The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-18 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 18, 1859.

of the peculiarities of the case was that in Scotland there
was a system of local taxation for the support of schools.
Mr. A. SMITH (Truro) expressed a hope that the esti-
mates would be furnished separately, not only for Scotland,
but for each of the different religious denommations, so as
to show what portion went to the Established Church, how
much to the Free Church, and how much to the other
churches or religious bodies in either country.
Mr. ADDERLEY said the hon. member who had last
spoken would be as much entitled to plead for a separate
vote for the Scilly Isles as the noble lord for a separate vote
for Scotland; indeed, the Isle of Man, which had a separate
legislature, and where that legislature had, much to its
honour, imposed a tax on the inhabitants to provide for edu-
cation, and imposed a fine on every parent who would not
send his child to school, had much more reason to ask for
a separate vote. There would be no difficulty in doing
what the noble lord asked, so far as the office of the Com-
mittee of Council on Education was concerned, but the
noble lord's object might be more easily attained, if he
wished to get information about the distribution of the
Parliamentary grant, or to give Scotch members an oppor-
tunity of bringing the state of education in Scotland
under the attention of the house. The noble lord him-
self, or any other representative of Scotland, could give no-
tice of a discussion on the subject whenever they thought
proper ; and any resolution or bill they might propose would
be duly considered. But the tendency of a separate vote
would be to introduce a diversity of system between Scot-
land and England, which was very undesirable. The heri-
tors' tax in Scotland, by which all landowners of £lOO a
year were obliged to pay towards the support of parochial
schools, being very inadequate for present requirements,
was rather to be considered as an endowment, and the
school system in Scotland, as in England, mainly rested en
voluntary contributions, aided by the parliamentary grant.
If the noble lord had any plan in view, it would probably
be as suitable for England as for Scotland. Some of the
other distinctions made between the educational system in
the two countries were equally fallacious, as there were
many rural districts of England, also, which received very
little of the grant. He apprehended, also, that if the vote
for Scotland were taken separately, it would create an
erroneous impression that Scotland was unfairly dealt with,
since the general expenses of the central office in London
would be charged in the English vote, and if another cen-
tral office in Edinburgh were to bo established, it would be
a great waste of the public money.
Mr. BUCHANAN said he understood the right hon. gen-
tleman to say that there would be no practical difficulty in
separating the Scotch from the English vote. He thought
it would have been much better if the right hon. gentleman
had conceded the request. He wished those grants to be
done away with for two reasons—first, because the system
was exceedingly expensive, and based upon unsuitable ma-
chinery ; and secondly, because the schools were essentially
denominational. It was most desirable to ascertain the
working of the system year by year, and he believed the
fullest information on the subject would be attended with
the most beneficialosults.
Mr. BLACKBURN was of opinion that the same prin-
ciple ought to be applicable to 'both countries, and hoped
the Government would maintain the rule which had hither-
to been acted upon.
Mr. BLACK. trusted the house would consent to give the
information sought for. He believed the people of Scotland
were desirous of educating their own children, and hoped
that eleemosynary grants would be altogether given up.
Lord DUNCAN suggested the propriety of distinguish-
ing the amounts appropriated to England and Scotland re-
spectively. He understood the information could easily be
obtained, and if his suggestion were acted upon the difficulty
which now existed would be put an end to.
Mr. DUNLOP thought it would be most injurious to
separate the two grants, and could not consent to give up
the assistance now afforded until a national system of edu •
cation should be established.

Mr. W. WILLIAMS said Scotland had no ground of
complaint, as she had a fair share of the educational grant.
If ase ate vote should be taken there would be a contest
year after year for a larger amount.
The LORD ADVOCATE said that in the civil service
estimates, under the head " Education,'.' an explanatory
statement was given, containing the precise sums applicable
to the grants both in Scotland and England.
Lord MELGUND having replied, the motion was put
and negatived.
JURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. J. FITZGERALD obtained leave to bring in a bill
to consolidate and amend the laws relating to juries in Ire-
land.
ANNUITY TAX (EDINBURGH, &c.) BILL.
Mr. BLACK moved for leave to bring in a bill to abolish
the ministers' money or annuity tax levied within the city
of Edinburgh, the parish of Canongate, and the borough of
Montrose. The odious impost was the cause of so much
acrimonious dispute that he trusted Parliament would
agree to its abolition.
The LORD ADVOCATE did not object to the motion,
but intimated his intention of opposing the bill at a future
stage.

The motion was then agreed to.
REGISTRATION OF COUNTY VOTERS (SCOT

-LAND) BILL.
Sir E. COLEBROOKE, in moving for leave to bring in
a bill for the amendment of the law for the registration of
county voters in Scotland, observed that the bill was sub-
stantially the same as that the principle of whieh had re-
ceived the sanction of the house last year. He had, how-
ever, endeavoured as far as possible to meet the objections
entertained by some hon. members opposite relative to
points of detail.
Mr. BLACKBURN thought it most extraordinary to
provide a mode of registration before, under the new Re-
form Bill, they knew the parties who would be entitled to
registration.
The motion was then agreed to.
NAVY.—SEA SERVICE.

