The Sun.
London, England, 1831-07-20 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 19.

On the SPEAKER taking his seat several new Members
were introduced and sworn in, among whom, were Mr.
Crompton, Solicitor-General for Ireland, and Lord Pal-
merston. .

Mr. Lamb brought up some returns of the population.
Mr. W. WYNN objected to the time that was chosen
to lay those returns before the House ; they ought to have
been presented earlier, so that every Member might have
had a copy.
The SPEAKER said a few words, which were inaudible
in the gallery, and the 4ubjf-ct dropped.
The SPEAKER acquainted the House that Sir Robert
Gunning had failed to enter into the necessary recogni-
zance, to prosecute his petitisn against the seturn for North-
ampton.
The order was then discharged.
At the suggestion of Lord STANLEY, Lord MORPETIL
postponed his motion of which he had given notice, rela-
tive to the proceedings of Private Committees from to-
morrow until Monday.
On the motion of Mr. Alderman Tuomrsos, the House
resolved itself into a Committee on Trower's Divorce Bill.
This occasioned some discussion, in which several Members,
including Mr. Hutne, Alderman Thompson, and Lard G.
Osborne took part.

Mr. HUME strongly reprobated the manner in
which Divorce Bills were smuggled through the House,
but said that he would not oppose this Bill, be-
cause it would be punishing an individual for the
evils of a system.—(Hear.) He should however on a future
occasion oppose every Bill of this kind, and that would
perhaps have the effect of inducing his Majesty's Ministers
to introduce some remedy.
On the motion of Lord MORPITH, the Sheffield and
Manchester Rail-road Bill was read a third time and
passed.
Col. EVANS gave notice, that to-morrow he would move
that an address be presented to his Majesty, praying him
to lay before the House copies of the indictment against
Mr. and Mrs. Dewle, (who recovered damages a few days
ago against Mr. Bingham Baring and others at the Hamp-
shire Assizes), of the record, and of the Judge's notes.
Mr. BURGESS presented a petition from the freemen
of Hyde (we beieve) against such parts of the Reform
Bill as affected their rights.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY presented two petitions, one from
the borough of Aldborough (the first in Schedule A), the
other from Hat wicb, in favour of the Reform Bill, which
were read, and ordered to be printed. The Hon. Member
then moved fur a return of the amount that was in the
hands of the Treasurer to Queen Anne's Bo
rituntyhe at the
e
time of his decease, and whether the security
bl g
was applicable to the te-payment of that a ance;
also a retur whichh number of cases (and the names of
parties) in the Crown bad adioinistertd to the

vit,ites of testator having no heirs since the year )800,
the nature of the property, and what proceedings had

been taken thereon in the courts of law.

Mr. JEPHSON presented a petition from the borough of
Mallow, in Ireland, in favour of the Reform Bill ; a peti-
tion from the parish of Whitchurch, in the county of the
city of Cork, praying that a fund might be made appli-
cable to support the aged and infirm, and thereby
afford employment to the poor, and that that fund might
he raised out of church property, and a tax upon absen-
tees. The Hon. Member also presented petitions from the

Roman Catholic inhabitants of the parish of Churchtown
3nd other parishes in the diocese of Cloyne against the
grant to the Kildare-street Society.
Nit.. HUN presented a petition Thom some place in
Lancashire praying fur annual Parliaments, universal
suffrage, vote by ballot, and a repeal of the Corn Laws.
The I-ion. Member also presented a petition horn the in-
habitants of Stockport, for universal suffrage and annual
Parliaments.

