Star. — London, England, 1828-07-01 00:00:00

ferences such as bad leer! alluslaWiould be drawn : it might be that the Potigaese 'mlinitude would so draw them ; it alight be - that false and improper in fer were alsolVawn from the correspondence stated; bu tiffealion of an effective blockade by this Go . virntnigt to the British public was what the latter had Allightehlexpect. As to the correspondence of Lord Beresford, that Noble Lord had before explained its origin and its nature, and whatever the one or the other was, he could say that the Noble Officer was never authorized by any one of his Majesty's Ministers to ex plain their views or state their opinions to Don Miguel or the PortugueseGovernment.The English Ambassador was the onli person who was empowered to explain the views or expectations of this Government. The decla rations of Lord Beresford were entitled to their fair share of attention, and he nuerly denied having given any pledge or promise or encouragement to the sub version of the Portuguese Charter. With respect to the terms used in the notification, he apprehended no injurious consequence to result from them. It was said they implied or recognized the power of Don Miguel as legitimately used in ordering the blockade, but no such construction could be put upon them. But if any doubt could exist on the subject, what would be said of the King of England having directed his Ambassador to discontinue his funitions at the Court of Lisbon?— (Hear, hear). This would show the real feelings and disposition of his Majesty's Government, and spoke a language which no man could misunderstand. The Right Hon. Gentleman said he did not object to the blockade, but to the terms in which :t was notified; but other terms would have been altogether inappropriate. We observed a decided neutrality—and if we bad not, we should have sent a force to break through the block ade, which would be a declaration of war. But the Go vernment was not prepared to adopt so hasty or so vio lent a course of proceeding. Hence, as soon as the blockade was announced, they caused it to be notified, in order to ptotect the rights and commerce of his Ma jesty's subjects. If such maxims as those stated by the Right Hon. Gent. (Sir J. Macintosh) were to govern the country, they would be at war with the four quarters of the globe, and the Right Honourable* Gentleman could no longer object to the Army and Navy Esti mates for the ensuing year. The English Government acted in the case of Portugal as they did in the case of Chili and of Greece, and the very same terms, " effec tive blockade," were used on the two former occasions, although their use was now'so much objected to. He again repeated, that no unfavourable inference could be drawn from their use. It was said that we should not state the blockade to have been made by the Prince Regent of Portugal, but how could we deny to him the delegated authority which we had before _recognized? His conduct might deserve censure. and must be disap• proved of, but in his delegated character alone could we acknowledge him. It would be difficult to act other wise, at least until they had had some communication with the chief authority as to the nature of the delegated authority which had been so much Wised. Iti consis tency, therefore, , the Government had taken the only course which was open to them. It would be too much for Foreign States to say, that the Executive Govern ment at Lisbon was at an end, whatever the criminal intentions of Don Miguel might be. It was his duty not to have encouraged the, addresses which were pre sented to him ; but because . he did not do so, we were not therefore to disclaim his delegated authority. It would be better to try strong remonstrance than_ all at once to proclaim that all their relations with Portugal were suspended. Our Consul was still in communica tion with Officers appointed by Don Miguel ; and under all the circumstances of the case, there was no thing in the course taken by the British Government which could show the slightest approbation of the con duct of that Prince. There was no want of caution on their parts ; and however he regretted that false infe rences were drawn, he Felt they were not justified, nor were they contemplated. Dr. PHILLIMORE thought the Right Hon. Gen tleman opposite had entirely misapprehended the drift of the arguments made use of by his Right Hon. Friend. He (Dr.P.) bad not heard his Right Hon. Friend express any opinion to treat the subject exclusively with refe rence to international law, or with regard to the pro priety or policy of using the term blockade; on the contrary, he understood him to express no doubt as to the word, and he thought the Right Hon. Gentleman had abstained from expressing an intention to introduce any litigated question of international law. There could be no doubt that the authorities in Portugal, if they had the right's:if governing, also possessed the tight of in stituting *blockade. if they could exercise any [Niel- . lege of Sovereignty they could also exercise that one of its highest ; but he questioned the authority. On the other baud, he thought with his Right Hon. Friend, that the British Government had acted on this occasion in a manner contrary to established usage. