Star.
London, England, 1830-04-29 00:00:00

CHURCH REVENUES.

The Earl of SIIAFTESBUKY having moved the second reading
of the Bishop of London's Estates Bill,
The Bishop of LONDON rose and said—My lords, on the se.
cond reading of this bill, I wish to make a few remarks on a sub.
jeer upon which, in another place, some observations were made
relating to the supposed value of my see, which are so exceedingly
inaccurate, that 1 feel it to be my duty to lose no time in making a
refutation of them. (Hear, hear.) At the same time, I beg to
add, that I believe the honourable gentleman who had made these
observations had no intention of misrepresentation, but has pro.
coded in what he stated on mistaken facts—on inaccurate data.
The honourable gentleman, in speaking of the income of the bishop
of Rochester, said that there was one bishop with an income of
100,0001. a year. There, at least, the hon. gentleman has spoken
with inaccuracy, as far as the income of one see is concerned.
Having mentioned the supposed income of the sees of Canterbury
and Durham, 1 have reason to believe that the hon. gentleman
meant to allude to the see of London in what he then added, because
the amount of the income of the see has been so stated in some of
the public papers. Unwilling as I am, my lords, to offer anything
relating to myself, I do think that I ought not to let those errors I
pass without refutation. What are the facts, my lords ? The hon.
gentleman has stated the sec to be nearly eight times as much as the
actual value of it. I will venture to assert, without fear of contra-
, diction, that the actual revenue certainly does not now amount to
one seventh of what the hon. gent. stated-1 mean one.fourteenth
part. Without going into detail taking Into account all the con-
tingencies to which it is liable, the income, in my life time at legal,
is never likely to amount to one.seventh part of what has been
asserted. Your Lordships are aware that part of the funds arise
from lands which have been let on building leases in the Act. I
nity of London. From these an income of 2,7001. a year is
derived, and it is possible that, in the course of thirty years,
the income may be 1,0001. a year more on this property. The
funds of the see chiefly arise front impropriate rectories, a series of
property which your lordships need not be told is not likely to
increase in value." The right reverend and learned Prelate
then proceeded to say that he felt it but justice to make the observa-
tions he had done, and when the claims made upon him were fully
answered, but little remitted foe his family. Having said thus
much with respect to his, own see, which be knew to be facts, he
would only add that the statement made with respect to the income
of other sees had, in like wanner, been greatly exaggerated.
'The Bill was then read a second time.
The Earl of 811ArFESBURY presented a petition front some
individuals at Hampstead against Sir Thomas Wilion's Estate Bill.
Adjourned at a quarter past Five.

PARLIAMZNTARY REFORM.
Mr. E. DAVENPORT gave notice that on Monday next he
should present a petition signed by 5,000 persons, inhabitants of
Birmingham, praying for parliamentary reform.
Mr. A. CANIPBELL presented a petition against the Glasgow
Royalty Bill.
Mr. DUNDAS presented also a similar petition—Referred to the
Committee on the Bill.
Lord BELORAVE presented a petition from the inhabitants of
Chester, praying for the abolition of the punishment of death for
forgery.
Colonel I.YGON presented a petition from the High Sheriff',
Magistrates, and Corporation of Kidderminster, against the beer
bill.

HU3IE presented a petition from the inhabitants of Ross,
in the county of Hereford, praying for the abolition of the punish.
ment of death for forgery ; and in doing so, the hon. gentleman
stated, that he for one was very desirous to sec the punishment of
death abolished in all cases, except murder and treason.
Sir G. CLERK presented a petition from the Dalkeith Farming
Society, praying that no additional duty might be imposed on British
spirits without a corresponding duty being imposed on rum.