On the motion of Sir F. BARING, a return was ordered
of the number of men voted for the seaservice in each year,
from the year 1815 to 1858-59 inclusive, distinguishing
boys, marines, and coast-guards.
ENDOWED SCHOOLS BILL.

On the motion of Mr. DlLLwltrr, the order for the se.
cond reading of the bill was discharged.
MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

On the motion that the Speaker leave the chair, for the
house going into committee on this bill,
Mr. HOPE said as it was quite clear the bill would be
carried through the house, he should not oppose the motion.
Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, were agreed to.
On clause 5,

Mr. PULLER said the effect of the clause would be, in
certain cases, to make bigamy the law. If a man married
his deceased wife's sister in England, he might go to Ire-
land and marry another woman, for the present bill did not
apply to that country.
The clause was then agreed to, and the bill was ordered
to be reported.
Mr. Locke King, Mr. Ayrton, Mr. J. Fitzgerald, Mr.
Black, and Sir E. Colebrooke brought in their respective
bills, which were read a first time.

The house then adjourned at ten minutes past seven.

LA TV INTELLIGENCE. —Feb. 17.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Sittings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall, before Lord

Campbell and Special Juries.)

Lord Campbell, on taking his seat on the bench
this morning, announced that Mr. Untbank, of the
northern circuit, had been appointed Master of the
Court of Queen's Bench, in the room of the late Mr.
Bunce.

HODGSON V. NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an action to recover damages for injuries
sustained through the alleged negligence of the
defendants' servants.

The defendants pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Phinn, Q.C., was for the plaintiff, and Mr,
Temple for the defendants.

The plaintiff was a bricklayer and plasterer, in
the employ of the Hull Dock Company, and it ap-
peared that while he was engaged in pointing an
arch over the defendants' railway at Hull, some
trucks came along, and broke down the scaffolding
on which he and several other workmen were
standing. The plaintiff was precipitated to the
ground with great violence, and his kneecap frac-
tured in three places ; the result being that he would
probably have a stiff leg for 'if*, and be unable to
pursue his ordinary calling.
The defence was that there had been no negli-
gence on the part of the defendants.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages £B5, in addition to the £l5 which he had
received from the defendants.

SECOND COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice Erie and a Common Jury.)

FARRELL V. CHILVER.

This was an action for false imprisonment.
Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., and Mr. Powell, ap-
peared for the plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Ballantine
and Mr. Simon for the defendant.
The plaintiff, who now resides in Northampton-
street. Islington, had been for 23 years in the Irish
revenue police, but having attained the rank of sur-
veyor or gauger in the force, he was compelled to
leave it in August, 1857, on account of bad health,
brought about through an accident sustained in the
service.

The plaintiff then appears to have placed himself
under the care of Dr. O'Reilly, the surgeon of
Jervis-street Hospital, Dublin, as also under the
surgeon of the Hardwick Hospital, in the same
city; but in both instances Farrell's condition—
that of a morbid state of the nervous centres—
was declared incurable. Thereupon plaintiff came
over to England, and remained for some time at
Liverpool, seeking in vain for beneficial advice.
Failing to obtain that he left for London, and was
for some time under treatment by Dr. Grady, of the
West London Institution. That gentleman found
him afflicted with a softening of the anterior
lobes of the brain, and discharged him with a cer-
tificate as incurable. Subsequently to this the
plaintiff appears to have sought the advice of the
defendant, the well-known surgeon of Burlington-
street, Piccadilly, partly with a view of obtaining
an.eminent medical opinion, and partly because,
having ascertained, through the porter at Suther-
land House, that Dr. Chilver was the medical atten-
dant of Lord Derby, he was most anxious to obtain
the certificate of a gentleman in such a position
preparatory to the plaintiff's presenting a petition
to) the Treasury for a pension. Accordingly, on
the 21st of October last, the plaintiff called upon
the7defendant, and having obtained an interview
with him, the plaintiff proceeded to describe his
condition, at the same handing to the defendant the
certificates of Dr. Banks, of Merrion-square, the
physician to the Irish Inland Revenue Department,
of Dr.
who
h.
aodlteattielnlyd,eadndhiomf
,tashe
wotehllerams e dh iics a
testimonials
on leaving the Irish police. The defendant, how-
ever, seems to have been at once seized with the
notion that his visitor was nothing better than an
impostor. He asked the plaintiff where he lived,
and where he came from. The plaintiff told him,
mentioning, amongst other residences, that he had
lodged for a short time in a public-house at West-
minster. Then, " Oh, oh 1" said the defendant, " I
kupyr PA About you, Y9TI arc Art impostor, and