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite said that Government was compelled to notify the blockade. Why ? A blockade had no effect on the subjects of any State except they were aware of If our merchants sailed into a port in a state of blockade, but of which fact they had nu notice, it was not in the power of any State to confis cate these vessels. But it was for the Government to give notice of the circumstance, and after the period " of such notice, every merchant attempting to break the blockade was liable to have his property confiscated.— The Right Hon. Gentleman said we had authority for recogrizing the existence of a blockade in cases of a still stranger nature than the present. But why should we be ancillary, and all that in us lay to assist the Go vernment of Portugal to impose a blockade which Don Miguel himself had no means of imposing as it regarded 'British merchants? By the notification, we look on our ' selves to - do what Polio - gal herself was incapable of performing. not being in a situation to notify to us the ] existence of the blockade, on account of the suspension , of the functions of our Ambassador at that Court, who was the only official medium of communication between the two cour.t ies. In the long war we had with France • there was no such promulgation. 'The Right Hon. Gentleman talked of the blockade in the case of Chili, but he (Dr. P.) con elided that that precedent was inap plicable to the present circumstances. Mr. Secretary PEEL—In the case of Chili we did notify the blockade. With respect to the argument of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, that we should not notify the existence of the blockade of Opoito to our merchants, because it was not notified to us by the Por tuguese Government, that may be law, but sure I am it is not equity. How does the case stand? This country orders its Minister to suspend his functions, and then • turns round and says to Portugal, it is impossible for you to notify to us, through our Minister, the existence of an effective blockade, and we shall not not fy it t British subjects, whom we shall leave in ignorance of the fact; thus placing them in a situation to call on you for compensation for any ►njury or loss they may sus tain. We, being the parties who have suspended the functions of our own Minister, and who by our own act have put tt out of the power of Portugal to annauoce w us officially the blockade—are we to leave our sub• • +~.. jests in ignorance of the circumstance, for the purpose of calling on the Government of Portugal to compensate them? I repeat, this may be law, but it is inconsistent with every principle of equity. Dr. PHILLIMORE said, that the Right Hon. Gen tleman had :nisappreheaded what be had said. He had merely maintained that no blockade could be binding upon this country until legally announced by its proper authorities, and that the Ministers were under no neces sity of intimating it until they had been officially in fot med of it by Portugal. Mr. PEEL explained, and maintained that the Go vernment had no option but to act as it had done. Sir G. COCKBURN said that he had had some little Practical experience of what were the usages mt war with respect to maritime blockades. In the ordinary course of proceedings, the vessels of war blockading the port, gave notice to merchantmen nut to enter ; and if, alter this, they attempted to violate the blockade, they were captured and condemned as lawful prises. Lord MORPETH wished to ask, if the port of Lishon were to be blockaded by order of the Junta of Oporto, the Government of England would take the same steps that they had taken in the present instance ? Mr. PEEL could not pretend to say what Govern ment would do in a case which did not exist. The question reminded him of a similar interrogatory lately pbt by the British Ambassador to the Reis Effendi at Constantinople. The British Ambassador, with the Am bassadors of the other Allied Powers, having heard or the battle of Navarin, thought proper to ask the Reis Effendi the following question : 66 Suppose a contest to take place at Navarin between the Allied Fleets and that of the Sultan, what course would the Turkil Go vernment be induced to take on that account ?" To this question the Turkish Minister replied," I have not heard of any such - contest; I am not aware of any such event having occurred, and I do nct see the necessity of saying what we should do under circumstances which might never take place. It is not the practice of the Turks to name the child until after it is born and its sex