The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-08 00:00:00

SLAVE TRADE.

Sir J. lIANMER gave notice that, when the Noble
Lord the Member for Tiverton brought forward his
motion, he should move, as an amendment, that the
House should resolve itself into a Committee of the whole
House, for taking into consideration the treaties relating
to the slave trade. _ _

TOBACCO DUTIES.
Dr. BOWRING, on the part of the Hon. Member for
Montrose, postponed the motion of which that. Hon.
Member had given notice on the subject of the tobacco
duties until Monday next.
LAW OF DIVORCE.

Mr, ELPHINSTONE moved for a return of the
number of matrimonial suits instituted in each metropo-
litan Diocesan Court in England, Wales, and Ireland, in
1840, 1841, 1842, and 1843; also a similar return from
Cowls having consistorial jurisdiction in Scotland in
1840, 1841, 1842, and 1843; also, number of matrimonial
suits in Judicial Committee of Privy Council or House
of Lords, on appeal, in 1840, 1841, 1842, and 1843 ;
also, return of number of Divorce Acts passed by the
Legislature in 1840, 1841, 1842, and 1843 ; also the
average expense of such suits, in 1840, 1841, 1842, and
1843, as far as the same can be stated by the officers of
the above-mentioned Courts.—Agreed to.
COPPER, TIN, AND LEAD TRADE.

Sir C. LEMON moved for returns of the import and
export of copper, lead, and tin, and of copper ore into
the United Kingdom, during the year ending Jan. 5,
1844, distinguishing the copper and copper ore ex-
ported from the ports of Liverpool, and the per centage
of copper contained in the copper ore exported.
Dr. BOWRING begged to ask the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department,
when the report of the Commission to inquire into
Welsh grievances would be communicated to the House.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he had received the
Report to which the Hon. Gentleman reterred, only
yesterday; he expected to receive the evidence on Mon-
day. In the early part of next week he would lay both
the report and the evidence on the table of the House.
STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES—IRELAND.
Lord EBRINGTON begged to ask the Noble Lord
the Secretary for Ireland, when the returns which had
been moved for on a former evening, respecting the Sti-
pendiary Magistrates in Ireland, would be laid before the.
House ?

Lord ELIOT said he believed the returns would be
prepared by Monday next.
• SINDE.

Mr. MACAULAY had a question to put to the
Right Hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, and
in doing so he wished to correct a misunderstanding
which had gone abroad respecting what he had said the
other night, as to the late proceedings at Gwalior.
He was represented to say that those proceedings were
in accordance .with and in pursuance of a treaty which
was entered into in .1805. On the contrary, what he did
say was, that the proceedings were founded upon a treaty
which was notoriously annulled in 1805. Was the Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) now prepared to answer the
question he put to him yesterday ?
Sir ROBERT PEEL said the India mail had
arrived, and in the course of the day the Govern-
ment had received their dispatches. He had every
reason to suppose that the proclamation alluded to had
been sent officially with them. In the Government
dispatch, however, there were no less than 97 enclo-
sures, and of course he had not yet had time at present
to go carefully through them. He assumed the procla-
mation was there ; no doubt it was. The Right Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Macaulay) had declared on his own
authority that the treaty of 1804 was notoriously
annulled in 1805. There had been hardly
time since last evening to search into the matter,
but so far as he (Sir R. Peel) remembered, there were
three treaties between the Maharajah of Sinde and the
Government of India. There was the treaty of 1803,
the treaty of 1804, and the treaty of 1805. The first,
that of 1803, was a general treaty for peace ;
that of 1804, was a treaty of alliance offen-
sive and defensive, and stipulated that Sindia,
in ease of necessity, should be entitled to call on
the Anglo-Indian Government for assistance ; and the
treaty of 1805 was made to correct socr•e defects in the
treaty of 1803, and had no reference to that of 1804.
The question, therefore, arose whether the treaty of
1804 was overruled by that of 1805.
Mr. MACAULAY had no wish under the circum-
stances to prolong the discussion. The Right lion.
Gentleman would lay the proclamation before them, and
of course was not in a position at that moment to give a
distinct opinion on the question just put to him.
FACTORIES BILL.

Sir J. GRAHAM postponed the second reading of
this Bill until Friday next, when he would positively
proceed with it.

SUGAR DUTIES.

