The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-16 00:00:00

THE NETHERLANDS.

On the question being,put-for- the third reading of the
New Zealand Bill, • •
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK said he wished to call
the attention of the Noble Lord the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affaira to an alleged infraction
of the treaty of the 17th of March, 1824, signed by Mr.
tanning and the Right Hon. Charles Watkin Williams
Wynn.. ,The treaty provided that, ,with regard to their
Indian possessions and the southern Archipelago, this
conntry should be placed-upon a' footing with the most
favoured nations., Such lining the treaty of -1824, it
was alleged by a commercial firm of the highest re-
'speetability in Manchester, Messrs. Butterworth,
Brooks, and Co., that an infraction of the treaty
had been committed by the King of the Nether-
lands, to the great injury of the commercial
interests of Manchester and this empire at
large. It was alleged by them, that on the 20th of
August, 1846, a treaty was contracted between the King
of the Belgians and the King of the Netherlands,
affording advantages to the Belgians which were denied
to British subjects ; and the question he wished to ask
his Noble Friend was, whether his attention had been
called to the inf.action of the treaty of 1824, and
whether he had made any remonstrance to the Dutch
Government, and whether it was his intention to
make any, or to obtain redress for British subjects ?
Lord PALMERSTON said the matter to which the
Noble Lord referred had been some time under the
consideration of the Government, and at the present
moment it formed the subject of a negotiation between
the Netherlands and her Majesty's Government. It was
perfectly true, as was stated by the Noble Lord, that a
treaty was come to in 1824 of the nature mentioned by
the Noble Lord, and it was quite clear that so long as the
advantages granted to Belgium wore withheld from
British subjects, the provisions of the treaty would be
unfulfilled. In fairness, nowever, to the Netherlands
Government, it should be stated that a counter demand
had been madeby that Government, founded upon the
treaty. of 1237. They demanded to be admitted to the
same . privileges which were granted ,to Hanover.
That was still the subject of ' negotiation be-
tween the two Governments' and he trusted
that: tolifilloAloUrsige feelings which he WttAS mire atliwated

the British Government, and he had no doubt inspired
that of the Netherlands, would insure the conclusion of
these negotiatjons upon a footing compatible with the
int,rests of both nations.—(flear, hear.)
The subject then dropper).
RELIGIOUS PEUSECUTION IN SPAIN AND
PORTUGAL

Sir R. H. INGLIS said he wished to put a question to
the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs with
reference to the treatment of British Protestants in the
dominions of Spain and Portugal. It would be remem-
bered that Dr. Kalley was unjustly expelled from
Madeira because he was a follower of the Protestant
faith ; and as a correspondence had taken place upon
the subject between her Majesty's Government and the
authorities of Spain and Portugal, he wished to know it
the Noble Lord had any objection to lay that correspon-
dence on the table of the House ?

Lord P ALMERSTON said the subject mentioned by
his Hon. Friend was one of great importance and no less
delicacy; but there could be no doubt that Dr. Kalley
had been unjustly treated, and some compensation
was due to him from the Portuguese Government
for the insults and outrages he had been subjected to.
Dr. Kalley was obliged, ,for his personal safety,
to quit. An examination was afterwards instituted,
and the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor had been
dismissed for their excesses on that occasion. A trial of
others of the ringleaders took place, but from the con-
stitution of the jury, and the high position of some of
their families, they had been acquitted. Dr. Kalley at
present stood in this p.isition. He was at present in
England ; he had had his property in Madeira restored
to the person authorised by himself to take pos-
session of it. But Dr. Kalley had now made a
demand of compensation fur all the injuries he
had received. He (Lord Palmerston) had asked
the particular grounds on which he founded his claim,
and the amount at which he placed it, but he had as yet
received no answer. Trie matter, therefore, rested with
Dr. Kalley, and not with him. Dr. Kalley had asked
whether he might return to Madeira ? There was
nothing to prevent his doing so but his own -apprehen-
sions. He trusted, therefore, that the Right Hon.
Baronet would not press for the production of these
papers.
Sir R. 11. INGLIS agreed to postpone his motion, and
the subject dropped.
THIRD READINGS.

