The Express.
London, England, 1853-06-29 00:00:00

PUBLIC BUSINESS.
'METROPOLITAN BRIDGES.

At the request of the Eight lion. Baronet the first Com-
mi of Works, Mr. OLIVILIIIA consented to postpone his
motion for a committee oa Metropolitan Bridges till Tues-
day, .:b July.
NATIONAL EDI:CATION (IRELAND).
Mr. WALPOLE wished to put a question to the Chief
Secretary for Ireland with regard to the Bth rule of the
Commissioners of National Education. The construction ,1
w►i-b had heretofore been put upon that rule wu th►t if
the parents at Roy child objected to any particular religions
►ook being taught, that child should not he compelled to
learn it; but nut that the objection of a single parent should
gauge the exclusion of the book from the school. It was,
however, commonly reported that the commissioners had
caused a work of Dr. Whattly to be omitted from the list,
and had also decided that the objection of a single parent
should necessitate the disuse of any hook in the schoil to
which his child belonged. Ile (Mr. Walpole) begged
therefore to ask the right hon. gentleman whether the Com-
missioners of National Education in Ireland have re-
ject:ll or expunged from the list of books to be
used in the nations! schools, "The Evidences of
Christianity," by the Archbishop :of Dublin; and
whether they have determined, that. if any child's parent
s►ould object to the use of any single book, it is a sufficient
reason for excluding suck back, not from that child only,
but from the whole school ? . .

—...--. ...- ....-- .---..
Sir J. 'lOl. *NO said it was exceedingly difficult, at that
time, to give an answer to the questioxs of the right hon.
gentleman. There had been a great deal of misunder-
standing on the subject, both of the practice and the
opinions of the Board of Commissioners. The opinions of
the board were divided, and their prunes had not been al-
together uniform. It was unfortunate that there should be
any difference as to the continuance of the religious educa-
tion
given in schools; but they must recollect the founda-
tion on which this system was built. When Lord Stanley
established the system of national education in Ireland, he
proposed to give to children of all penuasions a combined
literary and a smante religions instruction. A difference
bad of late 41714611 as to the construction of rule 8; but no for-
mal decnion had been cane to. He was, however, informed
that means had been taken to ascertain the opinion of the
unsema comminioners themselves, and that the deliberate,
ezpression :,..f then hadnot been concealed from the
I neh,gnero waist. role wu as follows :—" The commis
stoners do not inalet yea the scripture tenons being read
in any of the aatlOMi schools, nor do they allow them to
be used during the time of secular or literary instruction,
in any school attended by children whose parents or
guardians object to their being so read. In such cases the'
commissioners prohibit the use of them except at the times
of religious instruction when the parties living it may use
these lessons or not es they tbinkproper." Doubts had arisen
as to the constructs a of that rule, but the practice of the
commissioners hel apparently been to insist upon the
scripture lames beteg read in no school against the wish of ,
the parents; and where a single child objected to the
use of these books during the time of secular instruction,
they were relegated to the period at which the separate
Teligioue instruction was given. It was proposed to act
upon this rule in the sense that these books wen
not to he relegated to the hours of religious in-
struction ; but that where any objections were
trade to them a portico of the day should be ,'
set sprat for nailing them, and that due notice should 1
he given of the time at which the books were to be
n.ed. Such a veseletion would not probably have been
messed to by the majority of the commissioners provided
that the " easy lesson. in Christianit y"were °mitt( d from the :
lit of works in meat the schools With regard to the right
boa. gentleman's drat gentian, it was true that many
ikaaaa catholic* sad other moons had objected to the
week referred to, on the ground that it was of a polemical
okaracter ; but he (Sir J. Young) hoptd that no bon. gen-
tleman would come down to the house and attempt to give
nay opiaiem upon it unless he bait himself previously read
It (Cheers.) It was a very small work, but no one could
'erase it without pleats,' and advantage, for it was a
masterpiece of condensed scriptural knowledge, and of
logical acumen. (Cheers) He (Sir J. Young) did not
propose to express any decided opinion on the question
until the formal ;etiolationa of the board should have been