ascer tainee—(Laughter). I think this maxim of Turkish wisdom may be well applied to the conduct of a Chris tian Minister. Lord MORPETH said he might possibly be wrong in putting the question, but he had been misled by his anxiety to ascertain the stiict impirtiality of his Ma jesty's Ministers. Mr. HUME had but one word to add. If our rela tions with that country were to be altered, he hoped Ministers would take the first opportunity of placing our trade in wine with it on a better footing than it was at present. Sir JAMES MACINTOSH said he was only anxious to add a few words to what he had already said upon this subject, and these few words he felt entitled to express, in answer to what had fallen from the Right Hon. Secretary in favour of the Turks. The Right r Honourable Gentleman appears so enamoured of that people, that he has made use of Turkish logic, Turkish Larguments, and Turkish jokes upon the occasion. He had only to hope that the Right Hon. Gentleman would respect the right of Oporto to blockade Portugal, as he now did the right of Portugal to blockade Oporto. It was then put and carried, that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of Supply en Wednesday next. Mr..TENNISON presented a Petition from the Burgesses of East Retford, complaining of the Worse taken by Parliament with reference to the Bribery and Corruption in that borough. The' Hon. Member presented a similar Petition from six or seven per loos of that borough.—Ordered to be printed. Colonel WODEHOUSE moved for a variety of Returns cow tweeted with the Prosecutions and Exchequer Fines for Illicit Dis tillations of Malt front 1803 to 1812; distinguishing the *mount re ceived and the amount of dietse incurred in thor presesutiono— Ordered. Sir F. BURDETT gave notice that he would to-morrow intro duce a measure with reference to a more pare and sufficient Supply of Water to the Metropolis. ADDITIONAL CUURCIIES' HILL. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in rising to propose the second reading of the Additional Churches Bill, thought, after the many objection which had been made to it, it would be better, at this late period of the Session, to postpone it. He was, however, anxious to go into a Committee, when he would be better able to explain the nature and objects of its dif ferent clauses. Two of these clauses, which he con sidered most objectionable, be meant to withdraw for the present. Mr. LEYCESTER was glad to find that the Chan senor of the Exchequer had given up the rating system, which was most unconstitutional and unjust.•by giving to Churchwardens a power of taxing the people. It was unconstitutional, because no people ought to be taxed except by themselves or their representatives; and it was unjust, because it forced the dissenters to maintain the church. The Bill altogether was a most tyrannical ' one; and he objected strongly to many of its clauses. Mr. J. WOOD expressed his disapprobation of the Bill, and hoped that before the next Session of Parlia ment the Right Honourable Gentleman would see the necessity of withdrawing it altogether. Mr. Alderman WOOD hoped the Bill would never be again brought forward. Nothing should induce him to desist . from dividing the House night. after night in opposition to the measure, should the Right Hon. Gen tleman persist in pressing it. He did not mean to hold that out as a threat—(A laugh)—he only intended say ing he should testify all possible Parliamentary hostility to the Bill. Sir CHARLES COLE was favourable to that clause of the Bill which prohibited burials in Churches. Mr. Alderman WAITHM AN hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman would consent to withdraw the Bill—a mea sure which was so objectionable in its principle, that, were it generally known, more Petitions against it would be laid on the table of the House than were presented against the Benefit Societies Bill. Mr. WARBURTON concurred in the hope which Hon. Members had expiessed, that the Right Hon. Gentleman would postpone proceeding with the measure till next year. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER de fended the Bill, contending that against the clause for regulating burials no possible objection could be urged; neither could any opposition be reasonably offered to the clause respecting the building of suitable residences for Rectors. But, whatever objections might be opposed to the Bill or its provisions, he thought that in any point of view it was desirable that the House should go into the Committee. Mr. R. GORDON said, as the Bill contained so many objectionable clauses, some ot which, with that convic tion, had been postponed by the Right Hon. Gentleman himself, it ought to be altogether deferred till next Ses sion. One example of the summary operation of the Bill he should mer.tion. In the parish of St. George three organs had been erected, on the legality of con structing which by the vestry order, the parishioners felt some doubts, which had not yet been removed.