The Militia Pay Bill, New. Zealand (No. 2) Bill, and
the Canal Companies Bill were read a third time and
passed; as was the Trustees Relief Bill, after a few
words from Mr. JOHN STEWART.
BISHOPRIC OF MANCHESTER BILL
On the order of the day that The Rouse go into Com
.mittee on, this,Bill being read,
Mr. FREWEN rose to ask the consent of the House
to the withdrawal of the following clause, which he had
wished to be inserted in the Bill:—And be it further
enacted, that from and after the death of the present
Archbishop of. Canterbury the patronage of the several
advowsons of Rochdale, in the county of Lancaster, and
of Blackburn, in the said county, now held and enjoyed
by the Archbishop of Canterbury' for the time being,
shall, be septirated from the see of Canterbury,
and shall be held and enjoyed .by the Bishop of
Manchester for the time being, and his successors.
And be it further enacted, that the right of presentment
to the several perpetual curacies and chap'aincies, de-
pendent upon and appurtenant to the said advowsons,
shall, when the patronage of the same has vested in the
said bishop, be separated from the incumbency of the
said advowson, and shall vest in the said Bishop of Man-
chester, who shall thenceforth appoint directly to the
same as the same shall become iacapt,
The Hort. MEMBER, after' a few words, withdrew his
motion.

Mr. HUME said that he had occasion some short time
ago to visit the Privy Council—(Laughter)—and he had
met two bishops chuckling to each other. He
had no doubt (now that the purposes of this Bill could
not be mistaken) that the consent of the Government
bad been had to the violation of the compact en-
tered into with the bench of bishops. But no circum-
stances had arisen to justify this breach of compact.
Great alterations had seen made in the laws in favour
of civil and religious liberty within these few latter years.
Dissenters now formed more than one- half of the whole
population of the United Kingdom, and he totally dis-
approved, in this state of circumstances, of the applica-
tion of the whole funds originally intended for religious
purposes to one sect or party alone. From a return
made to this House in the year 1828, it ap-
peared that there were 2,268 pluralities in con-
nexion with the Church, and when he proposed
a measure to abolish' pluralities, and give a resident
clergyman to each parish, he was considered as the
greatest enemy to the Church; the fact was, that had
his motion been acceded to, it would have been found
that in reality he proved himself to be the best friend to