SCHEDULE OF TAXATION.
Sir J. NEWPORT complained of the non-performance of the
promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that an amended
schedule of the comparative taxation of Great Britain and Ireland
should be produced, and put into the hands of members. It was
hard to call upon the house to enter upon the discussion of the sub-
ject without having had the documents necessary to its elucidation.
He complained also that in the consolidation bill additional taxes
keg been introduced, of which no notice had been given ; and he
considered the conduct of the minister highly culpable in that
respect.
Mr. HERRIES, in the absence of his right hon. friend, ex.
plained the difficulties under which he had laboured on the subject;
and expressed his persuasion that the paper In question would be pre-
sented as soon as possible.
Sir J. NEWPORT repeated his statement with respect to the In-
troduction of additional taxes into the Consolidation Bill ; and de-
clared his conviction that as to the taxes which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer intended to impose on that part of the united empire to
which he (Sir J. Newport) had the honour to belong, they would
have the effect of decreasing instead of increasing the revenue.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER having now en.
tered the house, stated the reasons which had retarded the explana.
tion for which the hon. bare. was desirous. There appeared to be
such a general anxiety before the holidays to see the schedule of
duties, that he had sent it to be printed, defining the explanatory
statements until after the recess, when he expressed his intention of
moving its re-committal for that purpose.
Dr. PHILLIMORE objected to the introduction into the bill of
an indirect taxation on law proceedings. He urged the speedy pro.
duction of the schedule.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not know
why it had not yet been delivered.
/11r. HUME concurred with his honourable friends, that many in.
creases of taxation had been made in various departments, of which
no entice had been given. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had
mentioned an increase of 110,0001. on Stamps in Ireland, and had
stated that the increase was confined to Ireland; it now, however,
turned out, as he understood, that it was to take place in England
and Scotland as well. He hoped there would be no longer delay In
furnishing explanations on the subject.
The. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER expressed his
desire to give all the information that could be required.
Here the conversation dropped.
Sir R. WILSON presented a petition from several parishes in
the county of Nottingham, praying for the abolition of the punish.
meat of death for forgery.
Sir J. WROTTESLEY presented a petition from Stafford
against the beer bill.

—The calla for Mr. Grant, which had been for some time increas-
ing, now became loud and general.

TERCEIRA.
141 i. GRANT commenced his speech by reading the Resolutions
which it was his intention to submit to the house, and which were
as follow :

" That prior to the 12th of Dec. 1828, her Majesty the Queen
Donna Maria 11. had been recognized by his Majesty and the other
great Powers of Europe to be legitimate Queen of Portugal and
that at the period above named the said Queen was residing in this
country, and had been received by his Majesty with the accustomed
honours of her Royal rank.
" That on the said 12th of Dec. the Island of Terceira, part of
the dominions of the Queen of Portugal, was governed by authori-
ties, civil and military, in allegiance to her Majesty.
" That on the said 12th of December instructions were given by
the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, stating that ' a consi-
derable number of Portuguese soldiers, and other foreigners, were
about to sail in transports from Plymouth to Falmouth, and it is
supposed they intend making an attack on Terceira, or others ofl
the Western Isles ' • and his Majesty having been pleased to corn.
mend that a naval force should be immediately despatched, to in.
terrupt any such attempt, you are hereby required and directed
to take the ship and sloop named in the margin under your com-
mand, and to proceed with all practical expedition to Terceira; and
having ascertained that you have succeeded in reaching that ;dead
before the transports alluded to, you will remain yourself at Angra
or Praia, or cruising close to the island in the most advisable posi-
tion for intercepting any vessels arriving off it ; and you will detach,
the other ships as you shall deem best for preventing the aforesaid
force from reaching any of the other islands.'
" That on the arrival of the naval force sent to Terceira, in pus.
unmet of these instructions, the commanding officer found that is.
land in possession of and governed by the authorities above men-
tioned.

" That in the beginning of January, 1929, a number of Portu-
guese, subjects or soldiers of her said Majesty, voluntarily left this
country with a view of repairing to the said island, and that their
departure and destination were known to his Majesty's Government ;
they appear to have embarked and sailed in unarmed merchant
to have been unaccompanied by any naval force, and themselves
without any arms or ammunition of war.
" That these unarmed merchant ships and passengers were pre-
vented by his Majesty's naval forces, sent for the purpose, from en.
tering the harbour of Porto Praia; and that after t had been
tired into, and blood had been spilled, they were coin led, under
the threat of the further use of force, again to to sea, and
warned to quit the neighbourhood of Terceira and the rest of the
Azores, but that they might proceed wherever else they might think
proper.
" That the use of fora in intercepting these unarmed vessels,

