Star.
London, England, 1828-06-27 00:00:00

'MCCRAW' OW OPORTO.

The Earl of DARNLEY begged to put a question
to the Noble Earl, as to the state of affairs at Oporto.
It appeared that the Prince Regent of Portugal had
declared that post in a state of effective blockade, and
that this blockade had been recognised by the British
Government. He was utterly at a loss to know, after
Ithe conduct which D3ll Miguel had pursued—conduct
which stamped him with the character of a rebel ant
an usurper—conduct 'which had reduced the Britiih
Government to the necessity of withdrawing its Am-.
bastador from his Court, or at liast of suspending his
functions ; he was at a loss, he said, after this conduct,
to know what right Don Miguel had to blockade a
port in the dominions of his Brother and his Sovereign
—or what justification could be offered, by the British
Governmen►, for recognizing and abetting the proceed
ings of a P. ince with whoin we had thought ii necessary
to suspend all intercourse. He trusted the Noble L .rd
would be enabled to give a satisfactory explanation of
the conduct pursued by the British Government upon
this occasion.

The Earl of ABERDEEN was not able to give such
explanations of the state of aff.sirs in Portugal, as could
be given by him or listened to by the House with satis-
faction. He had no hesitation in stating that the British
Government disapproved of much of the condo& of the
Prince Regent of Portugal. The Noble' Lord seemed
to suppose that the British Ambassador at the Court of
Portugal had been withdrawn. This was not so. His
functions were suspended. But he was still the resident
on behalf of his Britannic Majesty at the Court of the
Prince Regent of Portugal, and that Prince, whatever
might have been his conduct, and nobody was, more
sensible than himself how much there was in his con-
duct to be lamented, he was still the governing autho-
rity in that country, and the British Ambassador was
still resident at his Court. In these circumstances it
was that the blockade of Oporto was declared. Of this
our Ambassador, from the peculiar situation in which
he stood, received no direct and f wmal communication.
But the fact had come to his (the Earl of Aberdeen's)
knowledge, and in justice to the commercial interests
of this country be thought it his duty to promulgate
it. He did so, not by publication in the Gazette,
which would have been the regular modes but by causing
a letter to be sent to the Committee at Lloyd's. No-
thing had been said in that communication about re-
cognising the blockade. But the invariable principles
which had governed the conduct of this country in si-
milar instances rendered that recognition unavoidable.
The conduct we had pursued with respect to Chili, with
respect to Brazil, with respect to Bahia, with respect
to the blockade of Greek ports by the acting Govern-
ment of Greece, although the blockade in some of
these cases was declared by persons not possessed of any
recognised authority, precluded us from acting upon
any different principle upon the present occasion.—
In each of these instances we had recognized the block-
ade, and had refused all protection to our vessels if they
should attempt to violate it. It was said that Don Mi-
Lguel was an usurper. Whatever might be his intentions,
he was not at present an usurper. But supposing him
to be the greatest usurper that ever lived, we should
still be equally bound by. our uniform practice, and the
laws of blockade foi which we had always strenuously.
insisted, if we could mention any character for consis-
tency, and avoid the reproach of making our principles
bend to our wishes. lithe British Government appeared
by its decision upon the question to sanction the conduct
of Don Miguel, nothing could be further from its in-
tention ; and nobody could regret more deeply than
himself that its decision should be attended with this
effect. But they felt it to be their duty not to swerve
from the principles they had constantly upheld, how-
ever strong the temptation arising from temporary mo-
tives, feelings, or circumstances. (The Noble Earl dur-
ing his speech was repeatedly interrupted by cheers
from all parts of the Hnuse).
Tin Earl of DARNLEY did not regret having asked the ques-
tion, since he had been the means of eliciting an explanation so
complete and satisfactesy from the Noble Ent
MOMMIIt PROM TIM COMMONS. _

Lord &mom, Sir J. Gnaws's, and other Members, brought up
the Manchester Polke Bill, and one priiate Bill. ,
DUTY ON COALS.

The Marquis of DOW-11-8-11i113- peeaentedi a Petition from the

Metchsnts, Traders, and 3lanufaeturerq of the City of Dublin,
contplahig of the Duty on the Importation of Coals, and praying
relief.
The Duke of WELLINGTON should have been
happy to have promised to relieve the subject from the
burden of which the petitioners complained; but he did
not think the burden was so heavy as it was represented.
The whole receipt was only about 5,0001. and the tar,
he believed, only about It, 7f J. per ton. The aboli-
tion of this tax would not produce any sensible effect,
any more than the reduction of duties on coals in the
port of London had produced to the inhabitants of this
metropolis. There was a duty now of 7s. 61 upon the
import of coal into the port of London ; so that by
comparison at least the petitioners had not much reason
to complain. The duty in England on coal carried.
coastways was 4s. a chaidron. With respect to the in-
jury said to be inflicted upon the manufacturers of
Ireland, he must remind the House that only certain
descriptions of coal were employed in manufactures,
and it did not appear that much of them were imported
into Dublin. The Act of Uniop suds not •iolateol, in-
asmuch as this duty existed previous to the date of the
Union. He wished further discussion to be postponed
until next Session,. to afford opportunity for inquiry.
After some converptien bets/meta the Marquis of DowNsulas,
the Earl of DARNLEY, andLordFA RNHAM. •