the Church by bringing forward that proposition. Then,
with respect to the extravagant expenditure of the
bishops on their palatial residences, it was most prepos-
terous. The House completely stultified itself by
submitting to this enormous expenditure on the
part of those who professed to be the
descendants of the Apostles, but who said
that. they could not live in anything else but palaces.
He should most certainly protest against any abstraction
of public money for the purposes of the bishops. It was
a most shameless attempt on their part, possessed as
they were already of such enormous incomes, to endea-
vour to obtain it by means of this Bill. He would
therefore move that the House go into Committee on
the Bill this day week.
Mr. M. PHILIPS , thought that unnecessary haste
had been used in pressing forward this Bill, and he most
cordially seconded the motion of the Hon. Member.
There was a strong feeling against the measure in Man-
chester itself, and very active proceedings had iAtely
been taken by an association in that borough, formed
for the purpose of obtaining a better and mere equable
distribution of the property already possessed by the
Church. 'He thought that the better course would be to
withdraw the Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he certainly could not
complain of the opposition that had been again raised to
this Bill; but, considering that the second reading had
been carried by a division of 124 to 15, the Honourable
Member for Montrose could not wonder that he (Lord J.
Russell) should propose to proceed with it after so mani-
fest a concurrence in its favour, so far as it had yet gone,
had been given by that House. It appeared to him that
the whole objection of the Hon. Gentleman and of the
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester proceeded
upon misapprehension. There was, as he had explained
the other day, no compact whatever, nor had he ever
heard that the bishops were to be kept up to a certain
number, and to have but a certain sum of money—that
39,0002 only should be allotted fur the maintenance of
the bishops. He believed, indeed, that as far as the Act
was concerned, there was no mention of that sum in it;
but it there were any compact, if there did exist any
ground upon which any compact could be interred, it was
a compact that a Bishop of Manchester should be ap-
pointed.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman who
spoke last treated this as a new question, whereas a
Bill passed some ten years ago, to which Parliament
had given its assent, for the appointment of a Bishop
of Manchester; and, supposing that this Bill did not
pass, and Parliament should afterwards refuse its
assent to the maintenance of the sees of St. Asaph and
Bangor as separate sees, the proposition now made
would follow that a Bishop of Manchester would be ap
pointed; and yet his Hon. Friend seemed to think that
the Government now, for the first time, proposed the
creation of that see. Then, as to this measure being any
surprise on the House, and being hurried forward, the
House would recollect that as early us the 12th of Fe-
bruary a commission had been appointed by her Majesty,
to inquire into the propriety of keeping the two sees of
St. Asaph and Bangor separate, and of appointing a
Bishop of Manchester; so that from that time it must
have been clear to the House that this Bill would be in-
troduced. With respect to his Hon. Friend's statement
as to the parochial condition of Manehester not being
satisfactory, he conceived that that subject, as well as
many others that had been introduced into this discus-
sion, •did not properly belong to the debate. It they
were proposing to take away anything from the paro-
chial funds of Manchester, and to apply. them them to the
appointment of a bishop, he could _ imagine that
such an argument might be urged ; but these
funds were derived from the diminution of the re -
venues'of the bishoprics of Durham and Ely, and if they
were not to be applied to the creation of a Bishop of
Manchester; 'there was no imaginable reason why they
should be applied to the parochial purposes of Man-
chester more than to any other part of the country.—
(Hear.) They would, indeed, be more naturally applied
to the parochial purposes of Ely and Durham, and their
neighbourhood, than to any part of Manchester. The
'whole of that statement, therefore, was beside the
question. His Hon. Friend, who had made a very tem-
perate speech, and nothing like an attack upon the mea-
sure, said that, being himself a Dissentee, he could not
properly judge of this Church question; but he (Lord
J. Russell) must say that it appeared to him that the
bishops formed part of the government of the Church of
England.—(Hear, hear.) That government was not
complete without the ,bishopsf and it was no more nu
argument to say that yott'eught _not to have more
bishops; because, the paxilichial clergy of Manchester
were in want, . than to say. that you ought'not to make
efe
. ,
another neral--by brevet; because you ought to apply
.part'pf;ithe money you hive spare in increasing the
pay. Of 'the private soldier. The bishops formed part of
the government of the Church; they were necessary to it;
and, if the number of bishops were not sufficient—it, for
instance;: he diocese of Chester were too large for one
bishop, and he could not properly perform the duties
belonging to it—it was a good argument why that diocese
should be divided. That appeared to aim to be a plain
and:simple argument on the question. Every religious
community, every religious persuasion, had their own
church government. Whatever they thought necessary
for that government they proposed, and what was
thought necessary tor the government of the Church of
England was proposed by this' Bill. No one, as he be-
lieved, suggested the taking away from the Church any
of the revenues to apply them to other purposes, and
then the question was whether, with regard to those
funds, they could be usefully applied to other purposes?
He would not, however, at that time enter into the ques-
tion which had. been raised, whether the whole of the
revenues now applied to episcopal purposes could be
diverted to objects of another kind; and, havins, now said
these few words,'he would not dispute the rigrlat of the
Hon. Member opposite' to oppose the Bill.—(Hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM said that as the Hon. Member for
Manchester had made a contessiou of his opinions to
the House, he would trouble the House by informing
them that he was a sincere member of the Church of
England. With respect to the Bill, he thought that
the great amount of the- property of the Church
formed_ the only fund upon . which future
reliance could be placed for the instruction of 'the
people of this country in the principles of the Church of
England, and he thought that it would be idle to sup-
pose that any future assistance for the purposes -of- the
Chureb of England could be obtained from the taxes