Captain GORDON, presented a petition from the
shipowners of Dundalk, against the tax on marine
insurances. . Also a petition from Glasgow and its neigh-
bourhood, amongst whom were twenty-eight ministers,
one hundred and eleven elders, and a number of other
subscribers of respectability, against the grant by Govern-

ment to Mtynootb College.
The petition being read,
Mr. O'CONNELL asked whether its gross and unmiti-
gat< d indecency in describing the Roman Catholic religion
as '6 an idolatrous and anti-christian system," was re-
spectable to that House, and whether it should be received.
Mr. FERGUSSON rejoiced that there were now
few who would put their names to a petition like
the pre+ent ; and he trusted th•tt few would be found
in that House to sanction it. In place of withdrawing
this grant by Government to the Maynnoth Institution
no distinction ought to be made between Protestants and
Roman Catholics ; the latter should enjoy every pri •
vileee, and their education as Roman Catholics ought
to be protected, subject only to these restrictions of the
the Bill for imparting to them the rights and pri-
vileges of British subjects. He regretted much that
the petition bad come from Glasgow; it wae, he felt
assured, inconsistent with all that was liberal, enlightened,
and charitable in that part of the country.
Lord MILTON was anxious to make peace between the
different parties rather than to enter into those feelings of
indignation which had already been expressed. He would
beseech the Hon. Member (Capt. G.) to give the petition
his most sober and Christian consideration, and
would entreat him to consider whether the expressions
it contained were not a great deal more consistent
with sectarian zeal than with Christian charity.—
It would not conduce to the peace, either civil or reli-
gious, of the country, to encourage the promulgation of
sectarian opinions.
Mr. DIXON said that be participated in the feelings
which had been expressed regarding the petition by-
the Noble Lord (Milton) who had just sat down.
and he would take the sense of the House, whether the
petition should be brought np.
Sir GEORGE CLERK said it would be the first
time that the House had ever been called upon to
reject a petition merely because the individuals differed
upon speculative opinions with the great majority of
that House.

After a few word.; from Mr. CRESSETT PELHAM :Ind
Sir R. Nous, _ . .

Mr. O'CONNELL said he put the whole matter ❑pon
the question whether it was expressed respectfully to that
House. Would it be civil and re.pectful to address him,
and say that his religion was complete idolatry.
It was as little idolatrous as the religion of the
Hon. Member for Oxford, and ought to he respected as
much in that House. It was the religion of at least

one-third of the British empire, and was it therefore
respectful to upwards of three-fourths of the Christian
inhabitants of the empire, to call them idolaters? Would
it not be disrespectful in a Roman Catholic to call a
Protestant a heretic? He considered the grant to the
Roman Catholic College of Maynnoth as legitimate a sub-
ject of petition as any other, but those petitions ought
to he expressed respectfully to the House.
Mr. HUME said he had read the petition, and the only

feeling it excited in his mind was that of pity and regret
that there should have been so many people found in
Scotland to express ouch sentiments as were uttered
by the petition. But what did it avail?—(Hear.)
Would it affect him if any man called him an idolator or
enthu,iast? —(Hear, hear.) So long as people kept their
hands off his person, he cared not a single pin what they
said.—(Cheers.) The petition was worded in a respectful
manner as regarded the House, and he entertained not a
doubt that the opinions it expres.ed were sincere. He
hoped the Hon. Member, under such circumstances, who
sat near him, would not think of rejecting this petition.
If such a petition were to be rejected, it would be
as much as to say no petition should hereafter he
received but such as in the discretion of the few
who sat in that House ought to he presented.
Every man had a right, especially in these times of liberty,
to express his opinions, and the House undoubtedly ought
to receive the petition.
Lord ALTHORP regretted, as much as say man
could regret, the language that had been used by the peti-
tioners ; but he had always laid it down as a rule that
if petitions were respectfully worded, they ought to be re-
ceived. When petitions contained language reflecting upon
individuals, or upon any sect or party (which this petition
certainly did), he thought it perfectly right that such a
petition ought to go no further than merely to be laid on
the table. He (Lord Althorp) would therefore give his
sanction to the petition being laid on the table, hut he
should certainly object to its being printed, should the
Hon. Member propose that it should be printed.
Mr. WYSE said that he should object to any course
of rejection being taken on this occasion, which might
hereafter prove to he a precedent. The times were too free
and enlightened to regard whatever might be said by any
person or persons respecting their religious tenets. He
thought it quite right that every individual's opinion should
be received in that House, when it was presented to the
House in respectful language, therefore he hoped the peti-
tions would not only be received, but be printed. If the
House attempted in this instance to controul the expres-
sion of opinion, there was no knowing where the conse-
quences would end.
Mr. MAURICE O'CONNELL hoped the House would
recollect that a few nights ago a petition was rejected,
presented, he believed, by the Hon. Member for Preston,
from Stockport, which certainly was worded in much
more respectful terms than was the present petition.
Lord MANDEVILLE considered that, constituted as
the House and society now were, this petition could
not safely be rejected. He for one, as a Protestant, could
certainly not give his support to this grant, which was to
be made for the purpose of disseminating principles that
he in his conscience believed to be erroneous.
Mr. KENNEDY regretted that individuals so re-
spectable, Ministers of religion, and men of education,
should express such opinions as these petitioners had, and
object to the grant at a time when the Protestant inha•
bitants of Ireland bad so misconducted themselves.
He deeply lamented the annual scenes which took place
in Ireland produced by the Orange Protestants, from
which the most calamitous results flowed, and he also
lamented that individuals should he found to hurry the
people on to such conduct- He was led to make these
remarks from having been absent during the discussion
of last night upon this subject, to which he intended on
some future occasion to call the serious attention of this
House.