and preventing them anchoring and landing their passengers in the
harbour of Porto Praia, was a violation of the sovereignty of the
state to which the island of Terceira belonged ; and that the fur-
-1 Ibex interference to c compel those merchant ships or transports to
quit the neighbourhood of the Azores,' was an assumption of juris.
diction upon the high seas, neither justified by the necessity of the
I ease, nor sanctioned by the general law of nations."
The hon. member then said that last Session documents were pro-
duced on this subject ; but extensive as they were, they at the same
time were most unsatisfactory and contradictory. The ministers
having submitted the question to parliament by the preweniktion of
such papers, the house was justified in requiring freah diforniatien.
He was, however, prepared to admit, that from what had passed
elsewhere, there was no hope of further papers on the subject
being furnished. The government, it seemed, had resolved on
neutrality; that was their declaration. With that he had
nothing to do—he would not discuss that question row, be-
cause he would not be drawn from the main question. This he
must by the way remark, that we had no treaty, no compact wilt
Don Miguel—on the contrary, we had denounced him as be-
ing' engaged in unjust usurpation ; but the case was diferer t
with Donna Maria, for we were in treaty with her, and had
'recognised her claims. With Don Miguel our neutrality was
optional; but with the Queen of Portugal the case was nit!:
ferent--short of war, we were bound to the utmost to surly rt
her cause. He would relate some particulars connected with
the case, following the order of time, as the information ap-
peared in the documents. It was observable, that though the
Portuguese had been in this country since August, they did not
appear to have attracted the notice of Government till Octo-
ber, and then in consequence of a letter from the Marquis de Bar.
bscena. The government then directed their departure from tins
country. It was competent to do that—but the order tor the de-
parture was accompanied with conditions, not to proceed to Portugal
or Terceira. That he n.aintained we had nut the power as neutrals
to do. England there outstepped the principles of neutrality.
The controul on the part of England could only extend a hide the per.
ties remained within the kingdom, and so far subject to the rule of the
neutral ; the extention of controul beyond that limit was not justified
by the law of nations. If this were not so, the powerful neutrals
could indirectly become belligerent!. If this were not so, when
the subjects of belligerents came here, they were to be put under the
controul of the neutral as to all their subsequent movements. It was
Paid, that when the slave landed in England he became free ; but
if this new doctrine were correct, when the subjects of conteeding
belligerents came to neutral England they became the :dews of
this country. Was that the law of natiors ? Who ever so read
that law ? Another peculiarity its principle and doctrine was c‘:-
dent throughout the papers that had Lien produced, namely, tl:e
doctrine that the coteries should fallow the fate of the mother coon-try. That feeling was evident throughout the papers. (Hear.)--
True, that was the doctrine of old Spain—but by Mr. Canning's
act in calling the new world into existence, that doctrine had been
abolished for ever. (Loud cheers.) He maintained that our govern-
ment was not juetifiAl in preventing the Portuguese from
going into a colony of Portugal, as they could not go to Portugal
itself. It was alleged, in defence of such prevention, that a civil
war was raging in Terceira at the time; but the papers contained
no proof of that fact, nor was it urged at the beginning of the coo.
respondence ; on the contrary, the papers imparted evidence of a
very different character. Ili the ceirreepontleoce, the Portuguese
remaining in this country urged the continued and faithful aliegi.
ance of Terceira; but, nevertheless, the Duke of Wellington said
that his Majesty could not grant permission to them to go to Tcr.
ceira. (Hear, hear.) If the Government had known at that time 4)1
the existence of a civil war in Terceira, would not that have
been sufficient mason; at all events, would not the fact have
been asserted? (Hear.) But it was not till an advanced state
of the correspondence with the Marquis l'almella, that the civil war
of Terceira was even mentioned. The conduct of our fleet was ex-
traordinary, and calculated to excite that feeling which the cor-
respondence eventually advanced as the reason for refusing the
required permission to the Portuguese. The Governor of Ter-
ceira was a creature of Don Miguel's, but his efforts failed ;
and he could not but think that our Government had been
very imperfectly informed as to the real state of feeling in Ter-
ceira ; for in that place coins had actually been prepared
recognizing Donna Maria. Barbccena had informed our Go-
vernment of the state of allegiance of Terceira ; and yet the
Duke of Wellington had termed the attempt of ,the Portuguese to
land a " hostile" attack—hostile attack, too, from those who had
no arms in their hands.—(laughter anti cheers.) Our government
had curious notions of what constituted hostile attacks ; and the
instructions given to Captain Walpole on this subject were full et'
extraordinary language as to what might be done by unarmed Met,.
, These Portuguese were unarmed—but they might get arms on hav-
ing landed. Supposing arms which had been forwarded from dos
country had been followed by the purchasers, was that any breach
of neutrality 1 The best proof that it was not was that the fact
was never urged as such by our Government ; besides, at the
same time a vessel was going to Portugal with arms, and another