levied upon the people of England. The detl,,e
this House and the Government was now to deal ewe;
the dirt dirtrihution of the Caerch property in such a maned i
as might be cazoideri d beat adapted far the ploPee° of
improving the moral and religious condition
.4
the people of Englaad..-- Ile certainly did tble ;
that if the Episc, ep-d' .Fund were to be It, 1,
separate and distinct. under the management of the Le .
clesiastical CominisSionera,rit would be better to n3eis
a stand at once, and say-.that this House would Dv' !
sanction the endoWnient ofany future bishops. It .40; •,
peered that there - we re`. two funds kept Pite:ire
by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. These we
the "episcopal fund" ''aiitl the "common fill oe, f
And an-Act was passed in the year 1840, the effieedis,
which was to fuse into one these two separate an ° „,t
duct funds ; but in the year 1841 an Act was Pas
to amend the Act of 1840, thereby repealing ther, 1
visions of the former 'AC; ; and he could not !,:'4
but that subsequent . Acts had recognised `"(o,
repeal of the provision for the fusion of the two Cued
In the late Government thesUbject of this Bill Wee verb
frequently discussed, , btitit
,Was finally decided by the
Majesty's advisers that they Would not recommenessiga
adoption of the course proposed by the preseet ,vtici
During the Melbourne Administration a report was Pri°oll
by the Commissioners, recommending that no ilest
of the number of the bishops. should be made. ~ of
report was signed by Lord Cottenham, the Mar9°l go
Lansdowne, Lord Mdbourne, and Lord John Ressetee
Now, it had been said that the duties assigned t.° to
bishops were generally too heavy. This brought Wers,
consider really what the duties of these bishops °bolt
First, they had to perform theordination services, wait
were confined to one of th ce early weeks in the ilcir
then they had to make a triennial visitation and erelcoo,
tion ; and he was reminded ,ot. the service of the, or
secretion of the-churches, but with respect to the '.*boft
duties, he thought that he a mild be a fortunate Woe
who had three or four of thestaduties to perform ilao
half. year. New, he really could not think that '';ios
labours were too much for atikene bishop, and be of
borne out in that opinion by the fact, that in some
the sees the duties were ably performed by bishoesef to
the age of eighty years. He thought that the 000°,40
diocese of Chester was a peculiar ope, and he really they
e"Ppte
that upon a vacancy occurring .in the see of St. -elagstiol
the Bishop of Bangor might have undertaken the "-sjo
of the two-sees, and filling up, the vacant see by fgo
creation of a Bishop o' Manchester. A majority of sae,
other House,and her Majesty's responsible adviser Ste ,m-....„
however, thought it necessary to-.recommend the
diate creation of the'see. of Manchester. It aPPe ,
that with respect to the episcopallund, there svesaaa'"fot /•
plus in hand already amounting to the sum regally 00
the endowment of this neva bishopric, and if he weal, ens
Committee on this aft; he shouldk make an arritogell)..ol '
at once for ihe-eutter obliteratioteof the distinctness
the two funds,: and fi,r causing the whole amount (3 gel
two funds to be appropriated The the entire wants of to
Church ; and it wasalris intentiOP, with that Tie:.„,lo
move in Committee to expunge the, second clause of
Bill, and he believed that -in so doing he should be oe ,
carrying out the recornmendation . of the report T,O
Ecclesiastical Commissioners. ti-'4in the report 0400,
Commission, it appeared that--in die four dioceses °1 wets
don, Chester, York, wed LiCbfield, there 0'
108 parishes and districts, "containing a tor
lation of 2,590,000 persons, with about actw-otass ,
dation for only 276,000, and although , sails
that report was printed in the year 1836. Consiow'or
efforts had been made to remedy. the evil; still,ito
from mitigating, the evil had onlY'aincreased with
increase of the population. He 2014recated, the„o"
any applicatioa of the funds of the episcopal of ;10(
fund towards the erection of new bishoprics, in6teaes
