The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-15 00:00:00

THE NETHERLANDS.

On the question being put for the third reading of the
New Ztaland
Lord GEORGE BENTINCIC said he wished to call

the attention of the Noble Lord the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs to an alleged infraction
of the treaty of the 17th of March, 1824, signed by Mr..
Canning and the Right lion. Charles Watkin Williams
Wynn. The treaty provided that, with regard to their
Indian possessions and the southern Archipelago, this
country should be placed upon a footing with the most
favoured nations. Such being the treaty of 1824, it
was alleged by a commercial firm of the highest re-
spectability 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 it jury 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 questian he wished to ask
his Noble Friend was, whether his attention had been
called to the infraction 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 were withheld from
British subjects, the provisions of the treaty would be
unfulfilled. In fairness, however, to the Netherland
Government, it should be stated that a counter demand
had been made by that Government, founded upon the
treaty of 1837. 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 the honourable feelings which he was sure animated
the British Government, and he had no doubt inspired
that of the Netherlands, would insure the conclusion of
these negotiations upon a footing compatible with the
interests of both nations.--(liestr,hear.)
The subject then dropped.
RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION IN SPAIN AND

PORTUGAL.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said he wished to put a question to

the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Afhirs, with
reference to the treatment of British Protestants in tho

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 if
the Noble
on the
obleLortbe of the Houseobjectiondabladany?
to lay that correspon-
dence
Lord PALMERSTON 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. Kelley was obliged, for his personal safety, to quit
for England. 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 position. 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. Kelley had now made a
demand of compensation for 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. The more, therefore, rested with
Dr. Kalley, and not with him. Dr. Kelley had asked
whether he might return to Madeira ? There was
nothing to prevent his doing so but his qwn apprehen-
sions. He trusted, therefore, that the Right Hon.
Gentleman would not press for the production of these
papers.

Sir R. 11. INGLIS agreed to postpone his motion, and
the subject dropped.
The Militia Pay Bill was read a third time and
passed; as was the Trustees Relief Bill, after a few
words from Mr. JOHN STEWART.

BISHOPRIC OF MANCHESTER.
On the order of the day that the House go into Com,
mittee on this Bill,
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 separated 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 chaplaincies, 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 vacant.
The HON. 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 together.—(Laughter.) 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 been 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
2,268 pluralities in con-
nection Church, and when he proposed
a measure to abolish pluralities, and give a resident
thatwith therethe were
clergyman to each parish, he was considered as the
co
his motion
enemy to the Church; the fact was, that had
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 political residences, it was mostprepos-
terous. The House completely stultified itselfby
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
they were already of such enormous incomes, to endea-
vour to obtain it by means of this Bill. He would
hvl been. used in
mostßiil sthhaisrhdealeyssweltempt on their part, possessed as
attherefore move that the House go into Committee on
cordially secondePdresthsien
Mr. M. PHILLIPS: thought that unnecessary haste
There was a strong gmf,o,rtznardoftliti;el.3lHll,ordm.heon=
chester itself, and feeling against the measure in Man-
chester active proceedings heA lately