— The Bill then before the House, if passed, would at once settle the quettion—together with those objection able proceedings of Vestries respecting Pew Rates, and other cha►ges. Mr. LESTER thart t ly offend the Bill. Dr. PHILLIMORE objected to the introduction of a Bill of such importance at so late a period of the 4es sion, and contended that it would be granting a ve r y small boon indeed to those who should build churches out of their own private funds, to give them the pa tronage of such churches. Dr. LUSHINGTON, although he did not approve of the whole of the measure, should vote for the House 'resolving itself into the Committee. He was quite convinced that were his Honourable Friends to in form themselves respecting the operation of the existing law, and contrast it with the provisions of the proposed Bill, very little opposition would be offered to that measure. Among other proposed alterations of which he approved was one respecting the payment of charges and the levying of rates to meet them by the Vestries. By the existing laws the money was first expended, and then raised by a rate—by the proposed measure that practice would be reversed—the money would be first raised, and then applied to the exigencies of the parish —(Hear, hear). With respect to patronage, he hoped he should never see the right of appointment placed in the hands of a body of parishioners, which would re duce a clergyman to the necessity of undertaking a very degrading species of canvass. Mr. HUME thought it a great misfortune that Clergymen should not be elected by their own congre-. Ration, and he wondered that .his Honourable Friend, who hid shown himself so liberal in other things, should not be of his opinion. But his principal objec tion to the Bill was, that it alluded to eleven or twelve Acts of Pat liament without repealing them or consoli dating them. If the Bill were withdrawn till next Ses sion, the Right Honourable Mover would have time to look to this, and the people would become better ac quainted with it. Mr. SUGDEN thought the Bill a valuable one, and that the objectionable clauses might be amended in a. Committee. With respect to the election of Clergymen by their congregation, the effects that had followed wherever that had been practised must make every man regret that it was allowed at all—(Hear, hear). In Clerkenwell parish the election had been several times the subject of litigation, and had cost the parish im mense sums of money. The same might be observed with a City pat ish,which had had a suit with the Bishop of London. - Sir F. BURDETT said that there appeared hardly any one who understood the whole of the Bill. All bad disagreed with it on some Account, both the learned and unlearned Members of the House, so that it seemed a monster nulls virtute redemptum. His strong objection to the measure was the same as that of the Honourable Member for Montrose, namely, the number of laws there existed upon this subject, and that now was the proper time to consolidate them. In order to de that, how ever, time must be given, and that would at the same time , make patties interested in the measure acquainted with it. Under all these circumstances, he hoped the Bill would pass over till the next Session. The Hon. Member who spoke last had ob jected to the election of a Clergyman by his congrega tion, on the ground that it produced disorder. He could only say that the few livings he had in his gift were disposed of that way, and he had never found anything but the greatest harmony prevail between the pa rishioners and their Clergymen—(Cheers). No doubt a bad form of election might lead to inconveniences, but there could be no objection to the principle, for it was that which was universally acted upon in the early ages of the Church—(Hear). On the question for the second reading of the Bill being put, Mr. HUMS moved as an Amendment that it be read a second time that day three months. .The House was then denied for a division, when there appeared, For the Amendment, . . . . . 28 Against it. • . • • 4 66 Majority against it, . . . —5B A second division took place on the question that the Bill be committed to a Committee up stairs, when there appeared, For the Motion, . . . . . . 