Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-07-07 00:00:00

THE NORTHERN TIMES, THURSDAY, JULY 7 1859

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-WEDNESDAY

ENDOWED SCHOOLS

Mr. Dillwyn moved the second reading of the Endowed
Schools Bill. Its object is to prevent Endowed Schools, from
being considered as belonging exclusively to the Church, of
England, unless it is so stated in the instructions of the foun-
dation. The terms of wills under which many Catholic Schools
had been founded, had been interpreted according to the
existing law, contrary to the wishes of the founder, and the
Dissenters, in consequence, required the 'protection of this
bill, whereby one of the last vestiges of religious intoller-
ance would be swept away.
Sir S. Northcote moved, as an amemendment, that the
bill be read a second time that day three months. 'The
Court of Chancery under the present law took the intention
of the founder, as the basis of its decisions. The bill would
therefore be in operation, when it was supposed to protect
the Dissenters, while, if it was passed, it would give rise to
much expensive and mischievous litigation. The bill, fur-
ther, while professing to respect the intentions of the
founder, tended in many instance to overthrow them. It
was clearly an aggression on the Church of England, whose
religious teaching it tended to destroy, without substituting
as-I,any other in its place.

Mr. Fuller seconded the amendment. The bill was
founded on a misrepresentation of the existing state of the
law, and would tend to establish, in all schools, to which it
applied, pure secular instructions, contrary alike to the feel-
ings of both churchmen and Dissenters.

The Attorney-General admitted that it might be necessary
to alter the language of the bill, nevertheless approved of
its principles. The present law was founded upon assump-
tions, not in accordance with religious toleration, and re-
quired great modification. It was not politic now, to per-
mit schools, founded when tolerance was not known, to be
it the present day, under the rule of an abitrary
He would support the second

and technical intolerance

reading of the bill

Sir H. Cairns would have supported the motion for
inquiry, but could not consent.to a bill which would lead to

grievances whic

the dissenter now bad. a right to complain.
Mr Mellor urged the house to permit .the bill to go into
committee, as it was intended to remedy the monstrous

abuses of the existing law, as interpreted' on recent
decisions.

Sir G. C. Lewis suggested that the matter should be

referred at once to a select committee, as the principles
which guided the decisions of the country were not clearly

made out

Mr. A: Mills pointed out the practical evils which would
result from passing the bill in its present form, but would

Tote for its going into committee,

Sir E. Perry hoped that the bill would pass a second

reading

Mr. Walpole reprobated, in strong terrns, the bill as it
stood, as altering the law on evidence with reference to one
particular class by itself, as inconsistent with itself, and
founded upon an erroneous view of the actual practice of
Chancery. The repeal of the law of usage, as applied to a
particular class, would be most dangerous. The practical
grievance to the Dissentets might be easily remedied by
adopting the suggestion for a select committee.
Mr. Walter said that the bill, instead of remedying one
grievance, would create a thousand. He trusted that the
proposal for a select committee would be assented to.
Mr. Bright said that the terms of the Bill might be
applied to all classes of religionists, and not confined to
churchmen. The name of the Attorney-General was on the
back of the Bill, which was opposed by the Home Secretary.
Such was the spectacle of a united Government on the first
serious question which came before the house. Adverting
to the Bill, the practical changes it would introduce would
be yew few, while it would satisfy the minds of the great
body of dissenters, who were aggrieved by the decisions of
Chancery.

Sir G. Grey said that it was admitted, on all sides, that
there was a great practical grievance, which required to be
remedied. It was, however, doubtful whether the proposed
Bill would supply the remedy. He thought that some
inquiry was necessary, but would vote for the second read-
ing of the Bill, on the understanding that it was afterwards
referred to a select committee.

Lord J. Manners said that their information on the
subject would not permit them to pronounce on the principle

of the bill, and could not consent to its second reading

while he approved of a select committee

Mr. Gladstone said that the house was agreed as to the

difference in the opinions of the other side, the one being
for inquiry into the subject, while another was for inquiry'
into the bill. He preferred the former course, deeming it
inconvenient to pass the second reading of a bill which it
was intended vitally to alter in committee.

Mr. Henley could not pledge himself to the principles of
the bill, but was anxious that the facts should be inquired

Mr. Deliwyn was willing that the clauses of the bill
should be extended to Dissenters. He felt bound to press
his bill, which might be improved in committee. The
conduct of the Ministry on this matter would be tha test of
their sincerity, and would depend whether he should give

them,his cordial support or not.
The House divided, when there appeared—

For second reading

Against

Majority

Lord J. Manners asked what course the Government
meant to take with regard to the future. stages of the bill.
On the motion for fixing the day for the cuihmittee on: the
bill,

Sir G. C. Lewis proposed that it be referred to a select

committee

Mr, Dellwyn wished to know what the committee intended
to do with the bill, and of what it would consist, before he
consented to the motion. He hoped that the matter might
be postponed till the neat day.
Sir G. C. Lewis observed that the committee would have
the bill in its hands, and would deal with it as it thought
proper.

