The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-08 00:00:00

LOTTERIES.

Mr. PEASE wished to ask a question of the Hon. Alder-
man the Member for London (Alderman Wood). Ile wished
to know whether the Hon. Member intended to bring in a Bill
to raise funds, either by lottery or by a tax upon coals, for the
purpose of improving the streets of London ?
Mr. ALDERMAN WOOD said that it certainly was his
intention to ask leave to bring in a Bill similar to that men-
tioned by the Hon. Gentleman, and he trusted that he would
allow that Bill to pass.
Lord SANDON, seeing the Right Hon. Baronet (SirJ.
Hobliouse) in his place, wished to call his attention to a sub-
ject of some importance. It would be in the recollection of
the House that a Committee was appointed to inquire
into the appropriation of the, revenue upon salt in India; that
Committee had reported on the subject ; and he wished to
know from the Right Hon. Baronet whether any steps ha
been taken to carry the recommendations in that Report into
effect ?
Sir J. HOB HOUSE said that the Report had been sent to
the Governor-General of India, and be understood that it had
given very general satisfaction in that country, but he had not
yet received any further information upon the subject.
SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
The SPEAKER informed the House that it was his inten-
. •

tion to sit to-morrow at three o'clock ; first, for the purpose of
receiving petitions on the Irish Poor-laws, in order that they
might be referred to the Committee ; and, at fou'r o'clock,
he should resume the regular business of the House., With
respect to the petitions regarding the Ballot, he had to re-
quest that Gentlemen would present only one at a time.

THE BALLOT.

Mr. HUME presented petitions from Norwich in favour of
the Vote by Ballot ; also a petition praying for Universal Suf-
frage, the abolition of Property Qualification for Members of
Parliament, and for equal rights for all men.
Petitions were also presented in favour of the Vote by Bal-
lot by Mr. Potter, from Wigan ; by Mr. Strutt, from a place,
Vie name of which we could not learn ; by Mr. Finn, from 21
parishes in the counties of Kilkenny and Sligo; by Mr. Dundas;
by Mr. Wilbraham ; by Mr. Charles Buller, from the county
of Roscommon, in reland, from the borough of Bandon, from,
Falmouth, and from Liskeard ; by Mr. Scholefield, from Bir-
mingham ; by Mr. Hodges, from parishes in the county of
Kent; by Mr. Blake, from a parish in the county of Galway;
by Mr. W. Roche, from the city of Limerick ; by Mr. Ewart,
from Liverpool ; by Mr. W. S. O'Brien, from parishes in
the county of Limerick ; by Mr. M. J. O'Connell,
from Kerry; by Mr. Sharman Cranford, from Dundalk
( Louth), from Fahan and Dywlagany (Donegal), from
Cloncs East (Monaghan) and from the city of Armagh ;
by Sir Richard Musgrave from WaterfoNl ; by Mr. G. S.
Barry from 11 parishes in the county of Cork ; by Sir R.
Nagle from Westmeath ; by Mr. Jephson from Mallow ; by
Mr. Leader from Bridgwater and from Preston, signed by
7,000 inhabitants; by Mr. I'. Duncombe, from Knaresboraugh ;
by Alderman Wood, from Gloucester ; by Mr. Roebuck, from
Bath, Cockermouth, and other places ; by Mr. Tooke ; by Mr.
Gully from a parish in the West Riding of Yorkshire ; by Mr.
Harvey ; by Mr. Holland from Evesham ; by Mr. Maher from
Wexford; by Mr. Robinson, signed by 1,350 inhabitants of
Worcester, including the Mayor; Mr. Morgan O'Connell,
from the county of Dublin; by Mr. Bodkin, from the town of
Athenry, from the parishes of Adricool, Liskeary, Moycullen,
Donaghpatrick, Kilcummin, Claregalway, Shruel, in the
county of Galway, and from the parish of St. Nicholas, in the
county of the town of Galway ; and by Mr. Pryme, from
Cambridge.

Mr. GIOTE presented petitions to the same effect from
Richmond, Yarmouth, Brighton, Leicester, Oxford, and other
places.