After a few words from Mr. LEFRoY,
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said the question was not
whether the grant should he voted or not, but whether
the petition should be received. The petition had evi-
dently calumniated the religion of a large number
of persons, and it was impossible but to believe that that
insult had been *intended. The Hon. Baronet then ob-
served that he had a petition, which he intended to pre-
sent on the first opportunity, from the Rev. R. Taylor,
who was under a severe sentence in Horsenaonger-lane for
uttering words insulting to our religion, and if the facts
in it were true, they would require the serious
Interposition of the House. The Hon. Baronet suggested
that the petition should be withdrawn.
The petition was read and laid on the table.
Captain GORDON, in rising to move that the petition
he printed, bad to perform a sacred duty.—(Laughter.)
It was admitted on all hands that the petition was worded
in respectful language.—(No, no.) So that if there was
any fault found with the petitioners, it was for having
expressed their opinion as Ministers of religion on a sacred
subject.
Lord MANDEVILLE seconded the motion, that the
petition be printed.
' Mr. JOHN WOOD said, that this petition came from
the Presbyterians of Scotland, whose ancestors in Crom-
well's time spoke of the Episcopalians as persons who
wore the rags of the Scarlet Whore of Babylon. Now he
would ask the Hon. Member for Dundalk, whether he
would have presented this petition, if, instead of spending
their poor, pitiful, miserable spite on the Roman spending
their
they had, after the manner of their ancestors,- vented
it on those who wore the rage of the Scarlet Whore of
1 Babylon.—(Cheers and laughter.)
Sir JOHN BOURKE objected to the motion for print-
ing the petition.
Mr. VESEY FITZGERALD did net object to the

reception of the petition, but be should vote against the
printing it. He would not lend himself, nor should the
House, in his opinion, lend itself to casting odium on any
religion. If they consented to printing that petition, it
would show to every man a ready way by which he might

!cal out censure.
After a few words from Sir G. WARAENDER and Sir

G. CLERK,
Sir ROBERT PEEL would have voted for the recep-
tion of the petition had the House come to any division on
that question, because be thought in general that all peti-
tions which did not contain sentiments calculated to lower
the dignity of that House ought to he received ; but the
question of printing the petition was of a totally different
nature. It was a question of expediency. He thought.
the House in general acted unwisely in printing so many
petitions, and as he knew that they were not much read,
could not conceive a more useless waste of the public
money. The only excuse for it was, that it tended to
save the public time by preventing the necessity for read-
ing the petitions. In general, he thought the cost of
printing petitions greatly preponderated over the good. In
this particular petition there were some words which he
regretted had been used. That a similar petition had for-
merly been printed was not a precedent that ought to
guide the House in printing this. The petition imputed
idolatrous worship to seven millions of our fellow-
subjects, and should it he printed, would not the seven
millions have a right to be heard by counter petitions?
He should oppose the printing of the petition, therefore,
as inexpedient.
Mr. STANLEY concurred entirely in what had fallen
from the Right Hon. Baronet. He would not oppose the
reception of the petition, but it would be most unjust to
a large part of his Majesty's subjects to allow it to be
printed.
Mr. O'CONNELL could scarcely regret that the peti-
tion had been presented ; for any unpleasant feeling which
might have been excited by the petition itself had been
fully allayed by what had passed in the discusion.—(Hear.)
.•.•

