL had the satisfaction to state that
his Right Hen. Friend the President of the Board of Trade
would communicate 'to the House to-morrow the precise
period when it was intended to bring the subject of the
Corn Laws before the House.
SUB-LETTING ACT.
Mr. ELLIS presented a petition from the Roman Ca-
tholics of St. Michael's and St. John's, Dublin, against
the Sub-letting Act.
Mr. CALCRAFT begged to take this opportunity of
asking his Right Hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Peel), whether
it was or w;ts not. the intention of his Majesty's Govern-
ment to make any alteration in the Sub-letting Act ?
Mr. Secretary PEEL believed it was the intention of
his Right Honourable Friend, the Secretary for,
Ireland, to propose some alteration in the details
of that measure, though he approved of the principles of
the Act.

Mr. CALCRAFT felt extremely happy to hear this
from the Right Hon. Gentleman. He agreed that the
principles of this Act were very correct, right, and proper
to be applied to the state of society in Ireland prospectively,
but that which, he objected to in it, was its retrospective
effect. By its retrospective effect he would venture to say
that it would operate in the most unjustifiable manner
on a great mass of people in Ireland. It was in
point ,of fact an ex post facto law.—(Hear, hear.)—What
had just been stated had the effect for the present of greatly
shortening what ,he (Mr. C.) had intended to have said,
and, indeed,. he hoped be would not have occasion to trouble
the House further on this subject.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER agreed en-
tirely with the principle of the Act. When it came
before the House again upon the proposed amended de-
tails, he shoUld, have an opportunity of stating more fully
his construction of the measure ; and if his Honourable
Friend opposite did not agree in the view he took, he could
take the opportunity of correcting him.
NEW WRIT.,

On the motion of Mr. PLANTA, a new writ was or-
dered for the county of Anglesea, for the election of a
Member, in .the room of the Earl of Uxbridge, who has
accepted the office of State Steward to the Lord Lieutenant
of Ireland. _

Mr. S. BOURNE, on behalf of Sir Thomas Acland,
postponed the motion of which he had given notice, respect-
ing the Test and Corporation Acts.
Sir J. NEWPORT presented a petition from the North
Ward, Dublin, against the Bill relatitig to Fires on board
Steam-boats.

Mr. P. THOMPSON presented a petition from the
Dissenters of New Romney, for the Repeal of the Test and
Corporation Acts.
THE MALT TAX.

After the presentation of several petitions against the
Malt Tax,
Sir J. GRAHAM asked whether it was the intention of
his Majesty's Ministers to introduce any measure on the
subject.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIIEQUER was
not now in a situation to give any decisive opinion.
He would be most ready to see the persons mere particularly
interested in this tax after Easter, and upon hearing what
they had to urge would be prepared to state his intentions
to the. House.
On the motion of Mr. W. WHITMORE, an Account
was ordered of the Foreign Wool entered for Mime Con-
sumption, from the sth July, 1825, to sth January, 1828,
specifying the quantity under each.head.
Mr. W. WHITMORE postponed, till Thursday next,
the further consideration of the Report on the Salmon
Fisheries. .
On the motion of Mr. SYKES, a Return was ordered
of the. Number of British Ships, and the Amount of
Tonnage registered, from sth January, 1827, to sth
January, 1828. Also a RetUrn of the Number of Mer-
chant Ships belonging to the United Kingdom.
STAMP DUTY ON RECEIPTS.

Mr. A. CAMPBELL presented a petition from the
Chamber of Commerce of Glasgow, for the Repeal of the
Stamp Duty on Receipts.
Mr. H. DAVIS presented a petition from the Governor,

Deputy- Governor, Assistants and Guardians of the Poor
of Bristol, with the same prayer. Alse a similar Petition
from the Merchants, Traders, and Manufacturers of
Bristol.
Mr. BRIGHT begged to support the prayer of the
petition, and observed that its prayer was, that the Stamp
Duty on receipts for large sums should be repealed, in
consonance with a petition on a former day, against the
Stamp Duty on Receipts for small sums. The object of
Government ought to be, to impose taxes of which the
people would not complain ; but this duty was liable to
many objections.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said as a
proof of his readiness to hear all parties, he might mention
that he had appointed to receive the Hon. Gentleman who
presented this petition, and some of his constituents, to-
morrow. The Hon. Gentleman who spoke last, had com-
pletely verified what lie (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
had stated on a former night, when the Repeal of' the Two-
penny and Threepenny Duty on Receipts was mentioned.
He had then said, that the same reasoning would apply
to the tax upon large as well as upon small sums. The
question, therefore, was whether Ministers were prepared
' to abandon every part of the Stamp Duty on Receipts?
Alderman WAITHMAN thought that there were peen-

liar objections to this tax—it oppressed most a class of in-
dividuals least able to bear it.

Mr. 'SYKES enforced the claims of the petitioners for
the Repeal of the Duty on Receipts for small sums, and
hoped that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was re-
ceiving deputations of wealthier individuals, he would not
forget their interests. Only 54,0001. was thus annually
raised, and the system encouraged Che odious race of spies
and informers.

Mr. R. GORDON adverted to the attempt to deceive

the public upon the subject. He agreed that no tax was
agreeable; but that upon Receipts, in his view, was as
harmless as any tax could be rendered. He hoped, there-
fore, that Government would not be induced to abandon
it by yielding to a clamour endeavoured to be raised against
it. As to the odious race of informers, he thought they
were a very useful and necessary body of men, and that
they were often most unjustly attacked. All Acts impos-
ing penalties required informers, for the law could not be
enforced without their aid.

The petition was then laid upon the table.
WATER COMPANIES.

Mr. W. PEEL brought up the Report of the Commis-
mission to inquire into the state of the supply of Water to
the Metropolis.

PRISON DISCIPLINE.

Sir E. DAVENPORT gave notice, that upon the 2Sth
April be would move the appointment of a Select Com-
mittee to consider and report upon the best means of in-
troducing an uniform system of prison discipline through-
out the country.

Lord NUGENT presented a petition from the Protest-
ant Dissenters of Cambridge, against the Corporation and
Test Acts.

Lord F. L. GOWER brought up the report of Colonel
Cockburn respecting emigration, and certain other papers:
_Ordered to be printed.
Mr. R. GRANT presented petitions from Mr. Maule,
of Edinburgh, and from the proprietors of salmon fisheries
on the river Dee, against the salmon fisheries' regulation
Bill.