meeting the intensity of the evil. lle had the SW: glO
view of the impolicy of creating a new bishop 13°400
were to be invested with the whole.honours atie7oo°
upon his office. It would be causing a most ineld the ,
comparison to be made between the new bishop an,„ the
others, by keeping the one constantly confined reitt /
duties of his see, and having no calls upon his ii:tsri,
consequence of his attendanCe at :his Parliagnelool
duties. Then again this measure would deprive st-str
the older sees of the right which they
,had held f_,,,°' of
turies, to sit in the House of Lords whenever a 741,010.1
occurred; but here exception was to be made iOl,, OP
of the sees of Durham and Winchester, but whl' is le
this exception be made? He really saw no panel 00
the measure.—(Hear.) He would oppose anythi aloe
factious opposition to the Bill; he was preparel'esate
into Committee on this Bill, and he was prell'iaoo
move to strike out from the•preamble of the Bill °ere
words which a hick give or implied sanction to the 0000
tion of any newbishoprics beside the first, and telt,
le
06
also move to strike oat the second clause of the ficft
believed that the first measure would be a fatalKng re'
the Church; it was not. ornament which the builw-riaite
quired, but buttresses to support the fabric. Eet'eita-tf
ing these opinions, he-could not but feel, it his
,ris- lw
adopt the course which he had before
_stated it '-
intention to take. lit t°
Mr. 1). ACLAND thought that the. House ong b 10
be obliged to the Right Hon. Baronet for the We, :005,1
had made; it showed lully the reasons why the '64 bri,
vernment failed to keep itself in office, and why ,if Ow
lost the support of all good and honest chUrchmel 0 iscountry. The Right lion. Gentleman had stated, oelj
stance of the Bishap of Salisbury performing ut,'"„g be
duties, and that of the see of Bath and Wells, w'tteilf
(Mr. Acland) would take the liberty of denYiltslids
and he did so upon the authority of the
~„ 0,
of Salisbury himself.-(Hear, hear.) The see for
Bath and Wells had suffered very- reuehOgiq
a time from the want of a bishop. Again, the 1001c0P
Hon. Baronet accused' the laity of not having s'atatti
this question tairly in the fice; but he (Mr• en a
maintained that they had, and the conclusion theyi joe
come to was that inuie bishops were wanted.for nolo
and proper inana4einent of the ChurCh—hishOps s ear
attention should net for the greater portion of thelepso
be detracted from their duties by attendancesiu the P,,er,
of Lords, but „ho should tie always engaged i° :set
respective dioceses in the control und superintendenv2,a)
the clergy placed under their charge.--(Hear, h.
- He hoped, thereesse, that when they got into Comn11;,;a1
the House Would no adopt the proposals of' the /le
Honourable Baronet, but pass this Bill in its,
tirety. He would say thus much for the Ile re
Government that they paid more attention to Woe
presentatives of the Church, and the Dissenting wet'
rest of the country, than did her Majesty's late aLdfsattif
During the last ten years, much had passed Which not
of them deeply regretted, but he hoped the time lib
tar distant when the Dissenting body weultrw-)
more united with the parent Church.—(Hear, beariTabije
Sir W. MOLESWORTII regretted that fbe:..eitteP
Lord at the head of the Government bad not e°llble ill
to withdraw this Bill, because it was quite iniPligera
the few days of the session which remained w whiee
the merits of the various and important question°, IPt
this measure necessarily gave -rise vs—Week/OOP
he protested that the Episcopal funds could behs:istlii
to much better and more useful purposes than -tPietit a''''
bhshment of neWbishoprics; and as for the state w: tbs.;
the Hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his tAnah
.41;
the laity ware favourable to an increase in the .-.--d 0_,,,
Bishops, he uiterly denied it. Cornwall, it was e.iwied,
to have a new bishop, but he knew of his own k'ft,.
that the people of that district were opposed to '-too,
An Hole. Missmeas-Southwark is to have one tatty
Sis Sis W. MOLESWORTH said,
of Southwark, he fault protest against it. f,„ea Ael,
