The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-16 00:00:00

considered that the sale of lands at a
certain price was a sound principle, and
he regretted that the application of that fund to
immigration should not meet with approbation.
He attributed the failure to the faulty structure
of the Act of Parliament. He would propose to
place the colony under the control of the Trea-
sury, not under the control of Commissioners,
and to give the Crown a direct agency in the ap-
pointment of its Governor. Though it was not his
opinion, if the House decided that it shoul I have
have a representative Government he would as-
sent to it.

Lord STANLEY had thought that this subject
was one which ought to have been brought be-
fore the House, on the responsibility of the Go-
vernment, before it was referred to a Committee.
It was the duty of Government to come to
Parliament with a definite proposition. He
described the self-supporting principle as
a bubble which had burst. The revenue
of the colony was, he said 2a,0001. a
year, the expenditure 100,0001. ; and the Go-
vernment House cost 24,0001. The Noble Lord
was very severe on the whole scheme, particu-
larly of introducing all the luxuries of civilized
life into the wilderness. He advised Lord JOHN
RUSSELL to allow the Chairman to report pro-
gress, and postpone the measure for a week or
two, till Lord JOHN could lay before them the
details of the measure it was necessary to intro-
duce.

Lord JOHN could not acquiesce in delay, be-
cause the colony was perishing.
Sir R. PEEL suggested that the resolutions
should express that the loan should not be im-
mediately passed.
Lord Howicx explained that bills bad al-
ready been given, on the faith that the Trea-
sury would pay them. He suggested that
Government s:lould receive the authority to raise
some money to meet the present difficulties, and
take time to adjust the affairs of the colony.

Mr. HUTT defended the Australian Commis-
sioners from Lord STANLEY'S attack.

Mr. VERNON SMITH thought the affairs of the
colony were not so discouraging.
Sir R. PEEL pointed out a contradiction
between two statements of Colonel TORRENS,
which shook his confidence in what was reported
of the colony.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL expressed his surprise at
the course adopted by Lord STANLEY, who in
Committee had proposed a resolution that delay
would aggravate the evil.
Mr. GROTE was for dispatch, that the news
might go out to the colony.
Lord ELIOT concurred with Lord JOHN RUS-
SELL in feeling surprised at Lord STANLEY'S con-
duct, and said that them was no difference in
the Committee as to the necessity of immediate
step. This is another example of the Tories
quarrelling among themselves. Lord STANLEY
is quite enough to set a whole country by the
ears.

Ultimately, we believe that a proposition
made by Sir R. PEEL, that the Government
should take up the bills due and receive the
power to contract a loan, was adopted.
The House resumed.

On the Report of the Ordnance Estimates, Cap-
tain BOLDERO drew the attention of the House
to the supplies we had furnished foreign States;
when Sir H. VIVIAN assured the Hon. Gentleman
that we had only furnished the SULTAN with
24,000 stand of arms, with ammunition.
The Report on the East India Rum Bill was
received, after an amendment had been intro-
duced including date-tree sugar.
The Registration of Voters (Scotland) Bill was
read a second time after a short debate.

The Drainage of Lands Bill was opposed, and
the second reading was carried by 31 to 19.
On the motion of Sir W. RAE, leave was given
to bring in a Bill to erect a monument to Sir
WALTER SCOTT, in Edinburgh. Mr. Fox
MAULE supported the motion, which has the
consent of both parties.
Some other matters of course were transacted,
and at Half-past Eleven o'Clock the House Ad-
journed.

We have to announce, which we do with very
great pleasure, that the Bishop of EXETER last
night withdrew his motion for an Address to the
Crown not to give its assent to the ordinance for
incorporating the Seminary of St. Sulpice. We
are delighted at the result, because we are con-
vinced that had the Bishop of EXETER been
successful, the conseqlences would have been
very injurious in Canada ; because bigotry was
defeated, and above all, because the defeat came
in this instance from the better part of the
Tories, who, as we expected, refused to hurl the
firebrand which Bishop PHILLPOTS had pre-
pared into the peaceful and reposing community
of Canada.
Our readers will recollect that we stated on
Saturday that " the Earl of RIPON, -the Earl of
ABERDEEN, and Lord ELLENBORUGH would
discountenance the attempt to represent
the House of Lords as the determined
enemies of all the Catholics of the empire." We
were then aware that the Duke of WELLINGTON
had pledged himself to support the Bishop's mo-
tion; and though we were unfeignedly astonished
to hear his Grace give that pledge, after the
plain, sensible speech of Lord MELBOURNE on
Friday week, we did not expect that he would
have joined his rational friends in opposing the
Bishop of EXETER'S motion. It appears, however,
that since Friday evening the Duke has looked
into the question for himself. He was then capti-
vated by the easy, flowery elocution of the Right
Rev. Prelate, and by his positive assertions.
Forgetting much of the past history of these
transactions, he had suffered his judgment to be
hastily ensnared by the fervour and sincerity of
the holy man. But on remembering that he had
been in office with Lord BATIIURST in 1821, when
the letters patent for incorporating St. Nicolay
were issued ; and in 1834 and 1835, when
Lord ABERDEEN adopted the despatch of
the Earl of RIPON, he was at once convinced
that he could not in honour throw overboard,
as foolish and illegal, the acts of his own col-
leagues, and acts to which he had himself been a
party. The Noble Duke, therefore, when he
consulted his own judgment, came to a correct
conclusion, and, beyond our expectations, not
only combated some of the arguments of the
Bishop of EXETER, particularly his wild assertion
of-the enormous income of St. Sulpice, but de-
clared his firm determination to oppose the
Bishop's motion. That was decisive of the
question. The Right Reverend Prelate
felt he had not the smallest chance on
a division ; and, therefore, adroitly seizing hold
of a staff held out to him by the Duke of WEL-
LINGTON, he crept out of the pool into which he
had foolishly plunged, and withdrew his motion
for an address.

We were glad to perceive, by the reference
which the Duke of WELLINGTON made to the
Earl of ABERDEEN, that those two noblemen
were acting with • one common accord; and
that the Noble Earl would have accompanied
the Noble Duke, had the motion been
pressed to a division. The Earl of RIPON left no
doubt on the subject, for he made a manly, sen-
sible speech against the Bishop's motion. He
justified his own despatch of 1831, admitted that
the Seminary had been virtually incorporated
before, ridiculed the idea of taking away the pro-
perty from the -Seminary, which, he said, had
never been thought of by any statesman, and,
though he should have preferred his own plan of
settling the question, he could not, he observed, for
one moment think ofopposing the ordinance, which
was based on principles to which he had previously
given his solemn sanction. He pointed out, also,
the inconsistency of the Bishop of EXETER, in
first contending, on the high ground of pure
Protestant principle against the ordinance,
and then making it a matter of pecuniary
consideration, leaving to the Papists a part of
the sum, instead of the whole. The Noble Earl
gave no quarter to the Bishop's assertion that
such an ordinance was a national crime
and contrary to the principles of the
Constitution. Oa the contrary, he regarded
the settlement of the question as essen-
tial to the prosperity of Montreal, and would
on no account allow his respect for the Protes-
tant religion, which he professed to revere, to
overrule his conviction of what was due to sound
policy, The Bishop of EXEMB) therefore, was