The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-09 00:00:00

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
Courts havieg 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, an 1843 ; also the
average expense of such suits, in 1846, 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 referred, 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-
Mndiary Magistrates in Ireland, would beilaid before the
House ?

Lord ELIOT said he believed the returns would be

prepared by Monday next.
SINDIA.

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 inclo-
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 Sindia 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 case of necessity, should be entitled to call on
the Anglo-Indian Government for assistance ; and the
treaty of 1805 was made to correct some 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 Hon.
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 wished to put a question to the
Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) in reference to a
statement made by him last night in the debate on the
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
rears, and he found, from the calculations he had made, that
in the years 1830,1831, 1835, and 1837, the quantity of
sugar consumed in this country was greater than the
quantity consumed in the year ending January, 1844.
Now he wanted to know whether the Right lion. Ba-
ronet meant to state it as a fact, that the consumption
was greater in 1844 than any preceding year, with the
exception of one ?
Sir R. PEEL said that the statements he had made '
were from documents that he had in 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
4m74a ststoe ,
ro4oh9soeswoC:Nrst. (":
)0. r r lye?
forvht se"i t had:b twhile
made
wasl nasnt)
perfectly3n.iasrt competentkeitintN.la'
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. .
Lord ELIOT declined answering until he had received'
further infonnatim (=tilt subject,