The Sun.
London, England, 1830-04-09 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS-(LAST NIGHT).

At twenty minutes before Four o'clock the
SPEAKER took the chair, and was immediately sum-
moned by the Deputy Usher of the Black Rod to
the House of Peers. Upon his return, the Speaker
read the list of Bills to which the Royal assent had
been given by commission in the House of Lords.
(For which see Lords' report.)
Mr. CHARLES CALVERT said that he had
a petition to present from a lady named Mary Anne
Lloyd, who stated that she had been cheated out of
4281. in the purchase of six (we understood Poyais)
bonds, on which she had never received but one
half•ytar's dividend. She had written a letter to
his Majesty stating her loss, and had understood
that lie had been kind enough to order her a gift of
lOU, which, however, she had never received.
Having thus had all the produce of many years
swept assay, she prayed the House for relief.—The
petition was laid on the table.
Mr. SADLER presented a petition from the
licensed victuallers of Sutton-in-Aslitield, complain-
ing of the proposed alteration in the law which re-
gulated the beer trade. He thought the licensing
system under the controul of the magistrates a safe-
guard for the morals of the public, and he should be
sorry, therefore, to see it disturbed.—The petition
was laid on the table.
Mr. W. HORTON presented a petition from
Newcastle-under-Lyme, against the East India char-
ter, and one from the Protestant Dissenters of the
same place, against the burning of Hindoo widows.
On the motion of the HON. MEMBER, certain
papers were ordered (a correspondence bet ween Mr.
Hay and Mr. Herries) relative to the revenues of
Ceylon, Mauritius, Trinidad, &c.
NAVIGATION OF THE RHINE.

Mr. C. GRANT, seeing his Right Hon. Friend
the Secretary of State for the Home Department in
his place, wished to ask him a question or two
which had reference to the execution of the treaty
of Vienna of 1815, an article of which (No. 6) had
expressly secured the free navigation of the Rhine
to all the contracting parties. The stipulation was,
" that the whole course of the navigation of the
Rhine to the sea, ascending and descending, should
be entirely free to the contracting Powers, with a
due and equal regard to the interests of all, and as
favourable a construction of them as possible for all
parties, upon the payment of the clues necessary for
preserving the river, and the police thereof." By
all the European Powers, with one exception, this
treaty was construed, according to its obvious mean-
ing, to imply that no demand for the navigation of
he Rhine should be exacted, except such as were
required to preserve the police of the navigation and
the banks of the river : yet it seemed the King of
the Netherlands resisted this construction, and ex-
cluded these powers, except on the payment of
heavy prohibitory duties. Two years ago, when he
(Mr. Grant) left office, he knew that negociations
on the subject were pending, which he then thought
would have been speedily finished. This he under-
stood had not taken place, but, on the contrary, the
King of the Netherlands was now engaged, or had
concluded a treaty, with one of the Powers of the
Continent, which was in direct variance with the
provisions of the treaty of Vienna, inasmuch as it
meant to restrict the navigation of the river to two
or three Powers, and to impose eneroue duties on
others. He wished to ask his Right Hon. Friend
whether the Government had received any official
communication respecting the recent treaty, or
agreement, to which lie alluded 2dly, whether, if
he had received such, he would have any objection
to lay it before the House; and 'idly, whether any
negociations were pending to enforce the provisions
of the treaty of 1815 ?
Mr. PEEL said,.tliat he had not the least desire
to withhold any information which the Government
possessed upon this subject. It was quite true, as
his Right Hon. Friend had stated, that in the year
1815 the Allied Power.; entered into a treaty, which
he thought, in common with his predecessorc, in
office, was intended to open the navigation of the
khine to all vessels upon mutually fair terms. Ile
believed that the King of the Netherlaude subse-
quently raised some doubt upon one of the terms
employed in the language in which the treaty was
drawn up, with reference to the construction of the
phrase in the translation of it into German. In
looking at the treaty as the Government had it
in the French language, he was clearly of opinion
it was intended the navigation of the Rhine
should be free to all jusque la met. Now the
King of the Netherlands construed this to mean ns
far as the sea, but not into the sea. Ibis
was no good argument to be sure ; but then another
question was raised as to what was the channel of
the river, and one of the parts so marked out was
not navigable at certain periods. England had al-
ways contended for the larger construction, and that
the Rhine ought to be wholly free, on payment of
the mere duties necessary for the preservation of the
channel and the police of the river. The questions
which he believed his Right Hon. Friend had asked
him were, whether any continental Power had lately
entered into a treaty with the King of the Nether-
lands to restrict the navigation of the Rhine, contrary
to the provisions of the treaty of 1815; and secondly,
whether he had any objection, if he had the informa-
tion, to produce it to the House. Before lie answered
his Right Hon. Friend, he had to state, that there was
at Mentz a central commission established, com-
posed of deputies from the different Powers inte-
rested in the navigation of the Rhine, to superintend
that object. To this commission had, he under-
stood, been lately remitted, not a treaty, but a projet
for one, between Prussia and the Netherlands,to form
the basis of •a new arrangement for the navigation
of this river. The Committee had not yet, he
believed, pronounced upon this projel : therefore it
was impossible for him to communicate it to the
House ; but should they decide upon it, he could
not foresee any objectien to its production in proper
time. It was quite evident that England could nos
be expected to consent VI the e..engement if it
compromised any of her rights of naeigation under
the treaty of 1815.—(Hear.)—Proper care would
be taken not to overlook the interests of this wintry,
but nothing had as yet been decided.
Mr. C. GRANT said,he had understood it was an
actual treaty which Prussia had made with the Ne-
therlands, and that it infringed the treaty of 1815.
Under the new treaty, as he was informed, England
could not claim any rights, for the agreement was
solely between the two Powers he had mentioned,
and even the Baltic Prussian vessels had not the
power of navigation of the river.
Mr. PEEL repeated his previous answer, drat the
project was now before the Mentz commission, and
as far as be was informed, the larger principle of the
treaty was not lost sight of in it; but England did
itot, and would not, relinquish the full advantage of

