Star.
London, England, 1828-06-17 00:00:00

TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 17, IV&

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Julia 16.
Sir A. GRANT, and other Members, from the Commons; brought
up the Land Tar Commissioneys Names Bill, the Larceny Laws
(Ireland) Consolidation Bill, the Criminal Justice (Ireland) Bill,
the Ball In Cues of Felony (Ireland) Bill, and some Private Bills.
Mr. Futonsou, and other Members, brought up the Property
in India Bill.

Mr. BAMILES, and other Members, brought up a Menage, se-
questing that permission might be granted for Lord Viscount
GODIDICS to attend the Commons' Committee on the State of the
Public Buildings in the Metropolis.
The Archbishop of YORK presented a Petition from the City
of York against Slavery in the West Indies.
Lord KING moved that the Order be discharged for the second
reading of the Penryn Disfranchisement Bill, which stood for thli
day, and that it be renewed for Friday.
After some conversation between the Earl of Maminnineat,
Lord Kute, and the Earl of ELDON, the motion was agreed to.
Land KING presented a Petition from William Cobbett, the
Younger, against the Surrey Road Bill.
The Earl of ELDON presented a Petition from the Bankers,
Merchants, and other Inhabitants of Glasgow, connected with the
Colonies, for protection to property in the West Indies ; also a Pe-
tition from the same place, against any further concession to the
Roman Catholics. •
The Marquis of SALISBURY presented a Petition from Hert-
ford, against Slavery in the West
Lord GODERICH presented a similar Petition from Lincoln.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a Parities from the
Silk Weavers of Manchester, for the Regulation of Wages.
The Southwark Bridge Bill was read a third time and paned.
The Ayr and Calder Navigation Bill was read a third time and
passeEa rld.
STANHOPE presented Petitions from several Pa-
rishes of the County of Derby, against the proposed suppression
of Small Notes.

STAMP DUTIES. CALCUTTA.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN had a Petition to
present from the Merchants, Traders, and other inhabi-
tants of the City of Calcutta. He did nut mean to found
any motion upon this Petition ; but he thought it right
to state the complaints alleged by the Petitioners.—
They complained of the sudden imposition of a heavy
Stamp Duty upon all transactions of commerce. The
Indian Government thought that they had a power 01
imposing. this duty by the Act of the 331 of the late
King. The inhabitants of Calcutta thought i therwise,
and they complained That they had been prevented from
expressing their opinion upon the subject in a public
meeting at Calcutta, the Governor General having in-
terfered to prevent such intended meeting. Upon the
legality of this impost he did not venture to give an'
opinion, neither could any opinion be formed as to its
necessity or policy, .without a very extensive inquiry
into the resources of the Indian Government, and into

the peculiar situation of the inhabitants of Calcutta ;
but he must say. that when the period arrived for the
renewal of the Charter of the East India Company, it
would be necessary to define and limit, with great ac-
curacy and strictness, the powers of Government in our
,East India possessions.
The Petition having been read,
Lord Viscount MELVILLE said, that the Act of
which the Petitioners complained was entirely the act,
of the Directors; but it was one in the propriety of
which be perfectly concurred. As to the legality of
this impost, one clause of the Act was entirely conclu-
sive. The Court of Calcutta had decided unanimously
that it was legal ; and if the Petitioners were divatisfied
with this decision, they had the right to appeal to the
King and Council. To this •appeal they had not re-
sorted ; but, instead of that, had petitioned Parliament
with respect to the expediency of the measure. It ap-
peased difficult to see why the town and neighbourhood
of Calcutta should be exempted from a tax which had
been enforced upon all the Presidencies of India. The
measure was adopted during the time that Mr. Can-
ning was President of the Board of Controul. ,As to
preventing the Public Meeting, the Government of the
Presidency acted in conformity to a General Order sent
out from England in the year 1806, to which Order
the names of Lord Minto and of another Noble Lord,
whom be did not then see .in his place (the Earl of
Carlisle), Members, of the Beard of Controul at that
period, were attached.
The Earl of DARNLEY supported the Petition.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN explained. He inclined to the
opinion that the impost was legal, bat all doubt upon such a ques-
tion ought to be removed.
The Petition was then laid upon the table.
BiNCH PRISON. - -

