The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-04 00:00:00

jr; IV Min 141/

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 184,

The House of Lords met at Five o'clock.
The Indemnity Bill was read a third time.
On the motion of Lord BROUGHAM the Small Debts
Bill was recommitted.

The adjourned debate on the Maynooth Bill was then
resumed by the Earl of HARDWICKE.

The House was afterwards addressed by the Earl
of CARNARVON, the Marquis of NORSIANBY, the Arch-
bishop of DUBLIN, Lord DE Roos, and Lord BROUGHAM,
all in favour of the B►ll. The Bishop of EXETER alone
opposed it. Ultimately, the debate was adjourned.
The House of Commons met at Four o'Clock.
After the transaction of private business, Mr. HUME
moved " That an humble address be press nted
to her MAJESTY, that she will be graciously pleased
to grant such a pension as she may think proper to the
Right Hon. Sir H. PorritcoEn, Bart., 1i.C.8., as a
reward for his eminent public services, and especially
for having. as her MAJESTY'S Plenipotentiary in China,
brought the war in that country to a conclusion by a
peace alike honourable and advantageous ; and to as-
sure her MAJESTY that the House will make good the
same.

Lord SANDON seconded the motion, which was sup
ported by Sir J. HODHOUSE.

Sir R. PEEL, on the part of the Government, although
disapproving of motions of this nature, would certainly
take upon himself the responsibility of advising her
MAJESTY to make a provision for this distinguished
officer.

After a few observations from Lord J. RUSSELL,
Lord PALMERSTON, Mr. J. ABEL SMITH, Mr. ROSS,
and Mr. P. HOWARD, the resolution was agreed to
nemine contradicente.

Mr. WARD then moved for " a Select Committee to
inquire whether there are any peculiar burdens specially
affecting the landed interest of this country, or any pe-
culiar exemptions enjoyed by that interest, and to as-
certain their nature and extent."

After a somewhat lengthened debate, the motion was
negatived by a majority of 73 ; and this other orders of
the day having been disposed of, the House adjourned at
a Quarter to One.

Want of room prevents us from doing justice to the
excellent speeches made in the House of Lords last
evening on the Maynooth Bill, but they cannot -be
passed over without notice. They displayed a liberal
and humane spirit, just views of government, and,
with one exception, an absence of sectarian feeling
highly honourable to the Upper House. The Arch-
bishop of DUBLIN spoke out like a man who, in
defence of truth and justice, sets calumny and
bigotry at defiance. He rebuked the modern
Pharisees, who look upon themselves and their
religion as perfect, and admonished them to take
the beam out of their own eyes that they might see
clearly the beam in their brother's eye. "Rather," said he,
"than resort to violence in turning men from their errors,
I would descend from my station, and earn my bread by
the most menial employment. I would nut resort to
violence, but I would endeavour to drive out from our
own Church those who taught false doctrines—who held
the doctrines of one Church, and received the emolu-
ments of another." The cheers which followed must
hive sounded harshly on the ears of certain Prelates
It is a favourable symptom of the feeling
which prevails in the House of Peers, that only one
Member last night spoke against the measure—the
Puseyite Bishop of EXETER, who, in his usually polite
and Christian language, denominated Maynooth " a
perjury-teaching col'ege." Lord BROUGHAM'S speech
may be read with advantage by the most violent op-
ponents of the measure, and especially by certain Dis-
senters and the members of the Free Church of Scotland.
They will find that his Lordship's remarks wofully correct
when they have any favours to ask of the Episcopal
Beach. " The Dissenters and Wesleyan Methodists "
said he, " were the loudest and most incessant in their
outcry against it. Well might the bench of Bishops
say, that these religionists had no right to look for an
extension of civil and religious liberty for themselves, since
they had been so violent in their opposition when con-
cessions were made to Roman Catholics. They were
the last, too, who should charge other religionists with
holding persecuting doctrines, for, if he selected a writer
who, of all others, laid down the doctrine of extirpation
with more elaborateness—who even went so far as to
say that the body of the heretic should even be burnt—

who taught not merely the right but the duty of destroy.
ing the body to save the soul—he should say that that
man was JOHN CALVIN."

According to intelligence from Mexico, of the Ist of
May, it was understood, in well-informed quarters, that
the Government were disposed to recognise the inde-
pendence of Texas, on the condition that it should not
be incorporated with the United States. Propositions
to this effect had been made by Texas, and it had been
communicated to the Mexican Congress by the New Pre-
sident and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The fol-
lowing resolution of the President in Council had been
submitted to the Chambers :

" The Government is authorised to give hearing to the
propositions which have been made to it respecting Texas,
and proceed to an arrangement or celebration of a treaty use-
ful and honourable to the republic, keeping the Congress ac-
quainted with what is dons for its examination and approval."
Should the Congress reply in the affirmative, the total
separation of Texas from Mexico will be completed, and,
in two or three years, it will be installed, with due
solemnity, as one of the States of the American Union.