Star.
London, England, 1820-07-06 00:00:00

GRANTHAM ELECTION.

:\ Ir. WODEHOUSE brought up a Report from the Corn-
ruttee on the Grantham Election, stating, that Sir 'Wm. Man-
aus, Wm. Atter, Hugh Manners, and Richard Armstrong Jer-
roht, had been summoned as witnesses before the Committee,
ard d'.l not attend.

After some conversation between Mr. WODIUOCSI, Mr.
V,. , Sir R. Ilettos, 51r. 'frsNrsoN, and SerjeantONsLow, as i
to whether the above-named Gentlemen should be committed,
i: was at length ordered that the short-hand writer who took
tl,twn the evidence before the Committee, and the officers who
went to serve the witnesses with the summonses to attend the
CQun nittee. should attend this day at the Bar to be examined.
LANCASTER JAIL.
Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a Petition from. Nathan
P,rc daunt, a prisoner confined in Lancaster Jail, complAining
of sev,.re treatment. The Petitioner stated, that he had been
v:::t tJ th::t jail, having been convicted of a misdemeanour—that
L_• was deprived in the first instance of the usual allowance to
j..izoners, and was afterwards kept to hard labour for ten hours
each day.

Afters short conversation between Mr. W. Bourn, Mr. BEN-
::, and Mr. Alderman Wouu, thy Petition was ordered to by

!wird.

11013110 USE presented a Petition front Thomas Jones,
a^o:her prisoner in the same jail, couiplaining that the Peti-
-.lo.ier had been confined below the ground—that the jailor had
c :erhittcd personal violence on him, that the aid of a surgeon
L..: been refused him, and that his earnings had been partially
?ptd from him by order of the Magistrates. The Honour-
Aember said, that in presenting ae Petition, he felt it
right 'o st.tte he had a contmunication with the jailor, who stated
t'..At the charges were greatly exaggerated.—The Petition was
4,:dertd to be printed.
STANDING ORDER RESPECTING TRADE.

"Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW, after stating that ice should post-
prie the two other motions of which he had given notice, said,
tbAt he had to propose to the House the adoption of a ltesola-
:lull, as a Standing Order of the House, to this effect, that
r.o Hill, 'flaking any regulationr respecting the making of, any
articles of manufacture, or altering the apprentice-
laws-of any particular trade, or directing marks to be af-
ilsed to any commodities, should be read a first time, without
he'.ll:; fit-A submitted to a Select Committee. The expediency
of adopting this Resolution had been examined by a Committee
who had reported in its favour, and he believed much of the ob-
jection which had been made to it was now removed. lie con-
cluded b. itio% sing his Resolution.'
Dlr. kl)lil Nst)N said, that as the Resolution was confined
to the internal regulations of trade, he saw no particular objec-
tiln to it.

The SPEAKER suggested, that the Resolution would be
more conformable to other Standing Orders of the House, if it
wyre made necessary that the Committee should report before
.-..!re Rill was brought in, rather than before it was read a Lint time.
Mr. Serk!ant W.CSLOF acceded to the sugliestion of the
flab ; and after a few Observations from Mr. Ric.anoo, Mr.
'U r. rie.v, and Mr. Wessman, the Resolution was
twice read, M W
and adopted as a Standing Order.
SCOTS HALT DUTY.
Lord A.TIAMILTON having risen to make his
motion for a Resolution resecting the Tax o's Malt
in Scotland,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
he should inform the Noble Lord what he intended to
doohat the Noble Lord might know how far his
motion was rendered unnecessary. He should pro-
pose a temporary allowance of sixpence per bushel on
Malt male from big or beer, under certain regulations.
. L.,rd A. HAMILTON said, this cos essiun was SOI