Mr. M. GIBSON wishedßt.orepetal) in qrutefestrieonneetotothae
last night in the debate on the
sßtaigtehmt
eHntonniadßearboynehtim(Sir
sugar duties. He (Mr. Gibson) had understood him to
state that the consumption of sugar in this country for
the year ending January, 1844, was greater than had
ever taken place in any former year.—(Cries of "No, no."
He understood the Right Hon. Gentleman to state that the
consumption of sugar in the year ending in January,
1844, was greater than any that had taken place in any
former year, except one. Now, he (Mr. M. Gibson) had
taken some trouble to look into the Parliamentary papers,
and make calculations upon proper authority with refer-
ence to the amount taken into consumption during past
sugarl
in t h e
cyoenasrus
mttleoeBdd3sottioait
kleBtnih3ot
slew waBo3hufsaen,etthtarteyn
rdt
mht
alhaBtes3
t7Rg
rh,
ietgehahcettoeqnr
Hustauhonmnatn.
pi t
tyßit.
ion
quantity consumed in the year ending January, 1844.
:f
years, and he found, from the calculations he had made, that
preceding year, with the
Sir R. PEEL said that the statements he had made
waserNxooncweegpthtrmiee
oeanwatenoartnfionnleBr than any
were from documents that he hadin his possession, and if
he was incorrect it was competent for the Hon. Gentle-
man to correct him by moving for the documents.
What he had stated was, that the consumption in the
last year was greater than the consumption of any
year, with but one exception, and that was the
year 1842. In that year the consumption
was 4,550,000 cwts., while last year it was
4,450,000 cwts. If he had made any mistake in the
matter he was sorry for it, but it was perfectly competent
for the Hon. Member to correct it by adopting the course
that he had suggested.
Mr. BELLEW put a question to the Secretary for Ire-
land (Lord Eliot) with respect to the manner in which, on
a jury in arecent criminal case, every Catholic had been
struck off, which the Noble Lord declined answering
until he had received further information on the subject,
BRAZIL.
Mr. EWART wished to put a question to the Right
Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, with
respect to Baazil. The Government of Brazil proposed
to impose by their new tariff a duty of 60 per cent.
on the value of the manufactures of this. coun-
try. Now he wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet,
whether the duty which the Government imposed upon
Brazilian sugar was not 150 per cent. on the value.
He only asked the Right Hon. Baronet to give them
what was the reciprocal duty on the value of the manu-
factures imported into Brazil, and the duty on the value
of Brazilian produce imported into this country.
Sir R. PEEL said, with respect to the calculation
whether a certain amount of duty would be 150 per cent.
on the value of the article, he thought the Hon. Member
was quite competent to make that calculation him-
self.—(A laugh.) The proposition made by the Bra-
zilian Government was that its sugar should be
admitted into this country at the same rate of duty
as colonial sugar. There was subsequently a relaxa-
tion of that condition ; and the Brazilian Government
offered, that whatever might be the amount of duty on
colonial sugar, the duty on Brazilian sugar should not
exceed that by more than one-tenth—that was to say,
if 10s. was the duty on colonial produce, the duty on
Brazilian produce should not exceed 1 ls. With
respect to manufactured produce, the proposal of the
Brazilian Government was that the duty on cotton wool
should be 40 per cent. ad valorem; that the duty on
woollen goods should be 30 per cent. ad valorem, on
other articles there was to be no restriction.
Mr. WARBURTON said the question was simply
an arithmetical one ; it was whether 275. 6d.—that was
255., plus 2s. 6d—was not a duty at the rate of 158 per
cent. His Hon. Friend w ished to draw a contrast be-
teen the rate [of duty the Brazilians wished to put
on our produce, and the rate of duty they were pre-
pared to submit to from us, that was 40 or 60 per cent,
on their side, on our goods, against 158 per cent. on our
side, on their sugar.
The conversatian then dropped.
POOR-LAW.
Mr. TURNER asked the Hon. Secretary of State for
itnhteoHthoemie,oDore-plaarwtmßeinllt
awheleatuhse lie
clause to
toapinptoeinndtschinatprlodeing
chaplains
sto
the Poor-law unions, to be paid out of the rates, to the
exclusion of the clergy of the Protestant Dissenters ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said he adhered to the answer he
Poor-
law mAbeetr, forhe Evesham. s h
not am
had given to a similar question, pnt to him by the Hon.
Al
r o
p alterationose anof
alterationthe
in
the law relating to religious instruction in union work-
houses.
intendln atnoyp
EMPLOYMENT OF THE NAVY IN THE COL
LECTION OF POOR RATES, IRELAND.
Captain PECHELL rose to explain a statement
which he had made on Friday last on the subject
of the employment of the navy to enforce the payment
of poor-rates in Ireland. The Right Honourable
Baronet opposite, one of the Lords of the Admiralty had.
practic ; and he (Captain Pechell) had quoted
from
stated that he was not aware of the existence of such a
a Irish County Paper a statement
that the Earl of Lucan had, at
a meeting of the Castlebar Union
declared his determination rather to encourage resist-
ance to the poor-rate collectors, than to submit to the
imposition of a new rate, while so large a
portion of the first rate renAined uncollected.