The Sun.
London, England, 1832-03-22 00:00:00

IRISH EDUCATION.

The Earl of WICKLOW presented a petition from
Murragh against the system of Education in Ireland.
The Noble Earl, in bringing forward his motion on
this subject stated that he felt the subject which he had
now the honour to bring before their Lordships had been
so very lately discussed upon the representation of petitions
he should feel much apology was due from him to their
Lordships in thus even calling their attention to it did he
not feel strongly impressed with its vast importance, not
only as it regarded the future welfare of the country
to which it more immediately applied, but in that of its
tranquillity. Upon one part of this subject all were agreed,
namely, that a sound, wholesome, and moral system of edu-
cation, adapted to the wants and circumstances of the coun-
try, would do more than any measures brought forward
by Parliament to effect its future civilization and tranquil-
lity. While, however, all were agreed upon that point,
there were lamentably at variance as to the best method of
carrying it into rffect. Were their Lordships now, for
the first time, called upon to establish a system of
education in that country, they might well indeed hesitate
and feel difficulties in overcoming the case, for while
upon the one hand they found the whole Protestant
p ,pulation -of the country, the hierarchy of the country,
the whole Presbyterian of the country deprecating a
system of education, in which the Scriptures are not
enforced, on the other, they were tiught to believe the
Roman Catholics considered the Scriptures to be at variance
with the doctrines of their church, and with their religious
pr inciples. Those who took this view of the case consi-
dered that there:was but one way of overcoming the difficulty,
that of establishing two different systems of education.
Another difficulty then stare.' their Lordships in the face,
or they had the united declarations and the opinions
of all parties of the vast population, of the Bishops of
the country, and the declaration also of Dr. Doyle,
that such a system of separate education was extremely
impolitic. The declaration of 17 Bishops sta.ed that such
a system would be injudicious, and Dr. Day le observel
that it would
.destroy the peace and happiness of the
country. As it was notorious to their Lordships,
for several years past, Parliament had made large
grants for the purpose of carrying on the limi-
ted system of education in that country. The ques-
tion therefore, was, had those parts been unproduc-
tive, he had no hesitation in signifying that they had not,
for by means of those grants a system of education, calcu-
lated to the wants of the country had been in active operation
that system had first received its support from Parliament
in 1816, and not a whisper was heard against it on the
part of the Crtholics till the year 1825, when there was
a disposition shown against it by the demagogue Ca-
tholics of Ireland.—(Hear.) Such being the case,
be (Lord Wicklow) had been extremely anxious to
know the reasons which had induced his Majesty's Go-
vernment to withdraw their support from it, and
he found that they had three reasons for doing so
first, that it was partial in its operation ; secondly, tha t
the subscriptions in favour of it were exceedingly small
and inconsiderable, in comparison with the grants
of Government; and thirdly, that its regulations were
objected to by the Roman Caholics. To the
first reason he would say, that any roan acquainted
with the Society must be perfectly aware of the utter
impossibility of its being carried on with partiality,
without its being known, and with respect to its being
objected to by the Catholics, as he had before
stated, from 1816 to 1825, such an intimation
was never heard, and the general opinion was, that
it was more favourable to the Catholics than to Protes-
tant-, and it was only, when the aspersions of a base
faction were made against it that it was thought fit to
remodel it.

(LEFT SPEAKING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Mr. ESTCOURT presented a petition against the Bir
mingham and London Rail-road Bill, but in consequence
of the buz which prevailed in the House, which was very
full of Members, it was impossible to catch the name of
the place from which the petition came, as well as a good
deal else of what passed.
Alderman WOOD moved the third reading of the Bill
to enable the Marine Insurance Company to sue and bc!
sued in the name of one of the Directors of the time being.
Read a third time and passed.
The HoN. ALDERMAN also brought in a Bill to esta-
blish a general cemetery for the metropolis. He then pre.
sented several petitions from the minors in the neighbour-
hood of the Forest of Dean, in favour of the Purton
Rail-road Bill.
Mr. CRIPPS presented several petitions also in favour
of the Purton Rail-road Bill, and then snored the second
reading of that Bill.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET opposed the
motion on the ground that there were already two
rail-roads in the neighbourhood where it was pro-
posed to erect the one by tlis Bill, and therefore
there was no necessity for the latter one. He believed that
the rail-road was originally sanctioned by the Comtnis-
sioners of Woods and Forests, but he believed that he had
since made out such a case of opposition, that he believed
the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, as well as the
Lords of the Treasury, were of opinion that there was no
necessity for a third rail-road. It had not been shown
that there was any want of communication, nor was there
any thing like a monopoly of carriage. He therefore
would move as an amendment, that this Bill be read a
second time this day six months.
Sir WILLIAM GUISE supported the amendment.
Mr. STRICKLAND also supported the amendment,
believing the Bill to be intended merely for the benefit of
a few individuals who wished to lay sot their capital in
the speculation.
. . . . . . . . .

Mr. CRIPPS, in reply, denied that the parties bringing
forward the Bill had any such object in view as had boen
stated by the Hon. Member.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the Amendment lOO
Against it 3l
Majority aguin6t the second reading — 69
Mr. C. DUNDAS presented two petitions from the
agricultural and principal inhabitantss of Newbury and
Hungerford, in the county of Berks, for a repeal of the
duty on Malt.
On the motion of Lord ALTHORP, the thanks of the
House were given to the Rev. Joseph Allen, D.D., for
the sermon preached by him yesterday. He was also de-
sired to print the same.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the Order of the Day
For the adjourned discussion on the report of the Reform Bill.
Sir R. VYVYAN wished to correct a misrepresentation
that had been snide of his statement on the occasion of pre-
senting a petition from Chester against the Reform Bill.
He had stated that six out of seven of the resident Noble-
men entertained the same opinion with the petitioners,
but that they had not according to the newspaper report,
signed the petition.
The order of the day was then read for the adjourned
debate on the