- • 11fr, Conningham hoped that. no compromise would be
accepted on the subject.
Mr. Horsman thought that the best course would be to
fix the day for the committee, and then decide on the future
course to be pursued.

After some discussion, - •
Mr. Hadfield moved the adjournment of the debate.
Ur. Hardy gave notice that he should move thkt the
whole subject should be referred to a se►ect committee.
The debate was then adjourned.

RIGHT OF APPEAL.
Mr. M'Mahon moved the second reading of a bill, giving
a right of appeal in tribunal cases.
The Solicitor-General opposed the motion, contending
that no practical grievance now existed, while serious incon-
venience would result from the proposed alteration of the
law. Why should not the Crown as well as the prisoner,
have the right to demand a new trial, but this would lead
to an abrogation of the great principle of English law, that
a man once acquitted could not again be put on his trial,

ADIOURNMENT

Mr. Bowyer moved the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. Longfield said a few words in favour of the bill.
The debate was then adjourned.
The remaining business was disposal of, and the house
adjourned at 6 minutes to 6 o'clock.

ACTION FOR INJURIES.

EAMONSON V. THE BIRKENHEAD, LANCASHIRE, AND
CHESHIRE JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY.—Yesterday, in
the Court of Common Pleas, Guildhall, London, before
Lord Chief Justice Earle and a special jury, the plaintiff
claimed damages for injuries sustained by him while a
passenger on the defendahts' line, and the plea was not
guilty. Mr. Serjeant Shee, Mr. Collier, and Mr. C. Pollock
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Bovill and Mr.Welsby
for the defendants. The plaintiff was an iron merchant in
the city, and until the 15th of October last he had been a
commercial traveller in the employ of Messrs. Mushet, of the
Dalkeith Iron Works in Scotland. On the 15th of October
he took a second-class ticket from Birkenhead to Chester
by the 3.45 p.m. train. It, however, did not start until
four o'clock, and in order to make up for lost time,
or some other reason, it was driven unnsually fast,
probably fifty. or sixty miles an hour. When they were
approaching Chester, the plaintiff was sating with his
back to the engine, when suddenly he felt a shock, the
timbers of the carriage fell to pieces, and rattled about his
ears, and nothing but the frame and wheels of the carriage
remained whole. He was knocked violently against some
part of the carriage, and sustained injuries at the , back of
the neck and On the calf of the leg. The train stopped, and
after a time the defendant got out, and then found that he
was lame. He limped as far as the engine-driver, and
learned that the train had run into an engine which was
upon the line. The plaintiff's injuries did not at first appear
to be so serious as they afterwards turned out to be. fie
had great pain in the calf of the leg and at the back of the
neck, but still he was able to walk, and he returned to
Liverpool by the next train. When he got there, he was
attended by Mr. Jones, a surgeon, for two or three days,
during which time he got better. At the end of that period
he came to London, and took up his abodeit Hackney,
where he was attended by Mr. Hagan. His leg got well in
a fortnight or three weeks, but it became apparent that he
had sustained a severe injury to the nervous system, and he
afterwards underwent an examination by Mr. Solly. The
plaintiff had earned from Messrs. Mushett about £BOO
a-year, and from other persons about £2OO more, but since
the accident he had been unable to act as a commercial
traveller. The plaintiff in his evidence detailed the painful
symptoms under which he suffered. Previously he had
been a most active and energetic man, and a great walker,
he having several times walked to Gravesend and back in a
day, and 'on one occasion accomplished the diatance of fifty-
six miles. He could now only walk about two miles in, a
day, and that slowly and with pain, keeping near the houses,
as he was often obliged to
-clutch hold of something to pre-

vent his falling. .fte had on one occasion walked four or
five miles, but it knocked him up. He had constant pains

pains.' He was frequently overpowered by a flood of tears,
and the scream of a railway whistle or the noise of
a train produced a most painful nervous sensation over
his whole body, one of them being a feeling as though
he had a tight wire jacket encasing the body. In
cross-examination the plaintiff was asked whether on the

sth February he had not .s-,alked about London for several
hours, proceeding from Richmond-terrace, Hackney. to
various places, until he reached Grays'-inn-lane, and then
home again. He denied that he had ever done so. He
was also asked whether his son, a young man of 19, had not
performed his business for him since the accident. The
plaintiff admitted that his son had travelled to collect debts,
so that the commission upon them might be obtained, and
he had also taken some orders, but his labours had not
turned out profitably. The medical testimony was that
there was some injury to the small muscles at the top of
the spinal column ; there was a thickening in the covering
of the nerve, and it was believed that the spinal column
itself had seriously suffered. . It was possible that he might
recover in a twelvemonth, but there was a good deal of
doubt about cases of this kind. The defendants' counsel
called no 'witnesses, but addressed the jury in mitigation of
damages. Tne jury found a ♦erdict for the plaintiff,
damages £B5O.