The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-16 00:00:00

zw,itirb 7,7%-ifm"l
40 4'S.liz'f: kv `-‘,40 41/41, I

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAT.
GLOBE.—Sir Robert Peel is the male Catherine de
Medicis of modern Conservatism. There is areal duplicity, as
Ranke has said of his female prototype, not in his words, or
in his actions only, but in his mind. He has two strings to
his bow; he is always for sitting on two stools. This dupli-
city of view and ofconduct, as in the lady above-mentioned, so
in the present gentleman, after attempting to play one party
against the other, ends at last in a violent crisis. Catherine
first leaned towards the Protestants—and ended by enacting
the Saint Bartholomew. Peers Protestantistn seems
drawing to its catastrophe in a similarly violent situation.
lie has driven his own original party to bay—and it
stands at bay. He has thrown himself on Whig sup-
Port ; and he will have to take it, we surmise, on Whig
terms. Consistency of principle demands that the party
in Opposition should speak their whole mind on the
Whole extent of the Irish Church question. It is forced
upon them ; they have not factiously forced it upon the
Government. On the contrary, they have, thus far, given
the Government the most unreserved support. The public,
however, has spoken out, and shown itself strongly per-
suaded that (as we stated) what is proposed is one thing—
what is argued for is another. The Minister's act indi-
cates intentions which are universally received with im-
mense distrust. And his argumentative supporters make
the matter worse. They demonstrate that much more
remains behind. Mr. Gladstone on Friday, Mr. Milnes
yesterday, let the cat terribly out of the bag. The country
sees clearly enough that this is only a beginning of new
church policy. And they will have Sir Robert Peel begin
nothing of which they don't see the end. As an Irish dealer,
they will buy no pig in the poke from him. Now, in this
matter, the Opposition leaders have embarked in the same
boat with Sir R. Peel. Unless, however, they mean to commit
Party suicide for the sake of his beaux yeux (to say nothing of
the sartorial " sacrifices to the graces" which Mr. Grant has
attributed to him)—they must declare all they would do with
the Irish Churches, and how they would do it. The widest
possible unpopularity has been already incurred by both
Parties. The patty in power may get out of it how they can
-that is no concern of the party in Opposition. What
the) have to think of is simply to eonnect their present
conduct with their past professions; and set forth, in their
full extent the principles on which they have followed the
kinisterial move. Those principles may not be less un-
popular than that move is—but, if true, they must make
Way- The unpopularity is incurred—tout est perdu fors I* hon-
ro*--it is for Opposition to take good care that honour, at
isa,st, shall be sate, and that the country shall know where to
look for men—not to consult its momentary pleasure—but to
Chalk out a clearfuture course. Sir R. Peel sits like Joe Miller's
Jew at dinner, aghast at the sudden thunder-storm—" Here
a piece of work about one little bit of bacon !" But
Even
the little bit of bacon leads the public to infer t he whole b.
that little bit is more than the public will tolerate og,
Without knowing what is to follow. Sir R. Peel has made
by`ue great mistake that he could keep Protestant zeal quiet treating the thing as nothing new, while the Irish
majority are to take it as something new. This is adding
distrust and suspense to inevitable Protestant unpopu-
larity' The duplicity is perceived ; and if it had
not, his supporters have taken good care to disclose
Two such speeches as Mr. Gladstone's and Mr.
ililnes' involve all that Mr. Ward's motion menaced, and
something more. They involve the positive patronage of
Warnsh priesthood, as teachers of the people, while
'P.- motion only went to deal with surplus eccle-
astical funds (such as those Mr. Hume last night men-
tioned), for general educational purposes. Mr. Glad-
stone, therefore, and Mr. Milnes, go farther than
"r. Ward went towards directly superseding Protestant
outs,rY as regards Roman Catholic masses. They
teal directly patronise another ministry, as effec-
hint], where the former is ineffectual—and unless they up-
old the preposterous absurdity, that where that acknow-
ledged inefficacy exists, and where, on that very ground,
they would erect State machinery to supply other agencies
Zthe non-working wheels are to go on being oiled "for
e look of the thing," and the public to be taxed for