• Earl GREY presented a Petition from a. Gentleman
of the name of Robert Sterne Tighe, complaining of
the conduct of the Marshal of the King's Bench, is
having refused him the benefit of the rules. He had
already paid 804 for these rules ; but, in consequence
of a new.deteiner being lodged against him, be had
been confined within the walls, and thus deprived of a
privilege which he conceived he had purchased. The
petitioner had applied both to the Secretary of State
for the Home Department and to the Court of King's
Bench, but without success ; the pet inner stated also in
general, that the practice of granting the rules gave
rise to great hardship and extortion. He (the Noble
Earl) knew nothing of the facts of the case, and dis-
claimed all responsibility ; but when applied to as he
bad been, he thought it his duty to present the petition.
He had no intention to impute blame to either of the
high authorities to which the petitioner had previously
Appealed, bat he could not help thinking that the office
of Marshal of the King's Bench was one which required
regulation. One great improvement would be to re-
munerate the Marshal fully by salary, and to abolish
all emoluments derived from fees. The petitioner con-
chided by praying the House to institute an inquiry,
and-offering to prove all the allegations of the petition.
Lord TENTERDEN said, that the Noble Earl had
been so polite as to apprise him of his intention to pre-
sent this petition. He should only say, that if there
had been any sufficient ground of complaint established
by affidavit, the Court of King's Bench would have in-
terfered. The fees of the Marshal were regulated in
consequence of the inquiries and recommendation of a
Parliamentary Commission. Ia case of escape, the
Marshal was liable for the debt, and it was therefore
necessary that be should be satisfied with the securities
before he extended the privilege of the rules to a pri-
soner. In the case of Mr. Tighe, be did not require
new securities and new fees for the whole debts of that
Gentleman, but only for the additional amount of the
new detainee. This was fair and reasonable, inasmuch
as the liability of the Marshal was increased. He agreed
in mach of the general reasoning of the Noble Earl as
to the expediency of a new regulation of the office.
The office was ale which must be amply remunerated ;
frail the eland prisoners whom the Marshal had fre-
quently under his care, he should be enabled to main-
. tain a respectable station in society.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN had giien his fullest
attention to the case, which came under his notice when

in Mee, and he did not think it one which called upon
him to interfere with the Marshal in the execution of
his duty. He agreed in the opinion that a new regu-
lation of the office was expedient.
The Lunatic Regulation Bill wu, no the motion of Lord
illausteauss, read a third time and pealed.
Oa the moths of the Earl of Rasmus's, the Mad-houses (Scot.
land) BM was read a third time and passed.
The Linea Trade (Ireland) Atli waist through a Committee.
The liouctua.Gzszaar. and other Umbers of the House of
Commas brought up the Archhhhap of Canterbury's Bill.

SCOTCH PAROCHIAL SZTTLUSINT BILL.
the motion of the Sad of Rosraaaai, the House resolved
Itself Into a Committee upon this BBL
Lord Viscount MELVILLE said, that the provisions
of the Bill were at variance with its preamble. It pro-
fessed to be a measure for the regulation of settlements
in Scotland. It was in reaiitg no such thing. It ex-
tended the term which .afire a settlement from three
leers to seven. But not to all persons alike, not to the
natives of Scotland themselves, but only to the natives
of lieglitad and. Ireland. The object of the Bill was,
in fact, to prevent the influx of Irish labourers. And
this was diametrically opposed to the Act of Union
with Ireland: He proposed, therefore, to omit the words
" not being nativis of Scotland." This would make it
at least au equal law, but even so amended he should
be unwilling to consent so the passing of the Bill during
the present Session. He trusted the Noble Earl would
not press the measure if his Amendment should be car-
ried. It would in that cue be a new and sodden and
unexpected change of the law as respected the people
of Scotland. .