her rights under the treaty of Vienna. At present
he knew of no obstacle to the free navigation of the
Rhine, and lately an English vessel had gone up to
Cologne, where she discharged her cargo.
Mr. C. GRANT was quite aware of that fact,
and that it was to try the experiment; but if the
new treaty passed, no other British vessel would go
there, for the intended duties were prohibitory.
Mr. PEEL—The British Government would
doubtless consider prohibitory duties to be contrary
to the treaty of 1815, and act accordingly.
Dr. PHILLLMORE expressed a hope, that when
the papers relative to Greece were laid upon the
table, they would contain a full statement of the
blockade of Prevesa.

Mr. HOBHOUSE presented a petition from the
inhabitants of St. Paul's, Covent-garden, complain-
ing of the manner in which the assessment of the
land-tax was made. The Hon. Member said the
disproportion in the assessment of that tax was re-
ally astonishing. Wesminster was rated at 63,0921.,
Sussex, at 57,560/. ; Lancashire, at 20,989/. ; and
London, at 123,0001. The disproportion in smaller
places was equally remarkable. Rye, in Sussex, was
rated at 4731. ; Hastings, at 3781. ; Bath, at 436/. ;
and Winchelsea, which did not contain more than
forty or fifty tenanted houses, was rated at 4051.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition from a
parish in Lincolnshire, complaining of distress.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from the incor-
porated trades of Arbroath, against the East India
monopoly ; also a petition from Brechin, praying for
an alteration in the inventory duty. _

The same HoN. MEMBER moved for a return o.

the expellee of the civil establishment of New South
Wales, and inquired ►whether Captain Dumaresque,
the brother-in-law of General Darling, had received
the appointment of treasurer of that colony.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
replied that he did not know.
Lord CLIVE presented a petition from the High
Sheriff and Grand Jury of the county of Monmouth,
against the change contemplated in the Welch judi-
ture.—Ordered to he printed.
Sir W. SCOTT moved for returns of all the
manufactures exported during the last six years,
specifying the amount exported in each kind.—
Ordered.

Mr. DICKINSON presented a petition from the
licensed victuallers of the county of Somerset,
against any alteration in the sale of beer.
Mr. BRIGHT moved for returns of the quantity
of tobacco manufactured, that had been imported
into Great Britain and Ireland from the British
Colonies in Asia, Africa, and America, since the
year 1828.—Ordered.