It Was ft:om discovering the nature of the former petition
alluded to by the Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Clerk) from the
votes, that he had asked the Hon. Member who presented
the petition if he had read it ; and the lion. Member re-
plied that he had, and assented to every word of it. As
to the principles on which the Hon. Member defended
and vindicated himself, they were not novel, .for they had
been carried into effect by the Inquisition in Spain and
Italy.—(Cheers, and a laugh.)
Lord MANDEVILLE explained.
Mr. HUNT disclaimed the principle, that Members
were responsible for the sentiments of the petitions they
presented.—(Loud calls for question.)
Captain GORDON said, however willing to defer to
the opinions of Hon. and Right lion. Members, he bad
been placed, by the turn the discussion had taken, at the
post of duty, and there he would remain.—(The Hon.
Member was proceeding to address the House, but was
met by loud cries of " spoke, spoke !" from all sides of the
House. The gallery was then cleared for a division, but
none took place.)
Motion rejected without a division.
JURY LAWS.—IRELAND.

Mr. O'CONNELL moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
consolidate the Jury Laws of Ireland. His only object
was to assimilate the laws of the two countries ; and, as
the principle of the Bill met, he believed, with the sanction
of his Majesty's Government, he would only submit his
motion, without any further observations.
Mr. STANLEY seconded the motion. He should be
happy on all occasions to avail himself of the assistance of
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, particularly in any
plans connected with the laws, with which the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman was so well acquainted.—Leave given
to bring in the Bill.

CLAIMS OF BRITISH MERCHANTS ON THE
BRAZILS.