The Earl of ROSEBERRY would not divide the
House upon the Amendment, but he would vindicate
the Bill from the charge of being ap inhospitable anti.
Irish measure. It was only a measure of reciprocity.
A Seutchman having entered into England washable
to he sent bock the moment he became chargeable. And
in Leland there was no such thing as parochial settle-
ment at all. If the law of removal did net exist in
England, and if Poor Laws were established in Ireland
of the same nature as those of Scotland, it wi.uld be
.advantageous to' Ireland, and there would then be some
appearance of injustice in the distinction made by the
Bill between the inhabitants of the two countries. He
agreed with his Noble Friend, that if the amendment
were agreed to, the alteration of the law would be so
extensive as to require more deliberation.
Lord NAPIER opposed the Bill. One solitary Pe-
tition from Glasgow only had been presented in its
favour, and on this account they were called upon to
overturn the system of Poor Laws, which for a very
long period had conferred the most important advan-
tages upon the Country.
The Marquis of BUTE made a few observations in
favour of the Bill. The evils of the present system had
been experienced in other places as well as Glasgow;
but at the same time he would feel reluctant to agree
to a Bill which Made so marked a distinction between
the people of Ireland and the people of Great Britain.
The Earl of LIMERICK congratulated the House
upon the death of this Bill. He deprecated the intro-
duction into Ireland of that plague which had tainted
England so deeply—the Poor Laws. The subdivision
of Jails!, for the purposes of political ambition, and not
the want of Poor Lawr, had brought Ireland into her
present state of &vets.
Lad H ADDINGTON was favourable t) t',e Bill ;
but in the present 'Late of the House he should not call
fa a division. He was cettlinly not desitous that the
English system of Poor Laws, or perhaps, even the
Scotch system should be introduced into Ireland. But he
did-wish for the introduction of some system, to give the
landed proprietors of Ireland an interest in the condi-
tion of the labouring classes.
The Earl of LIMERICK explained.
The Amendment was then agreed to.
The House then resumed, and the Report was ordered to be re-
ceived this day three monthi.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.

WO. Cowman and Sir G. hi unsay took the oaths and their seats.
Mr. W. PEEL presented Returns of the quantity of Silver
Coin in circulation.--Ordered to be printed.
A Petition was presented from South-Shields, signed by certain
Anoraks, complaining uf the' payment of double fees to pracdsing
Barristers under the Bankrupt Law.—Laid on the table.
Mr. HOBHOUSE presented a Petition from various Coach
Proprietors residing In Westminster, complaining of some provi-
sions in the-Genend Turnpike Bill.
Sir E. KNATCH BULL said a few words in favour of the
Peddon.—Lsld on the table.
Mr. HOBHOUSE moved for certain Returns relating to.the
proceedings of the Select Vestry of St. James's Parish during the
past year.—Ordered.
Upon the motion of Mr. Patters, a new Writ was ordered for
the Borough of Wareham. vacant by the appointment of John
Caleraft, Esq. to diet:Ace of Paymaster General of his Majesty's
Forcfs.

ARCHIIIIIOP CM CAPTIZIORY'II ILL.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL moved the third reading of
the Archbishop of Canterbury's Bill.
Mr.•HUME objected to the principle of this Bill,
which went to grant the reversion of a situation, the
Registrar of the Court, which was a sinecure, and the
:dunes of which were performed by deputy. The House
of Commons in 1811 had resolved that it was expedient
so reduce as far as possible all sinecure places. The
'present Bill was in direct opposition to that Resolution,
and therefore it was that he was opposed to it. He was
aware that the Archbishop was placed in a difficult si•
tuition by the refusal of the two persons who now held
the situation to give up their interest; and he would,
therefore, not appose the Bill if the Right Honourable
Gentleman would consent to the introduction of a clause
td the effect. that nothing in that Bill should be held to
interfere with the right of Parliament to abolish the spi-
ke altogether—if the Right Honourable Gentleman
would introduce a clause declaratory of the intention
of Parliament, that nothing in that Bill should entitle
them to compensation in the event of its being hereafter
desirable to abolish the office in tato. He perceived
that the Right-Honourable Gentleman was not disposed
to agree to his proposition ; and therefore, though be
regretted ir, he felt bound to move as an Amendment,
that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.
The-ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that the Report
of the Committee was extremely favourable as to the
manner in which the duties of the office were performed.
The office was not altogether a sinecure, though he ad-
mitted that the emoluments of the office had consider-
ably increased within a few years. The fees, however,
were very small, and every one must admit that it was
of great importance that the documents kept in this
office should be carefully pteserved and arranged. The
Archbishop• of Canterbury had always had the power
of appointing three lives to this office. That was all
that was now required. One of the lips had dropped,
and the individual no* filling' the See of Canterbury
. bad as much tight to fill up the vacancy as any Gentle.