The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-18 00:00:00

serious mistake in adopting that name, in reference to edu-
I cation, and that it would have been much better for them
had they called themselves "separatists." (Hear.) He
believed the secular party to be as sincere and zealous,
and as deeply impressed with the necessity of religious in-
struction as those professing to belong to the religious
party—(hear, hear) —and he doubted whether the school
was the best place to impart religious instruction, and the
schoolmaster the best person to impart it. The right hon.
gentleman then referred to a speech he delivered during
the recess on education, and said that he proposed that the
children should continue to give their pence, and that
sums granted by the Committee of Education should be
be continued, and the deficiency made up by a rats in
aid. As regarded free schools power would be given to
the local committee to establish free schools in par-
ticular localities, and where there appeared to be great
poverty, or to admit a certain number of free scholars into
the existing schools. (Hear, hear.) No interference would
be allowed in the management of the present schools except,
so far as was necessary, to enforce compliance with the
provisions of the bill. He was aware it might be said that
he was seeking to introduce an irreligious system, and to
destroy our voluntary system, with many others, but
whilst he felt the highest respect for the objectors, he felt
Mr. C 0 :Pa
tP E
approach
said
ont thatwould
ftuhpwl
qed:urdbueeienlscidtat
parents
obi aonos tfwwtanticipatewith• the
concilia-
tion ▪
religious
tooaeuunl
sys
bound to disregard the objections, believing that what he
was proposing was for the benefit of the country.
The motion having been seconded,
hon. member would oppose the motion of the right bon.
baronet,
of the right hon. baronet, and thus meet the opinions
of all persons. As regarded the compromise alluded to,
instruction denominationalho
ugh t
tt ethe turningcsehh doripes
denomination; and he dissented from the idea that truth,
virtue, morality, and all the cardinal virtues could be
taught withoat any doctrinal teaching. He abstained from
referring to the secular part of the scheme, and said that
with regard to the other points he thought there would be
no objection to them. In this scheme they would get rid
of the difficulty of legislating for towns and rural districts,
the requirements for which were so dissimilar.
Mr. BALL was of opinion that any scheme of national
education, except based on religion, would receive the di-
rect opposition of the country. Hei regretted that defici-
ency in this scheme.
Lord R. CECIL protested against the division of the
educational party into the religious and secular party, and
the excluding of the advocates of the Privy Council system.
Ho complained that that system had not had a fair trial,
and that there was too much hurry to condemn it and in-
troduce another. No person of sense, knowing the feeling
of the people of this country, would exclude religious edu-
cation from these schools. Ono great objection to a rate in
aid was, that exactly as they raised the rate in aid, the
voluntary subscriptions would fall off.
Mr. COBDEN said that the question of education was
not open to the charge of haste, as it had been
before the public for twenty years. It was not
contemplated to pay doctrinal teaching out of the rate,
which was the essential difference between this and previ-
ous bills. Chapel and church schools would receive aid,
but a certain time would be set apart for that teaching,
when those who dissented from it might absent themselves.
The plan was now adopted in many of the national schools,
and in Honey-lane Market School, London. When the
bill came into operation the difficulty of religious teaching
would immediately vanish. The Bishop of Manchester
approved of this scheme. There was no difficulty about the
lytheaybowuetreitlionleiset
hopedquestion
they if
hthey a
rsrei tv e tdh eft Sae I vt
time
wo ee snt
about the matter of education, and he considered the
scheme would receive the support of the people.
Mr. HENLEY opposed the scheme, on account of its
being devoid of religious instruction.
Lord J. RUSSELL congratulated the right hon. gentle-
t
dmoaunb tend
having
whether
de-
clined entering into its details until he had had an oppor-
tunityd
of reading the bill.
Mr. HADFIELD was opposed to the scheme.
Mr. W. EWART supported voluntary education by a
rate, and the permissive character of the proposed scheme.
Sir J. PAKINGTON having replied,
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
TEA DUTIES.

Mr. GLADSTONE gave notice that, on Friday, he
should submit a motion to the house iu committee on
ways and means, that this house does not grant any addi-
tion to the tea and sugar duties of the act of 1855.
The house adjourned at a quarter to six o'clock.

THE ROYAL BRITISH BANK.

(This Day.)

(Before the Lords Justices.)

Mr. Bacon (for Mr. Marcus) moved for leave to appeal
to the Souse of Lords from the decision of this Court;
that the adjudication of bankruptcy against the company
was valid, and said they had now served the directors with
the necessary notices.

Lord Justice Knight Bruce—Then, of course, you can
appeal to the House of Lords. Mr. Rolt why cannot these
parties appeal to the House of Lords ?
Mr. Rolt—l am here to show your lordships.
Lord Justice Knight Bruce—Do so. lam curious to
know what reasons there can be for such refusal. The act
says that if any case presents any "difficulty of import-
ance," the Court shall have the power of granting an ap-
peal. The effect of granting such an appeal will not be to
stay the proceedings.
Mr. Rolt said in point of fact it would not, but it would
have the effect of stopping all attempts to agree to a com-
promise.

Lord Justice Knight Bruce—All we have to decide is
whether this case is one of sufficient difficulty an 1 impor-
tance to grant an appeal.
Mr. Rolt—Certainly-. Bat I trust I shall be able to
show your lordships that this is not a case in which an
appeal ought to be granted. The learned counsel then
proceeded to quote the words of the statute, and con-
tended that Mr. Marcus ha l no right to make the
present application. Every other shareholder excep', Mr.
Marcus were commonly of opinion that this application
should be refused; and he trusted that under such
circumstances their lordships would refuse it, and
decide that all the proceedings that had been taken
should not be perilled by this application of Mr.
Marcus. More than half the estate had been administered,
and ho contended that no case could be stated where the
estate was so divided, and where steps Ind been takes
similar to those which had been taken in this case, to jus-
ify the present application.
Mr. Giffard followed on the same side.

Mr. Brown said ho had but a very few worts to offer in
opposition to the motion.

Lori Justice Knight Brace—Are you actually with Mr.
Rolt and Mr. Gifford in this case ?
Mr. Brown—Yes.
Lord Justice Knight Bruce—Mr. Rolt, for whom do you
appear ?

Mr. Relt—For the assignees.
Lord Justice ji. Bruce--Then there are actually three
counsel engaged for the assignees in this application. I
was only curious to know how many counsel were engaged.
Mr. Brown then continued his argument, and contended
that the present case was not of sufficient importance to
justify an appeal to the House of Lords. But, leaving
that part of the case, ho maintained that the application
of Mr. Marcus was made too late.

Several other counsel followed on the same side, and Mr.
Bacon having replied on the part of Mr. Marcus,
Their lordships refused to grant leave to appeal entirely
on the ground that the application came too late. If the
present proceedings had been taken immediately, or as soon
as was possible after the decision of this court had been given
on a former occasion, when this unfortunate case was before
their lordships, leave undoubtedly would have been given
to appeal to the House of Lords.
The motion was therefore ordered to be dismissed, but
without coats—Mr. Linklater to have his costs out oft he
estate.