bishops were wanted ; and instead of eststblis°7.* 00 t
as the repre.m.se° mote
sees, they ought to be considering a measure
.„'' tbe:A
bling the existing bench of bishops to Perfef—ese tuL
functions in a more efficient manner than t;'-' lir
at present. The bishops ought not, '0x,0•44'
opinion to have seats in the House of - the
because it distracted their attention frond be
Episcopal duties they had to perform, eiseese,
wouldhoped sh.ir tly
relieved to
of their
d
see th the whenutie
s a
t hl, Bieesgcliislgiof -P ' atr
t 0 ,$, 0
thereby enabled to devote more time and &URI'S°
promoting the welfare of their respective dioceses'
..0000
Mr. M. MILNES supported the Bill, on the gl-well
that- the duties imposed on the present bisholl the
more than they could conveniently perform, vvh"-etit
wants of the people had so much increased of late roll
that an augmeetation of bishops had become sibs° -
necessary.
fa/
Mr. E. DENISON said this Bill embraced a.„ lig
large and important question, but nevertheless 100
had supported the second reading of the Bill at tilhoie
period of the session, under fibs- impression that she
who had more time and opportunity for considering& 01
matter had duly considered what would be the effees
augmenting the Bench of Bishops, with a limitafips
to seats in the House of Lords. The Right 'Hen' •roble
net the Member for Dorchester had made an ad!illgell
speech upon this subject, and be regretted very-Doke ,
that the Right Hon. Baronet while in office did 120 t did,.
au effort to settle this very important questionillefroal
not, however, agree in all that had fide
o felt
the Right Honourable Baronet ; and Baronet
convinced that the Right Honourable J',.„"orir
would,change many of his opinions upon the aff; Or
tion of the ecclesiastical fund, when he beta yibicP
quainted with the further progress of the inquiry
was going on upon that subject.—(Hear, hear.) v 0,0?
Lord SANDON did no; think the duties of egeoir,
were so light. as. the Right Hon.- Baronet the or
for lsorchester supposed, 'for- Searcely a day' ~ ca?
hour passed, that a bishop was hot engaged, -1,-- pre:
penning of the business .4 the diocese over which one
sided. He (Lord Saudon) was acquainted w",„-rs to
Right Rev. Prelate who had upwards of 50 leLl'"„d be
write every morning upon the affairs of his sees wee
would ask any
Member of that House whether Pf
any statesman whose duties were heavier than ti' $ ?...,
fitioall
(Hear, hear, and laughter.). For himself he elite .0 the
no doubt that there ought to be an increase if. the
number of bishops; and if lie wanted any proi: WO,
it could be found in the good effects which 11,,,,5" .:ear,."
from establishment of colonial bishoprics.-0-1,!:,: intro'
He was therefore glad that this measure had wen betty'
duced, and he hailed it as the commencement °f ad 101 l
state of thiegs for the Church of England. Sbe;t-be del,
suffered from internal dissenting, but be hope the;
of her suffering was passed, and that hereal."-aritsieD
should be united- in securing her welfare, and finer
her sphere of usefulness.—(l-lear, hear.)
~" tboOgb.
Mthe 1
flit..NEWDof the bishops would be enlarged I'EGATE supported the Bill. Pue ".‘ 04
ency
had had seats in the House. a uishofa
Lord CLIVE said that the very fact of the cd
agi acing to this measure showed that they diererbsee
the pride of circumstances, and chose rather thanto the
seats in the House of Lords, to confine thensselvesotal•
observe:xis of the duties of their position in the CO" be
He thanked the Noble Lord tor his Bill, to whit.-
wouldlgice his street,: us supaare ..
~• astaiade,
Mr HOUSMAN Oaservcd that all he 118" lt-ntbte^: -
-by the remarks he-had made on this subject wlie :hoe s'
out an alternative to those who Said they 1:00" the,'
. alternative._,
to
namter of bishops, and to show them th‘t_ajoe' •
might have that number in a. different and less
..I.)eeo
tionable titatirt r.:. 1-1.1.! thought the difference bet And
the bishops end the clergy was at
should be-lesseued s Lot be hid had the admismoi.lT. of „
.
- -
Cizirel'4lVilt on two or three „polo§ *ld °IP". -
present tn. g Feat!, the

r'

"