33 Against it. 69 Majority against It, . . . —56 • On our return to the gallery, we found Mr. J, WOOD on his legs. The Honourable Member, alluding to some observation of Mr. Calcraft during our exclusion, said, that if this was a specimen of the manner in which the Honourable Member meant to condint himself, he congratulated him on his having changed his side of the House. When he (Mr. Wood) found him persevere in calling " Question," he could not help reminding him of his change of place. The Hon. Member denied the people's rights by calling " Question, question," when they were endeavouring to obtain a chance for the people having their rights preserved. The Bill was not only ob jectionable in principle, but was a breach of faith. When the Church Bill was first proposed in that House, and Mr. Vansittart first proposed a grant of one million for build ing churches, to which another half million bad since been added, he distinctly stated that the people were not to be burdened with the support of the Ministers serving in the new Chutches, but that they were to be paid from the hire of the pews by those who formed their congregation. One great fallacy in this Bill was, that the Churchwardens were distributors of the rates raised by the parish at large.—By the present Bill the power was taken from the people—it was unfair to hasten the Bill through Parliament without giving the people an opportunity of canvassing its merits. Sir J. BRYDGES imputed to the opposers of the Bill a with to pull down the Church. Mr. S. RICE denied that the motives of the opposers of the Bill were a wish to pull down the Church. There was not a provision of the Bill that was not open to cen sure. The opposers of the Bill did not wish to encroach on the privileges of the Church, but to fortify the Church by removing all cause of irritation between the Church and the Dissenters. All the opponents wanted was a Committee of Investigation into its merits. If they were sound they could not buffer by inquiry. The Bill had been supported by two members of the legal profession, but legal Gentlemen were not always the 'best authorities on political subjects. The Chancellor of the Exchequer,in proposing the Bill at this late period of the Session, against the opinion of the public, was' very culpable, if not ill-advised. Sir JOHN BRYDGES said, he was authorised in saying what he did when he heard sach hostility to the Church proposed by the Hon. Member for Preston. Mr. J. WOOD denied that he had declared any hos tility to the Established Church. Mr. 0. CAVE, amidst cries of" question," expressed a wish to delay the Bill. Sir H. WII:SO - N thought the Chancellor of the Ex chequer might give the country an opportunity of con sidering the Bill. This he expected from the generally liberal`conduct of the Right Hon. Gentleman. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not think the mode recommended expedient; but having looked at the provisions of the Bill, he could not bring himself to think it oppressive. Sir J. GRAHAM thought the measure unadvised, and should pronounce the imputation of the Honour able Baronet unfounded, untrue, and unjust. He called on the Honourable Member for Wareham to use his influence with his new associates to withdraw this Bill, Iso obnoxious to the public. It would be the best proof I i of the sincerity of his professions of __ , liberality. Mr. CA LCRAFT; having been called on and friendly terms, was sure his Honourable "iv, would not quarrel with him for the .conscientiou s charge of his duty—particularly, when he reminded !Mal that when he ss as on the other side of the Ilhuse f e advocated the measure of building Cbtaichelt Now then could he ask his Right Hon. Friend the Cita ) , cellor of the Exchequer to arrest the pro g r ess • i r Bill which he had originally advocated? He wish, Bill to go into Committee, in which the details nli g ,.l be canvassed. A s to t h e o b servat i ons o f t h e Hon. Mem : her for Preston, he would not take any notice if the ir At the same time he would admit he had commuted .1 breach of order and decorum in crying k lautstion ;" but he hoped he should correct it soon, as he Vas long at that side of the House, and had pl,h, bl brought the habit from the other side. Howev er , should not reply, though he had many temptati , • , Mr. G. LAMB hoped the Chancellor of the Exche. qber would not attend to the new counsels he ro-e me .l from Hon. Gentlemen at the other side of the Il cust , Going into Committee on the Bill in that period of o, Session was only depriving the public of an opportuity of knowing anything of the Bill. As to the Fez ou t presented in favour of it by the Chancellor of e .e E s . chequer, it was bat a pocket pistol ri a Petit (1. •,:e rather a billet-deux. The Bill had been sentw e d to its present stage. There was no nec , ssity t4 e Sill should be pressed at that hour, as there relislot4 400,000/. for the purpose as yet unappropriated. Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN said that the p• i7 . master General of the Forces, and other Honculable Members, had expressed their ignorance of the Bill, and was it then too much to ask that some time szoold be allowed the public to decide upon•its merits? Tne Chancellor of the Exchequer said that in the (' stn . mittee he could explain every thing. Now, if tali be the case, why not give the public time to Loden. stand the measure by deferring its farther p : -• g until next Session? Let this Bill be good or b. d, be contended that the country at large should have ea cient time to express a deliberate opinion upon i He was of opinion that the Session being so far advseced. every Member entertaining the same opinions ups d. subject which be did, was not only justified, but b An d to protract the committal of the Ball by every - treaty which the forms of the House would admit. