The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-30 00:00:00

EVICTIONS IN GALWAY.

Mr. P. SCROPE gave notice that to-morrow he
would ask the Secretary of Sta to for Ireland whether be
was aware that as many as 51 8 ejectment processes had
been served in a single day in die county of Galway, by
which 30,000 persons had bee)), driven in oue day from
their homes?—(dear, hear.) And whether the system
of ejections was not illegal, and: a high crime and tnisae-
rneanour by the ancient comm on law of Irealand.
REDUCTION OF OFFICIAL SALARIES.

Mr. MILNER GIBSON asked the Member for Ox-
fordshire whether he meant to proceed with his motio❑
to-morrow with reference to ti ie reductio❑ of salaries?

M. HENLEY said it, was certainly his intention► to
proceed with his motion to-morrow. The exsct terms
of his motion would be printed,, and be in the bands of
members to-morrow morning, but it would not (lifer
ni,Lterially from the motion no w on the votes.

IMPRISONMENT OF A ,7,'OLOURED BRITISH
SUBJECT AT CHA.RLESTON, U. S.

Mr. COCKBURN rose to ark a question of the Noble
Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs, which he said was
occasioned by a case which had lately occurred at the
Thames Police- court. It was vrbether he was aware of the
practice of the authorities of ;he town of Charles;; n, to
seize British subjects, beinte men of colour, on board
British vessels in the port of Charleston, and t 3 imprison
the m during the time such vessels remain in that port;
and whether her Majesty's Government have made any
efforts with the Government of the United States to pre-
vent British subjects from being thus outraged. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman characterised this practice
as one not only in direct violation of the law of nations,
but as scandalous and disgraceful to humanity.—(Hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON said the subject to which the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had drawn the attention
of the House was, he was sorry to say, not a new one to
her Majesty's Government. It was an undoubted fact
that the practice alluded to was one sanctioned by the
laws of the state of Carolina, equally applicable
to the citizens of the free states of America as to
the subjects and citizens cf foreign powers.
It was quite unnecessary to express the opinion which
any man must entertain of this practice.—(Cheers.) It
arose from the unfortunate institutions which existed in
the southern states of the Union, and which were now
a matter of very serious difference in the Congress of
the United States. Her Majesty's Government, in 1847,
ordered her Majesty's Minister at Washington to pre:ent
a note on the subject to the United States Government,
and to remonstrate against this law, not merely as incon-
sistent with the usual practice of civilized nations, but as
at variance with certain articles in the treaty of 1815,
between the British Government and the United States
Government, providing for the residence of Britih sub-
jects in the United rotates territory. The answer
received from Mr. Buchanan was to the effect that the
federal Government had no power to induce the St ste
and Legislature of Carolina to remove this law, and that
if the British Government insisted upon thus pressing the
Government of the United States on the ground founded
upon the article in, the treaty of 1815, the Government et
the United States would find it necessary to take advan-
tage of a clause in the treaty of 1827, which gave power to
either party to annul the treaty on giving 12,months' notice.
It was to be regretted that such a practice existed; but,
on the other hand, it was as well that it was a matter of
public notoriety, because every free person of colour
being a subject of her Majesty, who went voluntarily
into the jurisdiction of that state, knew beforehand the
inconvenience he was liable to be subjected to.—(Hear.)