to Terceira, from this country. He could not but think that the
question of arms had not had too much to do with the conduct of
our government in this matter. (hear, hear.) But the question
was, whether it was right thus to have interrupted the Portu-
guese when they were no longer within the limits of this
country ? That was the question at issue, and he was pre-
pared to contend that what England did on that occasion was
unjust. It was inconsistent with all the known principles
of the laws of nations. Anti he hesitated not to assert, that if
the capacity to avenge themselves had existed, that intenrup-
tion would not have taken place, because, had the capacity existed,
we should have known full well that it would have been immediately
followed by hostilities on the part of that government whose sub.
jests had been so unjustifiably prevented from landing on their own
country. We should have known—had there been the capacity—
that immediate war must have been the consequence. Our govern-
ment knew that fact. They chose their victims well. They would •
not so have acted towards France, or Russia, or the United States.
No ; they reserved much conduct to be observed towards the unarmed
faithful and loyal Portuguese. Towards such only could we so act
—towards such only could we so exert our gratuitous " neutrality,"
as it was termed. (Hear). But was all this well ? DA it redound
to the honour, did it sustain the character, of England ? The cir-
cumstances attending this aggression on the unarmed and loyal Por-
tuguese merited some special remark. It did not take place where
the flag of England had. a right to hear sway; it took place in the
waters near the island, and, consequently, where the Portuguese
sovereignty ought to have prevailed, and ought to have been ob.
served by neutrals. When two boats were lowering, and were
about to land the Portuguese, our vessels interfered and pre-
vented the landing. In such worthy occupation was the British
Navy employed ! And Airther, there was something remark.
able in the time selected; it was when the lawful sovereign of
Portugal was most favourably received in this country ; England
thereby becoming a party to the increased misfortunes to which that
Sovereign was subjected. At that time our fleet was engaged in pre-
venting her subjects from landing at the only spot which continued
its allegiance. (Hear.) The loss of life that had occurred was
trifling ; but it might have been considerable, bad our vessels turned
their broadsides upon the unarmed Portuguese; at all events the
'principle of the transaction way the same. (Hear.) The Portuguese
bad received permission to go as individuals ; and yet, though mt.
armed, they were attacked. Just as well might the emigrants goirtg
to the Swan River be attacked, on the ground of having hostile in-
tentions towards the place where they landed. It way, however,
said that amongst them there were Gentians. It was true, 200 had
gone ftom Germany, and had touched at Portsmouth, but had
never even been in this country. They were collected under
the authority of their own sovereign, and they were going to
serve their sovereign ; but they, too, were turned back by the neutral.
—(Cheers.) He wished to ask the question, what had these Per-
tuguese done? Had they taken oaths ? Had they been parties to
I treaties ? Had they insulted the majesty of this country? Had
they committed four.fold perjuties ? Or, had they been party to
rearing a throne on crime, and wading to sovereignty through blood?
What had they dent? He wanted to know what they had done to
warrant the interference of' neutral England ?—(Hear.) Having re-
ceived information that Terceira retained its allegiance, the. Marge is
Palmella proposed that the Portuguese might land there instead of
Brazils. He was justified in that language ; but when they attempted
to land there, they were interrupted by force. It was an unjust proceed.
lag—the strong taking advantage of the weak ; and it it were to
be justified, they would thereby unroot the laws of nations, and
subject them to the caprices of the strongest. This country had
taken a neutral position. ; having done so, the laws of nations did
not warrant the course that had been adopted—the aggression that
had been inflicted on them. That the Portuguese were in every
sense beyond the controul of this country was established, not only
by the general laws of nations, but by what tool:place on the occa-
sion of and after the passing of the foreign ealtablialiment Bill.
Mr. Canning laid it down as a principle, the rule of law was
recognized distinctly, that such law should not proceed hi yonti
our own shores. i Hear.) That was a clear and a just principle,
and he was no wise 111 Mister who would attempt to reverse it.--
(Hear, hear.) Illuch had been said about " false clearances,'
I that the vessels containing the Portuguese, whose landing at Ter-
ceira we had prevented, had quitted the English shores upon " false
clearances ;" but be that fact what it might, it had nothing to do
with the question. They left England with the declared intention
of going to another place, but they afterwards went to Terceira.
When they altered their course, it was too late for us to interfere—
they had quitted our ports; they were No longer—if the laws of na-
tions went for anything—those laws tint were to protect the 'leak
against the auwag—those vessels were so longer wider the infipetice
of our controul, whether they had quitted England upon false
clearances or not. But even that defence was not complete. On
the 99th of December, the Marquis Palinella announced that those
Portuguese would proved to Terceira; and it was not till the 6th
of January that two vessels sailed, with the avowed intention, which
' had been known for more than a fortnight, of sailing to Terceira.