communicated to the government ; but he did not appre-
hend that the withdrawal of the work from the list would
maks say very great pastiest difference in its use. From a
return which bad beespresested without the least reference
to this wades, it appeared that no fewer than 260,000
copies of the BIM blMeh busk would probably be required
la the year. Willie wetback, 152,000 would be wanted ;
of the fourth atift.lf=sid 41,500 copies. For the
arithmetic, die would be 41,500, whereas
of the " seey alwitionity " the number was
only 1,200. or abort wee Re poor echo& (Hear.)
The subjoin had enlist disc-make, but he be-
hoved that there had bass we mem mended adoption of
the work in the WON& miwentien of Inland than he had
described. (Hear. bees.)
Mr. WALPOLE desired a more specific reply to his se-
toad question.
The SPEAKER hepod that the right hon. gentleman, in
ausweriag, world het maks another speech. (" Hear," and
a laugh.)
YOUNG said the practice would appear to have
been, that wham the parade eta single child objected to the
am of the beaks is qopeties, they were relegated to the
boars appabtsd 4 sepoote religious instruction.
llr. COWAN pee Mire that he should move for •
variety of returns mmaasted with the same subject.
UNIVERSITY TESTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The order of the day for the nixed rending having been
read,
The LORD ADVOCATE moved that it be taken after
the other orders of the day, and is doing so intimated that
he had received communisation which led him to believe
that a middle term could be found to suit the views of both
parties interested in this bill. He proposed, therefore, to
substitute is the room of the present testa the following de-
claration : " I, A B, do solemnly and sincerely declare that
as professor of —.Lead in the discharge of the duties of
the said offles, I will MTH endeavour, either directly co
indirectly, to teeth or inculcate any opinion opposed
to the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures or
the Westminster Confeesios, as confirmed end rati-
fied by law in the year 1690; and that I will not
exercise the (ructions of the said *dice to subvert or
prejudice the Anna of Scotland as by law established,
or the dose sod privileges thereof.'. He (the Lord
Advocate) she messed that in case any professor were
guilty of a break of drat declaration, application should be
snack: to the Lod admits, and b him to the Queen in
Council, who amid Wm a to inquire into the
eircuseissem, tlsi Oahe saps fee his removal. He (the
Lord Adonis's) did setmake this statement for the pur-
pose of railing any disormion at that stage, but with the
hope that his proposal would be satisfactory to theirs who
desired to retain a test, and would not be objected to by
those who wished for its abolition. (Hear, hear.)
The order of the day wee then postponed.
SHERIFFS' COURT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The committee upon this bill was resumed, beginsieg at
clause 28. . _

Mr. CRAUFURD moved the substitute of the words
" twenty.flve " for "twelve." Ile would also add
a proviso to the clause, allowing suitors to employ advo-1
gates, if they thought proper to do No ; casts to be claimed
only where the amount recovered was 81. 6s. Bd.
The LORD ADVOCATE opposed the amendment. The
Mll had gone through the ordeal of a select committee of
19 members, who bad gone through the clauses with the
greatest an; and they were much better qualified to deal
with a question of this kind than the whole house. Refe-
rence had been made to the English courts; though this
system had worked well, it was still very rude and imper-
fect; and it woe by no means desirable to assimilate the
local courts of Scotland exactly to the County Courts. At
present • sum of 261. could be recovered mote cheaply in
the Sheriffs' Courts of Scotland than in the Saglish County
Courts ; the casts would not be more than 3L 103. or it ;

co issequently so groan for the amendment.
wet. it carried it wosld be useless to proceed with the
bill.

Mr. CHARTERIS supported the clause as it stood, and
said he was u sunset an advocate of legal reform as he
had professed himself in a speech on the hustings, which
had been quoted by Mr. Craufurd.
Kr. HI., KB, in supporting the amendment, said he did
not vales much the decisioa of the select committee, as 11
oat of the 15 Scotch members bad goes into the committee
pledged again* dm abolition of sinecures. He himself had
1111111101111111.111111111 bleat in committee without success, and
beg that evidence should be taken, to show the
ilitr of a better system; but this also had Nen re-
jected. Ho deprecated the course which had been pursued
gm Ugs bag, especially by the Scotch members.