TRADE WITH JAVA.
Mr. P. M. STE WART begged to ask the Noble Lord the
Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he had arranged with the
Dutch Government the terms of the treaty of 1824, and if an
indemnity had been insisted upon with respect to the excessive
duties charged? He wished to know first whether he had
been enabled to prevail upon the Dutch Governmet to adjust
the duties present and prospective in strict conformity with the
terms of that treaty ; and secondly, whether he had been
enabled to convince the Dutch Government that they were
bound in honour and fair dealing (the latter they should un-
derstand) to refund the excessive duties charged, amounting
to half a million sterling?
Lord PALMERSTON, in answer to his Honourable
Friend, regretted to say that the old observation was in this
case verified, that nothing was more difficult to con.
vince a man of than the truth that would deprive him
of a profitable injustice—( Hear)—and he regretted to say
that the Dutch Government formed no exception to that
rule. No doubt the construction the Honourable Member
had put upon the treaty was the true and the just one.
He (Lord Palmerston) had been endeavouring, ever since
the question had been first started, to convince the Dutch
Government that their construction of the terms of the
treaty was erroneous, and not conformable either to its letter or

its spirit. He had received a private communication that a
tariff had been issued in Java, placing the difference of duty
upon the difference of national flags ; but he had not been able
to obtain any official communication from Holland to that effect.
So far with regard to the first branch. The result had not
been stated in any communication with the Dutch Government
on this subject, but he had reason to hope that they had come
to the determination strictly and literally to execute the treaty.
With regard to the second branch, that, of course, could not
be brought to a conclusion till they had disposed of the
other branch of the question. He had announced to the
Dutch Government that they would insist on their claims, not
only for the future, but also upon a restitution for the past.
Though the second branch therefore was postponed till after
the, had settled the first, he could assure the House that it
would not be abandoned.—( Cheers.)
Mr. P. M. STE WART said that this question had been
pending these thirteen years. ( Hear, hear.) He could
only state that, thanking the Noble Lord for the answer
he had given, he should be speaking falsely if he said that
that answer was satisfactory. He would wait till the Noble
Lord had satisfied himself on this subject ; and if he did not
think the Noble Lord's views satisfactory, he would then take
the liberty of bringing the question before the House in a
substantial shape.—( Cheers.)
Sir R. PEEL asked some question respecting the difference
of duties levied upon Dutch and English goods. From the
noise in the House, we could not catch the exact words of the
question.

Lord PALMERSTON said, in reply, that the treaty was,
that goods imported into Java by British subjects, and by Bri-
tish vessels, should pay twice as much duty as goods imported
by the subjects and in the vessels of Holland ; and where
there was no duty levied upon articles imported by the sub-
jects and in the vessels of Holland, there should only be a
duty of six per cent, levied on English goods. The Dutch
wanted to make the difference of duty depend not upon
the nationality of the subjects, but on the nationality of
the goods themselves ; that is to say, they wanted the diffe-
rence to apply to Dutch goods, if imported in English vessels.
Ile had not received this information, as yet, officially.
BRITISH POSSESSIONS IN AMERICA.
Mr. ROBINSON wished to know whether any progress
had been made in the settlement of the boundaries of the-Bri-
tish possessions in America?
Lord PALMERSTON said that no progress had been
made in the question at present--commuideations were still
going on, and although he believed both Governments were
equally actuated by a sincere desire to bring the question to a
settlement, yet there had been such difficulties in the way that
that desirable object had not been attained.

ADRIANOPLE AND RUSSIAN TURKEY.
Lord D. STUART wished to know from the lion. Mem.
ber for Bath, when it was his intention to bring forward his
motion with reference to Adrianople and Russian Turkey.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that he had put off his motion on
the subject referred to by the Noble Lord at the request of
his Majesty's Minister the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, not being prepared for the dis-
cussion. At the time he delayed bringing the subject
forward he was told by the Government that an early day
should be set apart for the discussion of the subject; that day,
however, had not yet arrived, and he (Mr. Roebuck) was pre-
pared to bring the subject forward at any period.
Lord PALMERSTON thought the Hon. Member might
make some arrangement with the Noble Lord at the head of
the Home Office, in order to enable him to bring the Subject
forward at an early day.
BALLOT.

Mr. GROTE then rose to bring forward the subject of
which he had given ‘s ith respect to the Ballot, and said—l have
received great encouragement in bringing forward the present
subject from the numerous petitions which have been laid upon
the table of the House in its favour.—( Hear, hear.) The
House is perfectly aware that the subject is one which I have
more than once introduced to the notice of the House. My
otohbfejemicmettnpisorbet i
importance bring
nocfe p,oafri
in a
the
haemßeinllt
measure t_o t(nk e Vote
Elie
aarm. a
blioulita
Impressedtl
olu tr iencaot
shmeimaelectionrecommend
the Attention of the House, I will, as shortly as I cap, state the