inferior to what the people in Scotland expected and
considered as due to them, that he shoeld &Mist in
his motion, of which be. would willingly have averted
the necessity. The grounds on which he objected to
the Tax lately imposed on Sux&Malt, were three
Ist. That it had been the practice for more than a
century to impose on Scots Malt only half the duty
that was imposed on Malt in England ; 2dly, that a
leis Tax had been, generally imposed on Beer or Big
than on Barley Malt ; and Sdly, that -the Tax was
passed at an improper time and in an.unfair manner
—in the last week of the last Session, when scarcely
any Scots Members were present, or knew of the Bill.
The effect of the increased duty had been such in
Scotland, that the distilleries could no longer work
except at a loss. The fact was, very few of the great
distilleries had worked during the last twelve months,
and those only were satisfied with the duty as it at,
preseilt stood, who found means of defrauding the
Revenue. It seemed probable, indeed, that • this in-
crease of duty on Scots Malt had originated in some.
mistake, for a letter in Oitober from the Treasury,
in answer to an application from Scotland, of the 23d
of August last, stated that the increase of duty on
' Scots Malt was Is. 2d. per -bushel, whereas it
turned out to be is. 91d. Petitions had poured in
against this Tax from every part of. &Wand.—
Upon the cultitators of interior soils, where the in-
ferior descriptions of Barley were grown, it was most
oppressive. The small stills, which had been en-
couraged by Government for the counteraction of ,
lick distillation, were now obliged to cease working,
and to give way to unlawful competition. The Noble
Lord having urged his arguments against the tax,
under the several heads we have mentioned, said, he
.should propose certain Resolutions. The Resolutions '
stated, that in the Malt Duty Acts of 172.5, 1760,
.1779. 1786, and 1755, the principle had been recog-
nized, that the rate of duty
.on Malt in Scotland
should be one-half of the rate of duty on Malt in
England ; that by those and various -other Acts,
smaller duties had been imposed on Beer or Big, than
on Barley Malt ; that by the Act of the last Session,
the duty on Malt had been increased 16 per cent. in
Scotland and diminished per cent. in England.—
The Resolution with which he intended to conclude
the series was to this effect—" That the departure
from the principle previously acted upon in the im-
position of the duties on Malt had been injurious to
the agriculture and general interests of Scotland."—
The Noble Lord moved his first Resolution.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
the practice with respect to the. imposition of the
duty on Malt had not been entirely uniform ; for in
1713, six years after the Union, 6d. per bushel duty
was imposed on Scots and English Malt equally,
though twelve years after it was reduced in the case
of Scotland—(Hear, hear).---.There was obviously
great inconvenience in the existence of unequal taxa-
tion in different parts of the Island. It was to be
observed, that in 1802, a tax of Is.Oid. per bushel,
and in the next Year 2s. more per bushel, had been
imposed on Malt in Scotland as well as England ; a
tax not much less than that which existed at present.
Though on the whole the English might 5e some.
what superior to the Scots Barley, yet much of the
Barley of Scotland was quite equal to that of Eng-
land ; and in many of the Counties of England, espe-
cially the Northern Counties, the English Barley was
inferior to the average of Scotland. He_ allowed
that in the case of Beer or Big there was a claim for
a reduction of the duty, • and he proposed to grant a
temporary allowance of 6d. per bushel. If the duty
in Scotland were less than in England, it would be
necessary to prohibit the intercourse ingrain between
the two countries, because '250,000 quarters of Bar-
ley had been imported into Leith from England, and
would probably be sent back in the shape of malt or
strong ales. He should, therefore, persevere in the
principle which Parliament had adopted,'and would
move the previous question.
Mr. FERGUSON said, he could not agree that
-there should be no deviation from the old proportion
of the duties in the two countries, though he should
have approved that the duty should be somewhat
lower in Scoland than in England.
Lord A. HAMILTON said he had never men-
tioned that the old proportion should be rigidly
adhered to—(Hear).
Sir J. MARJORIBANKS said the Members for
Scotland had been placed in b most difficult situation,
when after having left Parliament without any know-
ledge of such a tax being imposed, they had had to
meet their constituents, who upbraided them with
their burthen. Ireland had a Secretary to protect
its interests, but poor Scotland was left without any.
defender in the House. The tax was . one of the
severest ever imposed on a country.
Mr. KENNEDY-said, when it was known that ii
Bill had passed respecting the Malt Tax on the 4d
of July of the last Session, no one imagined that
subject would be again touched in the Session ; yeti
on the 13th of the same month another Bill was'
-passed, not to explain, but entirely to overturn itt
He supported the Resolution.
After some observations from Mr. Ma RJORIBANNis
Mr. WILMOT, the CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER,
Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. W. SMITH, and Mr. DOUGLAS,
Lord A. HAMILTON replied.
Sir G. CLERK supported the motion.
The first two Resolutions were negatived without
a division.—The House divided upon the third Re-
solution.
For the Resolution -
Against it