Mr. DICKSON rose to call the attention of the House
to a case of hardship committed on British subjects, un-
paralleled, be believed, in our history. In 1827, the Bra-
zilian squadron, which was blockading the river Plate, had
seized a great number of English vessels in a most unau-
thorized manner. The Brazilians bad no right to cap-
ture them, and the British Government had subsequently
sent Lord Ponsonby to the Brazils to demand reparation,
but no reparation had yet been given. When the mer-
chants saw this, and took all the circumstances into their
consideration, they had some reason to believe that the
Government had neglected their interests. He would take
the liberty, therefore, of stating the circumstances to the
House. The first vessel be would mention was the George,
[The convers,ition amongst Members here inter-
rupted the Hon. Member, and he requested such of
then as had private business to talk over to retire
to some of the many convenient rooms with which the
House was provided.] The first vessel he would refer
to was the George, which sailed from Liverpool, with
orders only to go into Buenos Ayres, if it were not
blockaded. The Captain showed his instructions to the
Brazilian Admiral, but in spite of that the vessel was
seized and condemned by a Brazilian Court. To show
the impropriety of that condemnation, he could have no
better authority than that of an English Judge. An
action was brought in the Court of_ Common Picas to re.
cover the policy of insurance, and on that occasion the
Judge declared that the vessel had been condemned on no
sufficient ground. The next case was that of two vessels
bound to Buenos Ayres, which were seized without any
cause and condemned, and no reparation could ever be ob-
tamped. There were two other vessels, which constituted
the most flagitious case he had ever heard of. These were
the Hellespont and Unicorn, with cargoes valued at
100,0001., which were seized under the direction of the
Brazilian Admiral, and adjudged to be good prizes by a
petty Court. They were put up to sale, and sold by the
Judge, contrary to the law of nations, and contrary to the
law of Brazil—for the law of that country declared, that
no prize should be finally condemned and sold under the
decision of a petty Court, nor unless an appeal bad been
made to a superior Court. In this cal* the Brazilian,
though quite wrong, would not acknowledge that the
Admiral had overstepped his authority. Another case
was that of the Nestor, which had lett Brazil with a cargo
for the coast of America, and had been carried into
Buenos Ayres by a privateer of that place. She was
afterwards liberated, and then seized by the Brazilian
Admiral, on the pretence that the Captain of the pri-
vateer had altered the ownership. She was sent to Monte-
Video, and the case was thought so flagrant, that the naval
Commander on that station gave orders to recapture her, and
she was recaptured by a British frigate, under the guns of the
Brazilian squadron. It might have been expected that
this action would have received the approbation of the
authorities at home ; but quite the contrary ; orders had
been sent out to restore the vessel to the Brazilians, and
the officer was reprimanded. He complained of the British
Government for not having explicitly demanded satisfaction
for its subjects. The French and American Governments
paid more attention to the interests of their subjects ; and
it was not till those Governments had obtained reparation
that the British Government thought of taking any steps
at all to protect its own subjects. Lord Ponsonby
was
sent out in 1828, and a memorial, or convention, had
been agreed to in July 1829. It was called a stringent
memorial ; but no man could justly call that a stringent
memorial or measure, which only went to make the Bra-
zilians disgorge a par: of the plunder. Since 1829 nothing,
however, had been done. There was complete inaction on
both sides. The Hon. Member then entered into a state-
ment to show that part of the delay had been occasioned
by the insincerity of the Brazilian Government and the
Commissioners which it had appointed to settle these
claims. The Hon.jMember concluded by moving aAn
humble address to his Majesty, praying that his majesty
would be pleased to order to be laid before the House copies
of all communications between the Foreign Office and the
Brazilian Legation at Rio Janeiro, in relation to the claims
of British subjects for an indemnification for ships cap-
tured from them in 1826 and 1827. Also, copies of all
communications relative to the same subject from the
British authorities at Monte Video and Buenos Ayres."
Lord ALTHORP said the House must see, from the
terms of the motion, that it was impossible he should ac-
cede to it. It was evident from the terms that negocia•
times were at this moment going on. The papers moved
for related to that negociation, and embraced the instruc-
tions given to those who were carrying on the negociation.
It would be very inconvenient to grant the papers, and
contrary to the course the House always pursued on such

occasions.
Mr. HUME thou,ght that the Noble Lord had not dealt
with the question as the House and the country expected.
Claims had been made on the Brazilian Government for
more than five years—those claims amounted to upwards
of half a million of money, and they were not yet settled,
nor in a fair way to be settled. At the same time the
Government of the Brazils had settled the claims of the
Americans and the French, because they were properly
enforced. The Noble Lord, the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, who had that day taken his seat in Par-
liament, and who knew that this motion was to be brought
forward, was wanting in respect to the House, he thought,
by not attending in his place. He ought to have been
there to explain the conduct of the Government. He con-
cluded by supporting the motion.
After a few words from Lord Althorp, Mr. Wranghaw,
Mr. Alderman Thompson, Lord J. Russell, and Sir C.
Wetherell,
Mr. DICKSON conserved to withdraw his motion,
but begged to ask if the orders to make reprisals, which

L

bad been issued by the late Government, had been with-

?
Lord ALTHORP assured him that no means would he
legit untried to procure justice for the sufferers.

The motion was then withdrawn.
Lord J. RUSSELL begged of the Hon. Member for
Wiltshire (Mr. Benett) to withdraw his motion respect-
ing the borough of Liverpool, and suffer the Committee
on the Reform Bill to proceed.
Mr. BENETT said, that although he had been assailed
by the public press without the doors of the House, and
the Hon. Member for Preston within, as not being sincere
in his desire to bring this motion under the consideratio❑
of the House, he would yet give room for the Reform
Bill, and postpone it, on the understanding that he was to
have free opportunity to introduce the question that day
week, and that no writ for the borough of Liverpool
should be previously issued.
This proposition was agreed to by his Majesty's Mini •
seers, and the motion was postponed accordingly.