The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-08 00:00:00

SLAVE TRADE.

Lord PALMERSTON mid he rose for the purpose of
putting the questions, of which ho had given notice, to
the Right Hon. Baronet opposite. The first question he
wished to ask was founded on the 9th article of
the Treaty of Washington, dated August, 1842.
He wished also to know in reference to the 17th article
of the treaty of December 1840, for the suppression of
the slave trade, which was signed by the representatives
of England, Austria, Russia, and Prussia, whether the
contracting parties had in pursuance of this article made
application to Belgium, Hanover, and Greece, to obtain
their exertions in favour of that treaty, which stated
that the parties to the treaty, namely, Great Britain and
America, would unite in all becoming representations
and remonstrances to Spain and Brazil, for the shutting
up of markets for the sale of slaves. He wished to
know whether, in pursuance of this article, the
Governments of the United States and Eng-
land had united in making those remonstrances?
Sir B. PEEL said that with regard to the first ques-
tion, several communications took place between the
Government and the American Minister, Mr. Everett,
on the subject, and it was considered whether more ad-
vantage would be likely to accrue from joint representa-
tions or from separate representations, and they came to
the conclusion that it was not necessary to make joint
representations, and they considered that, under the 9th
article of the treaty, they might, if they so thought fit,
make separate representations, though the word
"unite " was certainly in the treaty. Representations
had been made both to Spain and Brazil, and he under-
stood that the Minister of the United states at Brazil
had shown himself desirous to put an end to the
trade, and had co-operated with them in throwing
difficulties in the way of the prosecution of the trade.
With regard to the second question, the Noble Lord had
correctly stated that, in 1841, a treaty was sigm.d by
Great Britain to suppress the slave trade, Austria,
Prussia, and Russia agreeing to uphold fir: right of
search. France also signed that treaty, hut did not
ratify it ; but the other great Powers of Europe, not-
withstanding the non-ratification by France, waived any
point of form that they might have objected to, and the
treaty was still held it, vielate by them. The question,
after the refusal of France to ratify the tre:ity, was,
whether it was d, sirable that the cianwn• ication Con-
templated by that treaty should be made to Belgium,
had taucombined again .
Hanover, and Greece. They

the slave-trade, although the refusal of France to ratify
the treaty wi,ve the power to the other three natiors to
refuse nciherir4 tti had every reason to believe
that no communication had been made to that effect to
Lord P
the other three Pow( rs.
question with regard to the powers of tll9 Government ALMERSTON said that as to the second
of the tnited States, he presumed that there W6tltl be
no difl,ulty in obtaining diplomatic communication o
those remonstrances from the United States' Govern-
ment,. and in having them laid before the House; and
be
f
they were joint remonstrances, of course they w(4-lid
laid before the House; as they were represented
cto -
joint in spirit, 1J.3 thought that no inconvenience outa
arise from doing so.
WELSH MAIL.
.. •
Mr. HENRY F. BERKELEY wished to ask a ques:
tion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ile understood
that it was the intention of the Got ernment to reale" •
the mail which passed through Soutn Wales from Bris;
tol, and to direct it in some other and ash e was 0,1
opinion that it would have the effect of injurin
ke wished to know whether it was true?
The CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER 53
that the state of the case was, Oat the mail for Sotith
Wales passed through Bristol, the effect of which wa4
to retard the letters for South Wales for several hours.;
soutp,
and as it was the &she of the inhabitants of
Widrs that their letters should be delivered as soon as
arrangem, nts to that eff(et were in Para
and would scot, be tiniAed. He wished to state, at the
Bri:stl, •
same time, that Bristol would not suffer any inconveni-
ence.

he was NAVY ESTIMATES.
Captain PECHELL wished to know it the 1181
estimates were to be brought before the Houee that
A
evening ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER' el"
that that was his wish.
POOR-LAW for.(SCOTLAN moving
second On t the
readingorler
ooff
tthhee
pdoaoyr.
lbaewi n read dr, 0.
Bill,
The LORD ADVOCATE sgAaidulenthdamteanst
t
sirous to give some time for drawing up the
this Bill, he wished that the House would take thence° •
reading on Friday week.