Mr. WALFOLE recalled the idtention of the committee
to the preeise terms of the amendment—to substitute 2.11.
fur 11 Ile had been a member of the committer, and
thinkic: that the bill ea it steed would be a great
advanttge to the people of Scotland be should I
support it. The hill established three juriselii.-
tions—for amounts above 234., for those between
121. and 231., std fdr those under 12/. In the first !
an appeal was allowed to the Court of Searion ; and he
thought the limit of 2.51. a very proper one. For sums le-
-1 Moen 121. and 2.51, advocates might be employed, and
there was an appeal to the sheriff-depute. Where the
smaller amounts were in dispute, no advocates werA
allowed. Considering that this system had wicked well in
Scotland, and considering that the people were satisfied
with it. he thought they might judiciously extend it to sums
of 124, but beyond that it would not he prudent to go. lie
therefore coald not concur is the ;intendment of the hen.
and learned gentleman opposite. Once give a party toe
power to employ an agent, and the other aide mutt employ
one too. The result would be then, that this amendment
in the law would he oppressive to the poor man, t.cmtuse
under the plan now proposed they would have different
mutate of procedure springing up in every county, and
there would be no end to the expense which such a system
would entail upon the people. It would be much better to
keep the law uniform throughout the country, and since the
bill, as it stood, fully accomplished that end, he could sea no
reason for altering it.
Mr. S.WORTLEY, like many other Scotch members, had
paid great attention to th:s subj.et, and at first he was in-
clined to suppose th.t if the jurisdiction of the
Sheriffs' Court could be siiely extended to 121., there
was no reason why it should not go beyond that sum. lie
originally proposed that evidence should be taken on this
point before the committee up stairs, bet the house did
not concur with him in that view, and it was not per-
severed in. lie was therefore not disposed to dispute the
decision which the select committee had come to, after care-
fully investigating the whole matter; and although this
proposal agreed with lira first impression, he must never-
theless vote ago Mit it, for the constitutioui.l i'round that a
select committee had recommended the beute to pass the
bill as it stood.

Mr. M'GREGOR was as anxious as any member to we
the County Court sjatem extended to Scotland, and he
should only take this bill as an instalment of that I gal re-
form which the people of Scotland had a right to demand.
There was still one part of even this bill which he must
take exception te, and that was the part which limited the
salaries of the judges. Such a limitation was unworthy of
Parliament, and he hoped some amendment would be made
an this part of the bill before it finally pe.sed.
Mr. COWAN should support the bill as it stood, and
vote against the amendment. The measure was calculated
to produce great good for the people, as it would simplify
and cheapen legal proceedings in civil cases, while it would
ultimately lay the foundation of a permanent system of law
refonn in Scotland.

Mr. A. HASTIE thnuld support the amendment, be-
cause ho thought the bill was grossly defective in that part
of it which related to appeals from the sheriff's substitute
to the sheriffs deputy. Ho must be allowed to bear his
testimony to the attention which the right hoe. gentleman
the member for Midhurst had directed to this bill. The
right hon. gentleman wp most assiduous in his attendance
on the select committee, and he did his beat to render the
measure as perfect as ponsible.
Colonel BLAIR thought they ought to defer to the
opinicn of the select committee and negative the amend-
ment. . .

Mr. C. BRUCE said the power of appeal which prevailed
in Scotland was a valuable feature in the sheriff's court
system, and he hoped it would not be interfered with.
Mr. DUNLOP spoke in favour of the limitation provided
for in the boil, and declared his opinion that the aelcct coin-
mittee could not have gone further in their recommenda-
tion on this subject without first taking evidence upon it.
The LORD ADVOCATE declined to enter into a seceni
discussion of this question, but he could not suffer it to go
to a division without flatly contradicting the statement of
the hon. member for Montrose that the select committee to
whom this bill was referred was a packed committee. He
denied also that he had resisted the taking of evidence in
the select committee on the subject of double sheriffs. That
opposition came from the honourable member for Glasgow.
Mr. A. HASTIE begged the committee to remember
that b. was not the honourable member for Glasgow who
was referred to. (A laugh.)
After a few words from Mr. CRAI:FURD, by way of reply,
the committee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
The amendment was according negatived, and the
clause agreed to as it originally stood; as were also clauses
31 and 32.

Clauses up to 41 were agreed to.
On clause 41, which regulates the retiring allowance of
the sheriffs principal end sheriffs depute,
Mr. HUME moved to leave out the word sheriff, on the
ground that they had no retiring allowance under the
former bill, and that the nature of their duties did not en-
title them to any.
The Lord Advocate, Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Baillie, and Mr.
Walpole defended the giving of a retiring pension, on
the ground that it would make the sheriffs more efficient,
and contribute to the more effectual administration of
justice.
Mr. A. Mastic, Mr. Duncan, and Mr. Craufurd sup-
ported the amendment, on the ground that the sheriffs de-
pute were practising barristers as well as appeal judges, and
therefore there was no reason for giving them a retiring
pension, any
.more than there was for giving retiring pen-
sions to revuing barristers in England.
The committee then divided—
For the clause G-5
For the amendment l6-49
The clause was then agreed to, as were the remaining
clauses and schedules.

The bill was then reported.
ROYAL COMMISSION.

Mr. PCISIAN, Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, sum-
mated the house to the House of Lords to hear the royal
oromtoissios read. . . .

The house atlymtned at a quarter-wt 4 till 6 o'clock.
The hones met again at six