The Duke's( WILLINGTON B.ld that the Petition shouldbe
referred to the Law Officers or the Crown.
CLERGY OF CANADA.. '
The Earl of HA DDINGTON presented a Petition
from the Piesbyteti ins of Canada, praying that a public
provision might be made fbr the support and mutate.
nauce of their Clergy ; and alleging that the Act of
Parliament, which enacted generally that therershould
be a provision for the Clergy of the Protestart religion
in Canada, was intended to include them. 'this mea-
sure, the Noble Earl insisted, would t .nd to promote re-
ligious peace, content, and improvement in those pasts,
and to confirm the loyalty of the Colonists. He believed
that a very small proportion of the inhabitants Mere
members of the Church of England ; and there co.dd
not be a more mischievous policy than to m•ke an ex-
clusive provision for a Church which was that cf only
a small minority (1 the inhabitants. He had the autho-
rity of Lord Grenville for saying, that this was not the
intention of the• Legislature at the period of passing
the Act.

• The Earl of H ARROIA'BY had repeatedly conversed
with Lord Grenville upon the .subject. He, the author
of the Stll,.bad in a manner outhouse(' him to say, that
'the provision wastiot intended exclusively for the
tens of the Church of England.
The Bishop of CHESTER could not but think it
strange that this interpretation of the Bill was ntver
given at the time it passed. He coy ted the words cf
'Mr. Pitt in support of his opinion, that the Established
Church, only war intended. He must !unbar contend,
that the legislative meaning of the words Ministers of
the Protestant Religion, was Ministers of the Chinch of
England. He was not about to argue the expediency
of a provision for the Presbyterian Clergy, but !rte must
contend, that if this provision was to be made irons the
reserved Church Lands, it would be an act of spolia-
tion. He understood from the Venerable Bi-hop of the
Canadas, that the Members of the Church of England
in those provinces were more numerous titan those of
any other single Protestant sect.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN did nit think this a
St opportunity fur the discussion of the whole of this
question, more particularly as a Committee of the other
House of Parliament was sitting up an the genetal sub-
ject of the state of the Canadas. -But nevertheless he
could not be entirely silent when he heard it cont. tided,
that of neceo.ity by the terms Protestant Clergy; the
Clergy of the Church of England only caul) be meant.
The Legislature was an united Legislature, compre-
hending the representation of the Church of England
and of Presbyterians, and in providing for the mainte-
nance of religion in India, upon this very principle,
Presbyterian Ministers, as well as those of the Church
of England, had been provided for.- •
Earl BATHURST agreed with the Noble Marquis
that the subject was one which required mature deli-
beration. The subject was infinitely too impottant to
be settled by Individual declarations, from boss ever
high an authority they might proceed. He f:id not
think that the term Protestant Clergy excluded the
Clergy of the Church of Scotland ; but in his opinion
it did exclude all who might claim to be clergymen
without regular canonical ordination. Looking through.
out all the clauses of the Act, the it tlation of the Le-
gislature seemed to be to provide a compensation in
lieu of tithes, and if this were the meaning, it mist
necessarily be confined to the Clergy of the Church of
England, which was the Established Church in Canada.
The Noble Earl argued at considerable length in favour
of this construction of the Act. But as the allotment
was one seventh, and a fair commutation of tithes
would have required only an allotment of one tenth, it
might be thought that it was intended to leave scope
for Parliament, if at a future time it should think it
expedient to make some provision for the Clet gy of the
Church of Scotland. The b:•tter way of disposing of
the Petition would be to refer it to the opinion of the
Law Officers of the Crown.
The Earl of H ADDINGTON replied. He thought the autho-
rity of Lord Grenville, as to the intention of the Act, infinitely
better than an extract from a very imperfect account in the Par-
liamentary Reports of thirty years ago of a speech of Mr. Pitt.
The Bishop of CHMIL and the Earl of 'Wm:own mutually
explained.
Lord CLIFDEN deprecated the folly of adding religious die. ,
puce. to the many subjects of difference which already agitated the
Canada.. The Clergy of the Church of Engl7.nd hed no right ro
a monopoly of provision. The Church of England ought to be
satisfied with its rich temporalities in the United Kingdom.
Lord GODERICH contended that the meaning of the Act was,
Dot to confine the provision it made by the reservation of one-
seventh of the land to the maintenance of the Clergy of the Church
of
England exclusively, and quoted several passages of the Mr in •
support of his opinion.
The Petition was then read, and ordered to lie upon the table.
The Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND presented a Petition
from the Coroners of the county of Northumberland, praying for
an increase to their fees.
Earl GROSVENOR presented a Petition from certain inha-
Wants of the county. of Warwick, against the extinction of Small
Notes.