• in
oil for the working ones, as well as for putting them
~11 gear "at first starting—unless this preposterous
nrdity is asserted, Sir Robert Peel's argumentative
!adherents espouse the appropriation clause, and something
ore. Is it for the Whigs to dissemble that a new principle
involved here; and to shrink from declaring that prin.
Itl2le, in the whole extent to whEch they would act upon
This appears simply due to themselves on the
part of the Opposition. Dlr. Milnes stated it to be " his
littrtion that the country was not at the present time
!niseeptilA of the arguments which had been adduced
1,!? favour of the Bill.' But he was just as great a sinner
himself in the way as Mr. Gladstone. The country is sus-
loneble of alarm, at all events; and such gemches have
:lone all that could be done to alarm it. Nothi ore will
lost by explicitness; there is nothing now to be saved by
Rile
We once hazarded a fabled illustration of the ostrich
gait of Sir Robert Peel's policy. But now the ostrich would
screen itself by sticking its head in the sand, and, because it
Rill not see its way, thinks that nobody else sees its where-
abouts.
STANDARD.—The Times this morning has a warm
panegyric upon Mr. Macaulay's speech. At this we cannot
\yonder ; the speech was characterised by duplicity and
rancour, self-seeking and spite, clothed in coarse and offen-
sive language. the very qualities by which the Times itse'fis
disgracefully distinguished. Mr. Macaulay's position is
no doubt a puzzling one ; lie and his party think that by '
voting against the Bill before the House they would
'min the Ministry (we trust that they are mis-
taken), but they know that they would at the same time
dulyUtte destroy themselves. What, then, was Mr. Macaulay
t° ? To vote for the Bill, and even to speak for it, but
at the sense time to damage the measure in the eyes of all
men, by fallacious and un-Christian arguments in its
A 7 t; and to throw upon its authors all the dirt that even
Practised industry could collect. An article which we
ve copied from this day's Morning Herald, fairly
!_ve think (by a reference, to facts and dates) demonstrates the
perfect harmony and consistency of Sir Robert Peel's conduct
r _lards the Church in Ireland, from the day in which he can
p'eartaid to have been a political leader, whether as head of a
yea Yin opposition, or as head of a government. For fifteen
Churchr he has steadily and constantly fought the battles of the
against Mr. Macaulay and his faction, and never,
4-"Lwe firtnly believe, did the Right Hon. Baronet propose
',1:93. measure better calculated to fortify the temporal eats-
Lament of the Church, or to accelerate the completion of
ofo_ered purpose, than the measure now before the House
M;:arons. What inconsistency is there here? But, says
vsartptise"anisY, Sir Robert Peel has taken his party by
h ; if, however, there be a surprise, it is a surprise
R'
twelve months' warning, and a surprise of which Sir
etaknenginis, Mr. Colquhoun, Plumptre, or Col. Verner,
Ther,
.0 complaint. But, then asks Mr. Macaulay, with an
LtinraPh, where is Lord Stanley's Registration Bill ?
h„,,,,rePTOach of not introducing the Bill since 1841 must,
Peerbr, be divided with Lord Stanley and Sir Robert
vetea every one of the Conservative Members who
one
of it five years ago. It was as competent for any
T r the number to revive the measure, as it was
Maui
Stanley, or Sir Robert Peel ; for we may remind Mr.
re 4uhtv that 'it was not introduced as a Government
sit:euprreo;but.introduced by a private Member of Parliament.
hegiq 'lnh is, however, due to any one in the matter. The
Pra ration Bill
registtirea,,l was a practical remedy for an existing
the fraudulent composition of the Irish
°la ent we years ago. It was the duty of the Parlia-
fraod4pi revent future Houses of Commons being elected by
aod n ently-composed registry, and therefore it was right
Lora rssary to introduce such a Bill as was introduced by'
Of the
-"y in 1840. Time has, however, done the work
a.tent In to some extent—we believe to a sufficient
.ttle mob,.'? preclude the necessity of legislation upon
rectea -7t- The attention of the people has been novelty of the frauds practised with facility in the
and .7 of the
Lo no Re new constitution given by the Reform Bill,
t°waver, „glr -,tration Bill seems to be now called for. If,
tent to": • Macaulay thinks one is necessary, it is as wea-
l_ inteod„"nn to introduce one now, as it was to Lord Stanley
"s s„efe one in 1840. Let us take leave of Mr. Macau-
worth he than acknowledgment that it is in every way
commendation of the Times.
RA