CHATTEL INTEREST (REAL PROPERTY') eeeoile
Mr. SCOTT', ire moving the second reading 0f
Bill, presented petitions from Dudley, Wolverhanirl;;
Birmingham, and Stirling, signed by lawyers rho ,
siding in those localities. He said that
did not understand un shat ground this
re
could be rejected. The petitions were signed bid he
spectable solicitors of long standing and practice, 111 ees
believed that there were many others in other P ere.
who were of opinion that it was a beneficial reeersoutes
He hoped they would allow the Bill to go into 'id be
mittee, and if they put any restrictions on it, it well der
desirable that they should have them brought tin
report on ,
their consideration. did not
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that h"fiee.
feel very much oppressed by the arguments of the sol
Gentleman in favour of the Bill, nor did he feel dispo
01,
to depart from the resistance to the second readiaged
such
this Bill which he intimated that he should be (Ws h
h•
to make. Ile never recollected having slimed° that
a measure as that. He did not see the neceieiti tion
the Hon( urable Member should preface his °fear
for the second reading of this Bill by hands
petitions, every one of them being in the setae • the
writing, and every one of them being expressed
bele,. ;
same language.—(Laughter.) If the Hon. 3dere, ;eves
ferred to the report of the Real Property Comnes' sere
he would find that they recommended no such meow
of
as that. The evils which resulted from such n atebese
things were obvious. The Hon. Member asked( was
benefit was it, that the law should remain 'l6 it ers
and he said it ens for the sole benefit of the lawyers and
and that the er . eie Bill wl uld correct this 03 ',ere
its eperetien Rioel,: re rider valid titis,s thlt
on to being questioned. Now, he (ft..?! !ol'e
General) could not foresee that this Bill WOO'. 0. he
any such effect. He could not approve of it `had not
saw that the Real Property Commissioners hag
(gear.)
given any intimation of their approval of it.-4;tre,
Ile took no particular interest in the 11:- lend •
but at the same time he would not like that
his sanction to it, as lie apprehended otsue a •
mulch inconvenience might follow. He would OPP
who
case, a man dying worth 10,0001 intestate, a Partimiebt
might have been the mortgagor of the deceased
to ref
become administrator, and what then would bec,° the
those who were the heirs of that deceased ? veto the
whole, he should say, that he could not, in just,jece there*
public, give his sanction to this Bill; ai d vouitg•da
fore, move that it be read a second time that
months. rite ca
Mr. GRANGER contended that the arguel,e,o-thing
the Solicitor-General were contradictory. Nirkas ","houict
to be dine in that House on this subject, but w
receive the approval of the Real Property wooto
stoners ? He really did think that the 1.1°.11e11 re they
require some stronger argument than that vote
rejected this measure. The many evils which we, re
tinually springing up by reason of defective titles,
therefore,
tiered this mea Aire absolutely necessary; and Considered
he trusted the House weuld pass it, and /1.
ember who
the country w as much indebted to the Hon.
had introduced (Hear, hear.) a ure boa
Mr. ROEBUCK said he conceived thin measure
5 t apply,
an extremely suspicious appearance, for it d' tellf,ted
to the future at all ; therefore the law, as it al. Thee,
future time, would remain exactly as it was new,' ' the o
there was the fact of the four petitions presente" Jin
Hon. Member who introduced the measure, beinger-beas.
the same hand-writing, and in exactly the same ,:e be
On these grounds he would oppose the Bill, tio-se' in
should find some specific object to be attained, "t,jecl.
its present state, it did not alter the law as it noty,.e`leill
Mr. HUME could not see the harm of letting tre„ould
go to Committee, for it was a very short one, an
easily disposed of. e the
Mr. T. B. C. SMITH would oppose the Dill c" 0
ground that it would have a most mischievous eg et,
it retrospective measure. In Ireland it was somas
the
the practice of an attorney to set up his own clerk 610,bg
representative of a deceased party, in order that he 10 70 If
make him administrate with the view to giiringelleig-e he
(the attorney) the power of enforcing any ell- it all
might have on deceased's property, and Weer ad
away, to the prejudice of all the other creditors ;00.
this Bill would have the effect of giving the same Vs
in this country. He did feel very strongly
was bad in principle, and, therefore, that te._
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY would wish to kelor the
the Government prepared to say that a provision id not
he would elVesywern
bona fide sale of an assignment was one which shclipeeed
be made ? He would say let the Bill be rend tivslool
time, and in the meantime the solicitors of the c inion
would have an opportunity of expressing
upon it.—(Hear, hear.) And let the opeoltioll
sAa4,4
postponed for three or four months, in order to a"
that opportunity. a be 111‘
Mr. CHRISTIE suggested that the Bill shy& oar
lowed to stand over, and abide the result of Lorciv(tee
ham's Bill. net the
Sir J. GRAHAM said he should vote O,PI obsP'
second reading of the Bill, without any hesitatio 1311
ever, more especially as there was a comprelices ethq
their Oh, be
regarding probate laws coming down from thef Dora
House of Parliament, under the high auspices
Cottenham.