- 43
.. 53
-....•....10

Majority against the Resolution
GRANTHAM ELECTION.
On the motion of Mr. WYNN, the Short-hand Writer who
took the minutes of evidence before the Grantham Election
Committee, was called to the Bar ; where he read that part of
the evidence which related to serving the Speaker's warrant on
Sir W. Manners, and the three other individuals before named.
It appeared that the person employed to serve the warrant had
made several ineffectual attempts to see Sir W. Manners, and
that eventually he throw the warrants over the pee of the court-
yard. Alter the Short-hand Writer bad withdrawn,
Sir R. HERON moved, that Sir W. Manners, Bart. be taken
into the custody 4 as Serjeant at Arms attending that Hops,.
Mr. TEN NYSON, on the ground that the circumstances
stated in the Report did not warsarat so severe a ptoecedkig,
moved, as an Amendment that kir W. Manners be endued to
attend that House on Illaday nut.
Br..P MOAK warmly defended the Caundttee.
ems evident that the persons in quesitioalmid4saw to evade
dim Order of the House.
Mr. W
Mtenipt to resist their authority, rit wad aa;s!t4.
Mr. F. TPALltiklit supported the
The Amendment was then misdeed -without a division, and
the original Motion carded.
her R. HERON proceeded to move that R. Armoring Jerrie

- • •
• . .
shook be forthwith eonunited to the custody al. the rjeant
at Arms. , ... . . • Se.
I . Lard N UGRNT ivieked it to be considered, that, as a earvant,
_ . . . .. . .

*iv might he some defence for the conduct of this individual.
;Dr. PHIL LI MORE maintained the necessity for-support-
Ina the authority or the house.
Sir 3. MAgNINTOBIII considered the Present as a most se-
• rice* instance of contempt of the inahority of the House of
commons; and he considered it necessary, in order to teach all
persons in future that such conduct could not be pursued with
Impunity, not to allow it to pass unnoticed.
The Motion was then agreed to.
.Sir R. HERON then moved that Mr. Hugh Manners be
,lialteir into the custody of the Serjeant at Arms. .
Mr. S. BOURNE considered it as doubtful whether or not
4the summons had been properly served on this Individual.
After a short conversation, in which Sir R. Helton, Mr.
Wyse, Mr. Gom.auax, and Mr. S. Boca se participated, Sir It.
Heim; agreed to withdraw the motion, and Mr. .Uanners was
ordered to attend that Muse on Monday.
Sir R. HERON lastly moved, that William Atter be taken
into the custody of thelerjeant at Arms. • • '••• •
Mr. TENN YSON, on the ground that it did vat appear cer-
tain that Atter was aware that he was disobeying the orders of
the House, moved, as an Amendment, that he beArdereel to at-
tend cn Monday.
A discussion ensued, in which Mr. Wrxit, Sir J. NEWPORT,
Mr. S. Bogen& Mr. Serjeant OwsLow • Dr. LUSIIINOTON, Mr. R.
Slum, Sir J. Macanrrosii, and Sir R. Haws participated.
Eventually the Gallery was cleared, but there was no division,
and the original motion was agreed to.
ISLAND TOBAGO.

Lord NUGENT rose to move for an humble Address to his
Majesty, for Copies of Correspondence between the Secretaty
of State for the Colonial Department, and the Governor and.
Chicf Justice of the Island of Tobago, relating to certain charges
preferred by the late Attorney-General of that Island. The
Noble Lord said, if the correspondence were produced, he would
submit a motion to the House respecting the jurisprudence of
that Island. lie regretted to say, that charges of cruelty and
oppression had been made, though he did not Charge the Go-
vernor of the Island with any abuse of power. Whatever of
abuse or of oppression might have occurred, proceeded from
causes over which he had no controuL
After a few observations from Mr. Gortsuax, the motion
was agreed to.