ILWAY COMMITTEES.
(THIS DAY.)
tOUT!„ (Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
810 "ASTERN LINE.—WIDENING AND EXPAN-
W 4. OF THE LONDON AND GREENWICH RAIL-
Jeroes-: were three petitions against this line; one from Mr. S.
/11.11k;Git from Mr. Heywood, and one from Mr. Robinson Latten.
''F°RD-ERIDGE AND CHILHAM, WITH FIVE
Floe BRANCHES.
Sir Petitions against—f:nu Messr. M. Carr, Robinson Lattn, D1'0141171. Ooldsrnid, andt two froms the owners and occupierse of

Three PADDOCK WOOD BRANCH-
-00,t65. 'Petitions against—fro Messrs. J. -"d) and the owners and ocm cupiers of the land.lng eratein, Sir I.
kesarc I:I°NDON AND CROYDON BRANCH.
The 4 Yson and Han reresented tbe petitioners. t having been gone p
through, the Committee adjourned.

tr -I„TR or TRADE.—The market continues ex-
Nteth.el ull, and prices, both of goods and yarn, were
,t: lower than last week.---RocimALE FLANNEL
13:1-4refr, MONDAY, APRIL 14.—We have had rather
'llBine's doing in the piece market to day, but no
Atidr°‘'.einent in prices. The wool market remains steady,
Pliers firin.—Manchester Guardian.
_

'E RIA L PARLIAMENT.
(THIS EVENING.)

T
OUSE OF
C MMONS.
~,--Le SPRH OALER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
4 t7'.ue l3irmingbarn and Staffordshire Gas Bill was read
third time and passed.
oltir_C:r. the nio ion- of Mr. WILLIAMS, the Kirwelly
ulosure Bill was read a second time.
GREENE brought up the report on the London
Phan Asylum Bill.
;111,aterthe motion of Mr. BROTHERTON, the Man-
Division Stipendary Magistrate Bill was read a
t •ird time and passed. -
to!ihr• R. COLBORNE moved that it be an instruction
111,7`, e Committee on the Harrogate and Ripon Junction
t"waY 3ill that they have power to make provision by
-4,3*Parate Bill for the proposed branch railway to Rich-
red,iwith the bridge and approaches thereto.—
C4l the motion of Lord COURTENAY, the Amicable
Loeiety Assurance, Bill was read a third time and passed.
a The Rardwell and Streadly Road Bill was read a
eond time.
Nir B
.13
ill f4v ou • ALDWIN presented a etition f Newark
ii.'iliw ~r of the Sheffield And Lipncolnshirerom Junction
ay.

THE MAYNOOTR GRANT.
Nvt°ll C. MANNERS presented a petition from a
esleyan Methodist congregation in the county of Lin-
'o,ll agairst the grant to Maynooth.
~,4r. BR
presented petitions from the_
YulitY of Gloucester, and from the East Riding of
1)„.k, against the proposed grant to Maynooth.
~„"fr. MIJNDAY presented a petition from the county
,i 1 Derby to the same effect.
‘,..ha Colonel WYNDHAM presented a petition fr9m
;vest Suisex, and also a petition from South-Kirk
gainst intemperance.
tot Lord DALMENY presented a petition against the
to AT 1 —.413 n,coth.
to "" ROLLESTON
i i sent d Petitions from the
1 .
azitivs of y(. 11 ontiriBdpron, and s,Rill. veral (*her places,
at the I.k, Parochal Settlarnent tr
Q' STRICXiLIAND praaented petitions from seve-
.