Mr. SCOTT replied.
The House then divided, when there apeear`e-
For the second reading 2'
30
Against it -3
Majority
FIELD GARDENS BILL. g° tato
Mr. COWPER then moved that the House
Committee po foi ma on the Field Gardens Dal' oeoral
Mr. ROEB UUK moved that the Bill be read ache Dili
time that day six months. The principles et. el he
way ions'co ,The
were wholly untenable, and the only
improved would be to erase its chief proves
,to
be $ .
main object of the Bill was to supply wages Were
sort of auxiliary to the poor-law. Poor per ling
to be allowed to have land as a means of supper in ani
istence, whereas it was e'en- that the labourer
s. Thel
well- regulated country ought to depend upon vcage„ to thie
were about to bring down the'peopleof thisconlyeelarla;
condition of the pauperised potatoe-fed people.°
He wished to remove the poor man from thisin "wbich
mock humanity. Let them look to any piac'a 0%
these allotments has existed for twenty year'-tee
would find a settlement ot pau pe -f "
'
taken of the labourer who had a ,little g reee..ptiee'
farmer, and less wages given to him, on the o'7
forsooth, that he had a pig and a garden.
Mr. B. ESCOTT seconded the amendment' e ijeOrned
Sir JAMES GRAHAM hoped the Hon. alb' dteiSicLia
Gentleman would not press the motion toe ageo..a°l
He (Sir James Graham) had stated to th, tee the
Learned Gentleman, both in public and in pova its 015
he had great objection to several of the clatisee eteenu.:
Bill. If the Hon. Gentleman should press his feel "
ment, he (Sir James Graham) would certain'' feriae'
his duty to vote for the committal of the Bill
lie believed that the Hon. Gentleman who 13%00
duced the Bill had done so with the 111654 d bY the
motives. The acquisition of small plots of mall of hafi
labourer with his dwelling, was a great source woo
piness and comfort to him, This Bill, hewevgl. ,66
not give him that. The provisions of ib
allot t
compulsory, and the land which would be be s
to the labourer under this Bill woulda on r
w°
a distance from his dwelling. This Ditaboureeti
enable the field wardens to say to the od,
"You have half an acre of very productive °,,eorh ror
you pay a small rent for it, you can therewith
the genci
me for lower wages." Thus far he agreed vvithe3ath 1)9
Member for Bath, and the Hon. Member for.
st $ per-
only done his duty in entering his protest Aga'? to Coln'
tion of this measure. Should this Bill ge Inearroo'll
mittee, he (Sir James Graham) should inest -
watch the details of this measure. to draw e-et;
Mr. ROEBUCK said, that his object was kfter 01"ie
tention to the mischievous effects of this 13a e ape
lead fallen from the Right Hon. Gentlersao, .
not press his amendment. and th
e
':Une amendment was then withdrawn;
paesod through Committee pro forma.
ti
MEDICAL BILL.
_o:it the
Sir JAMES GRAHAM then rose to move
mitt, 11 of this Bill. Be e iehed the House to 01'0i-tail;
Bill pro :forma, for the purpose of introducing,Te the
alters dons which he was about to submit.•,te Lb:
alway, a had an earnest desire, if possible, to eatgbedie_
(Effete; 'ices which unhappily existed between gtid
of the general practitioners of England 7 surge,6ll,..
and th e governing body of the Colter ° of ar
The Co liege of Surgeons was in possession , ande
lieu The
ter whirili gave them extensive privilegletenee. od
which hey enjoyed great power and " wog i.e.
general practitioners numerically were Nell.ore the '„
powerfu and if they were empowered to re!.., o yeltiA
present:: tire- body in the shape
short tin le the el, cted body would reflect the spoken h;,
opinions of the constitutnt body. He liaise which
the genee:al practitioners in the terms of pia ,ore
felt was due to them. In rural districts re ;,togeoas
most intl4r4tat class, but in the Plarqls t 4
of the Couticeilwilsobes
()t.