The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-25 00:00:00

aiming :itz

LONDON, FRIDAY, APRIL 25, 1845.

The royal assent was given by Commission to several
Bills.

Several petitions were presented on the subject of the
Slaynooth grant; and
Lord BROUGHAM took the opportunity of contradicting
a statement which had been made, that an attack on the
measure, which had appeared in one of the French
papers, had been written by a member of the French
Government.

There was a short conversation between the Marquis
of NORMANBY and Lord STANLEY, on the subject of the
Irish Constabulary, which led to no result.
The Earl of POIVIS brought in a Bill for repealing the
Act uniting the bishoprics of St. Asaph and Bangor, and
for empowering her Majesty to appoint a Bishop of
Manchester. The second reading of this Bill was fixed
for the 2d of May, and Lord MONTEAGLE gave notice
that he should move for the appropriation of the reve-
nues of the suppressed Welsh Bishoprics to the parochial
clerk y, instead of to the Ecclesiastical Fund.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE brought in the London Orphan
Asylum Bill, which was read a first time, and their
Lordships adjourned.
The House of Commons met at four o'clock.
At the time of private business, Lord GRANVILLE
SOMERSET moved a resolution to the effect, that it be an
instruction to every Committee on a Railway Bill, to fix
the tolls and maximum rate of charges for the conveyance
of passengers and goods, and that if they omit to do so,
they should set forth the grounds of such omission in a
special report.
After a short discussion the motion was agreed to.

Mr. HUTT gave notice, for Thursday week, of a motion
for the admission of Australian Flour on the same terms
as Canadian.

Sir B. PEEL said the Whitsun holidays would not ex
tend longer than from Friday to Wednesday or Thurs-
day.
Mr. LIDDELL brought in the Dog Stealing Bill, which
was read a first time.

Among the numerous petitions presented on the sub-
ject of the Maynooth grant, was one by Mr. M. MILNEs,
from the Bachelors and Undergraduates of the Uni-
versity of Cambridge, in favour of the grant. The pe-
tition was laid upon the table amidst loud cheering.
The adjourned debate on the subject of the motion of
Mr. WARD was then resumed.
Mr. COLQUIIOUN, who was equally opposed to the

motion of the Hon. Member for Sheffield and to
the Government measure—said, the Government mea-

sure was merely a prelude to the establishment of
the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, and within
five years after such an establishment should have
taken place, the Protestant Church in that country
would cease to exist.

Mr. BATESON defended the Irish Church.
Mr. F. BARING supported the Government proposi-
tion with which he thought the Irish Catholics would
be satisfied.

Mr. BERNAL supported Mr. WARD'S motion.
Captain GLADSTONE opposed the amendment of the

[on. Member for Sheffield.

Lord HOWICK not only supported Mr. WARD'S pro-
position, but was disposed to go much further. He
hoped the day was not far distant when the two
churches would be placed upon as equal footing.
_ _ _ _ _

Mr. G. A. lIANILToN considered that the funds of the
Irish Church had been overstated, and the conduct of
her clergy misrepresented. He was opposed both to the
motion and to the amendment.

Mr. EDWARD ELLICE supported the motion of Mr.
WARD.
Mr. ROCIIE also supported the motion, although he re-
gretted that it had been brought forward at the present
time.

Lord PALMERSTON would prefer payieg the endow

meat d May north out of the surplus revenues of the
Established Church, to defraying it out of the Consoli-
dated Fund. lie would vote in favour of Mr. WARD'S
motion.

Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT denied that tho Government
had proposed the additional grant to Maynouth through
fear.

Sir 11. W. BARRON opposed the motion, on the ground
of its interfering with the measure of the Government,
and, as a Roman Catholic, he considered he should be
ungrateful if he adopted any course calculated to em-
barrass them.
After a few words from Mr. lIINDLEy, the house
divided, when there appeared—For Mr. WARD'S motion,
14S ; against it, 322 ; majority against Mr. WARD'S
motion, 174.
A short discussion then arose as to the time when the
Bill should be committed. It was ultimately decided
that it should be taken in Committee to-morrow (this day.)
The House then adjourned at One o'clock.

The division on Mr. WARD'S motion has placed some
Members in a singular position. Sir ROBERT INGLIS
lost a considerable portion of his supporters, or in words
which the Tories delight to use when speaking of Mr.
O'CONNELL'S influence over his colleagues, part of his
tail. Mr. HINDLET, the most conspicuous fur religious
principle in discussing this question, deserted his Tory
leader and voted with Mr. WARD. Others, more consistent,
did not vote at all. Among these were, Mr. T. DUNCOMBE,
Mr. WAKLEY, Mr. ELLICE, jun., Mr. Fox MAULE, &O.
Their conduct was prudent ; but what is to be said of
Mr. lIINDLEv? He votes for a measure, the object of
which is to take a certain sum from funds ap-
plicable to ecclesiastical purposes in Ireland, and
appropriate it for the maintenance of Popery. Had
Mr. WARD'S party been strong enough, the grant to
Maynooth would have remained the same, and the only
difference would have been, that 26,0001. would have been
taken from the Irish Protestant Church in place of the
Consolidated Fund. The religious scruple, therefore,
is thrown overboard, and to this point must all
the objectors of the same class come at last.
To resist the measure on religious grounds is a prin-
ciple which is utterly untenable, and must lead to inex-
tricable confusion ; it would raise a rebellion in Canada,
it might shake the foundations of our empire in In 'is,
and would render our colonies even more hostile to the
Protestant Church than the Roman Catholics of Ireland
Religion, some men say, will admit of no worldly rea •
sons, and if the party that votes against any favour to
Maynooth resolve to take the consequences, which
might be a rebellion in the sister island, they must op-
pose every grant to Popery, and Hindooism, and every
religion except the true one, though the desperate re-
solution, if effectual, would destroy the British em-
pire. It is evident the affairs of the world cannot
be carried on with such principles ; and all rational men
therefore, adapt themselves to circumstances, and sub-
,
mit even to plans at variance with their religious views,
for the sake of peace and security. no argument that
no money should be voted to an Established Church of
any description is, we fear, in aristocratic England,
equally untenable. But that principle, too, has been
often entirely forgotten when the Catholic religion, and
more especially the Catholic religion in Ireland, was