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Maas •pon the question of committing the Bill to a Committee a a t whole House this day three months: - For the :notion Against it _ _ rt Majority . . On our return we found Mr. HMI addressing th House. He had opposed the original grant of a ni:lturs for building additional Churches, and was 'then 'old that no tax should be imposed on the perfte orthe support of the public worship in the new Chtucte,..- He thought it quite unreasonable that a Bill, giving an unlimited power to tax the people, should be por.ed through ;ire House, without its being understood tif the country. He was anxious to have the debait journed, that he might, to-morrow, move for the se. turn of 500„9004. that was not yet expended, riche , thee have new Churches built that were to impose tional taxation on the country—(Hear, hear).The Hoe. Member concluded by moving, that the teethe! sonsr ,deration of this Bill be postponed until to.:morrov. Mr. WARBURTON thought the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Home) was correct in saying this Bill woold be stow a new right of taxation. He defeaded thicolche pursued by Hon. Members in their • • the Bill upon the ground of necessity, trj tie motion of the Hon. Member for Montrotimgv Mr. GORDON said, that though he 14;4 4 . ' ,arid let the original grant, he did not consider himself of any inconsistency in opposing the further progics of this Bill. • He was drawn into this observatioa friNs the circumstance of the Paymaster General. for srhua entertained the greatest respect and regai,!, luring founded his claim to consistency upon ; the opoate course of proceeding. An Honourable Baronet had accused Gentlemen sitting at his side of the Hone of being enemies to the Church. He maintained tlat the Honourable Baronet had no right to impiate tea to them or to any of his Honourable Friends, and fo. bim• self and for them he threw back the ;barge in.the . teh I f the Honourable Baronet. Mr. CALCRAFT explained. He had into roni of imputing inconsistency to his Hanelitabie and he was sure Iris Honourable Friend had none of doing so towards him. Sir J. BRYDGES said, in explanation, that be did set accuse all who were at the other side of the Host of being enemies to the Church; he had only said tut there was a party in the House which was inclined le pull down the Church.-(Cries of name, name). Sir W. WYNN, taking int • consideration the 14. vanced period of the Session, and feeling that tne might have been introduced sooner, would now ..002 it, without however pledging himself to do so on I ii• - • lure occasion. • • Lord SANDON was oppo s ed t o t he further room of the Bill during the present Session. Mr. MONCK was opposed to the Bill, as it w en t impose an additional tax on the people. He revel that year after year the Church of England sbouh made to appear in the shape of a - tax gatherer. h&c , parishes, containing 10,000 pe rs ons, the Bisho; Llandaff stated, that at this time only '250 individli . # attended the Churches. The Church of England iLg!" fore appeared to be deserted, notaith-taiscling a:: use aids of Ministers, while other Churches which reirtrt not that aid flourished. Dr. PIELLIMORE held an opinion similar 1. , eat expressed by the Noble Lord (Lord Sandon). 11:6 3 not dissent from the principles of the Bill, bet 1 ." 1 several of its clauses. • The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER 04 that it had been objected to this Bill that it allore g tax on the people; now this was untrue. " &vie Jo cal purposes" had been referred to, but he denieias any new law was proposed in this respect. Vie's remained the same, and if Hon. Members x 0611 1144 at the clauses of the Bill they would find roach viation in them, and nothing of aggras aiion. H- . 111 consented to withdraw that clause ct the Bill .4b related to parochial rates, for the purpose, at a time, of generally considering that important qu : Mr. R. GORDON recommended the Right IL able Gentleman to withdraw his Bill altogether. Sir F. BURDETT said that it was a coatrad : 't l in the Right Honourable Gentleman to consent ' consolidation of parochial rates while he presses Bill, which was one that went to levy parochial The proceeding was one of the most irrational he • imagine. There was but one clause of :he Bill %. Gentlemeo could simultaneously understand. He' tc d the Right Honourable Gentleman would Dot pei in his Hill. During this debate a petition had al '"I from Manchester, signed by 800 persons, which p:'" in his hand, in which they complained that if tiislS'" -