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

The Calico Print Works Bill was read a third time.

The Duke of BUCCLEUCH moved the adjournment of
the House to Monday, which was opposed by Lord
BROUGHAM, on the ground tlyit it was absurd to lase a
day on account of a ball to be given elsewhere. Noble
Lords might come down to the House in their ball
costumes.

The House then adjourned until to•morrow (this day.)
The SPEAKER of the House of Commons took the
Chair at Four o'clock.

Several railway and other Bills were forwarded a
stage.

Mr. LABOUCHERE then brought forward the motion
of which he had given notice, pledging the House to
adopt some measure to prevent parties promoting Rail-
way Bills, which might be thrown over to next session,
suffering from unnecessary expense and delay ; and ap-
pointing a Select Committee to inquire in what manner
it might be expedient to carry such measures into effect.
Sir G. CLERK admitted the importance of the sub-
ject, but objected to the pledging the House to the adop-
tion of any particular course, and therefore moved as
an amendment, " That a Select Committee be appointed
to inquire into the several Railway Bits, and report
what measures:could be adopted to facilitate the pass-
ing of Railway Bills through Parliament, and what
course it might be most judicious to adopt in refer-
ence to Railway Bills to be brought before the House
during the session."
After a short discussion, the motion was withdrawn
and the amendment was agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated, in
reply to Mr. LAOOUCHERE, that it was now a settled
point of law, that Jersey had no more right to import
British spirits into this coulary free of custom's duty,
than Ireland or Scotland had.

In reply to Lord JOHN MANNERS, it was stated by Sir
R. PEEL, that passports had been granted to Don
CARLOS to prcceed to the Pyrennees, for the benefit of
his health.

On the order of the day for the House going into
Committee on the Scotch Banking Bill being read,
Mr. P. M. STEWART expressed his decided disappro-
baticn of the measure.

Sir R. PEEL hoped the Hon. Gentleman would allow
the Biil to go into Committee, where the details could
be discussed.

The House was subsequently addressed by Mr. llumE,
Sir W. CLAY, Mr. HAWES, Mr. BAILLIE, Mr. C. WOOD,
the Hon. Mr. BOUVERIE, Mr. MIINTZ, and Mr. BARING,
after which the House went into Committee upon the
Bill, and Chilies 1 to 7 having been agreed to, the Chair-
man rep rted progress, and the House adjourned at 00e

The tedious debate on the second reading of the
Maynooth Bill in the Upper House has at last been
brought to a close, and the measure carried by a majo-
rity even greater than that by which it was affirmed in
the House of Commons. The majority on the third
reading in that assembly was 133, and on the second
reading 147 ;—so that the majority in the Lords ex-
ceeded that in the Commons by 10. These are large.
majorities in favour of a measure that has excited a vast
noise and roused strong opposition from a great number
of different sections of Protestants, and we, therefore,
confidently trust that such a weight of authority will
have its due influence, and the country will wait
patiently to see the operation of the measure. We
rejoice that the question has thus been set at
rest, and at the same time entertain the strongest
hopes that it will prove one of the greatest acts of jus-
tice yet rendered to Ireland. Whatever may he said by
the people of that country about the hostility dis-
played out of the two Houses of Parliament, they must
all admit that the Legislature has nobly performed its
duty, and, making allowances for the mis-
guided and bigoted language used by certain
speakers, that a general wish prevails among
all men of talent, experience, and right principles, to
place their country on a footing of equality with Eng-
land and Scotland. Much was expected from the bench
of bishops by the opponents of the measure. The
Bishop of LONDON was to denounce it in the name of the
English clergy, and the Bishop of EXETER,
who had postponed his visitations for the pur-
pose, was absolutely to crush the Bill by a
speech such as never had been heard within the walls of
Parliament. Miserable failures were they both. In-
consistency and relentless bigotry eiaracterised the
remarks of these PuseyitePrelates, and they met just with
that support tvhieh they merited from an assembly of
gentlemen, and what is more, good Christians. It is a
curious fact that the only English Bishops who spoke
against this measure of justice and charity are believed
to be much more favourable to Popery than Protes •
taatism, and other reasons, therefore, than those of a
religious character, probably, influenced their conduct.
But whatever might be their motives or feelings, their
speeches effected nothing, arid to the honour of the
bench, their example was not followed. The Archbishop
of CANTERBURY remained silent, and the character of
the Church was amply vindicated by three of its most
distinguished Prelates—the Archbishop of DUBLIN, the
Bishop of Nortwictt, and the Bishop of St. DAVID'S. If
we look to the lay speakers, a still stronger force
of intellect was ranged on the right side. It
is needless to recount their names. The leading
statesmen of both political parties vied with each
other in claiming justice for Ireland, and were op-
posed only by such Peers as 110 DEN and NEWCASTLE.
But their day, happily for the country, is past—their
very children have discarded their politics—the old Tory
system is extinct—and no perple will profit so much by
the .-thange as the calumniated and oppressed Irish.

Of ,vhatever party the Ministry of the day may have
been, it must be conceded to the successive Governments
which have occupied office for the last half century in
this country that they have all and each of them been
animated by a sincere desire to extend the blessings of
education over Ireland. However strongly marked the
differences which have characterised the general princi-
ples It their domestic or their foreign policy, they have
concurred in the perception of this great moral necessity
affecting the entire population of the sister kingdom, in
those classes not enjoying the advantages of competent
subsistence. and therefore disabled, whilst unassisted by
external aid, from the acquisition of that moral and in-
telle'tual culture, to the advantages of which no nation
is, perhaps, more instinctively alive than Ireland, even
in those sections of her community which have been
furthest removed from the experience of those advan-
tages by realising them in their own persons. But cast-
ing a retrospective glance at the history of the last fifty
years, and endeavouring to speak with the dispassionate
impartiality of historians, rather than under the excited
feelings of contemporari.-s, we feel disposed to acknow-
ledge that Whigs and Tories have both meant well to this
noble cause of Irish education, unfortunate as, in some
instances, may have been their notions of the practical
means for carrying out their common object.
The eleventh report of the Commissioners of National
c pro-
digiousevprogresst
swt
hhai cthh ha
vase bhee el
dn
emffiaedee
siinn e
et h itso
wmaartdt es r t bhye
Education, recently issued, strongly illustrates the
the
close of the reign of GEORGE the FOURTH down to the
present time.

The Commissioners in their report, dated the 24th of
April, 1845, have framed a document which breathes a
spirit of liberality and toleration on the general principle
of national education which is alike honourable to them
and auspicious to the Irish people. We would earnestly
entreat all those who (conf.cientiously, no doubt) are of
opinion that no system of popular education should be
sustained by Parliam •nt, of which the teachers of par-
ticular religious doctrines should not form an essential,