The Express.
London, England, 1847-03-23 00:00:00

ghe eriortlig.

71b• wnelisd erred rails VI. daradUes to the Wedltermirri,
gent, Adak Orlon. Ind* lire Kong, tr., will be made up on the
swarm elide Ur Marie.
The mar Ihe Vljs, Oporto. Urea. Madera, Clad* and Gibraltar,
win he made re en the morn( et the *7th March.
lir made lir new Swath Wales, Tea Direenbi Land, sad New
Teerwl will biar up es Me WIS. et Os SIM Marsh.
The War Whaling throe ter Mato,bleedtaru, and
the ttavasned, wp es Hr nevem et the rd April.
The add dr arida Meth Arrafm, Mmes, sal the United
Mho, rid lemmas up en the ewers et re ire Aped.
ire The effindril Eris Mr Cllhraltat, MaltsOrsee, the lonian Wanda,
ArtAdl in up as the rstrytim, Ind* HarrapiCons,
rd Apri. sad Chia, via Southampro,
mrag et Ur
The rib he the kris the Inver Mate, Monts Video, Pffalllt.
=.6llehle, llta4tira. rod Iltierei Arra, win is nude ap on the
etre 3th April.

TO CORRESPONDENTS.
•.• Advertioments latooded br The Ilsprrs, landau evening piper,
bust he Mb* Mos by Two o'clact oa Soo day at pablisatka.

HIGH WATER AT LONDON-BRIDGE,

- - -
Tao ntin.poot E ; Afternoon, 35 min. mot f.
153.11fossow—llornfig, I: rain. poet 7 ; Afternoon, 52 Na. Peg 7.

LONDON, TUESDAY, MARCH 23.

EcoNommrs, as far as they are represented by the
Economist, will not let as do anything. One week
they tell us, that we must not go out of the way to
feed or employ the Irish, but let the poor wretches
find out food and labour for themselves, in a country
where both have ceased to exist. This week it tells
no that we must not vote money to educate the
English. Why ? Because of the serious injustice it
would inflict on bachelordom! That interesting and
provident section of society, having carefully abstained
from the risks and burdens of matrimony, ought not,
according to the Economist, to be taxed, in order to
teach other men's children.

We should like to know what tax a quiet old hunks
of a bachelor ought to pay, according to this econo-
mical doctrine. Why should he pay a rate to the
poor?—they are none of his children. Or a war-tax ?
—he is of the " peace-at-all-price " party. Why
should he contribute to pay the interest upon a debt
which the aristocracy of half a century ago entailed
upon the country ? All these burdens—the burden of
the fundholder's debt, of the poor man's dole, of the
ignorance of the destitute classes—all are the produce
of the faults, the wants, the foibles of our nature; the
inequalities of social position. Why should the eco-
nomist pay one stiver of them? The children of the
country are not his children.
The community have a strong interest in the ele-
vation of the lower classes : in their training and their
education first of all, because this makes them more
industrious, and the country more rich: it makes
the dealings between man and man more secure ; it
diminishes crime—the terror of the robber and the
aassasin—the expense and trouble of criminal prosecu-
tion and punishment. At all this, the old bachelor
economist snaps his finger, and says he will bolt his
doors well, tako care that no one cheats him; and that,
upon the whole, he would rather pay the hangman
than the schoolmaster.
Hereupon, some one may take up the argument in
altogether another way, and ask the economist whe-
ther, although having and owning no worldly interest
in the well-being and education of his fellows, there
does not exist the moral as well as Christian duty of
communicating the blessings of religious instruction,
and intellectual amelioration, to the classes which
most want them, and are least able to procure
them for themselves ? We may ask whether this duty
may not extend beyond our own children to other
men's children ; and, above all, to the fatherless and
destitute? Are we, because we do not marry,
to close oar hearts, and avert our prospects from the
next generation? Are the merry children, who
play in our sight, enliven our thoroughfares, and lilt
their glad voices, like cheerful prayers, amidst the
dull and worldly ratiocination of such philosophers as
the Economist —are they nothing to us, who have not
begotten them? If these children have rich parents,
often uneducated, immoral, neglectful, or unwise, shall
not we, legislators, or counsellors of legislation, not
endeavour that such children shall be better, more
morally, more profitably, educated than their parents?
If these children have poor parents, shall we with-
hold our mite, in addition to our efforts and our
counsel, that crime shall not grow oat of ignorance
in their young hearts, and that education shall be the
seed of virtue ?
Mr. BAINES will have nobody taught, if priest or
state functionary employ a finger in pointing out
the alphabet. The Church of England used to say
that none should be taught, unless it was school-
mistress and janitor. But the Church of England has
become far more liberalised, whilst Mr. BAINES and
his dissenting followers have oaten their own words,
denied their own professions of a year or two back,
or turned their liberalism to ilhberalism, in the
cause of faction and for the furtherance of ignorance.
The Economist, more consistent than Mr. BAINES,
but scarcely more absurd, will have nobody taught,
lest sixpennyworth of the expense might come out
of the pockets of that sacred animal, the bachelor.
We want but a married-man party to stand up and
declare the illegitimate offspring of the licentious
bachelordom shall be denied even the education of the
workhouse.
Does it not seem strange, that, in the nineteenth
century, Englishmen should divide themselves into
parties for the purpose of making war upon each
other, and that the deadly weapon employed on both
sides should be ignorance ? Certain of the dissenters
now meet and strive, that thousands upon thousands
of the rustic and agricultural population should not
in any way, or in any conceivable future, be taught to
read and write. Mr. BAINES will allow instruction
to no children save of his creed; the Economist to
none save of its own progeniture. We can scarcely
condescend to reason with such absurdity and self-
ishness.

THE inquest at Barnsley, concerning the recent
coal-mine explosion near that town, by which seventy
lives were sacrificed, has now terminated, the jury
having expressed their opinion that the deaths were
accidental," but that efficient regulations are not en-
forced in the district to prevent the use of naked
lights in those parts of coal mines where inflammable
gas is known to exist ; and that they are further of
opinion that the recurrence of accidents involving so
large a loss of human life demands the immediate
attention of her Majesty's government, and would
justify parliament in framing such a code of regula-
tions as would give greater security to persons em-
ployed in mining operations." We are satisfied that
no unprejudiced person can doubt this. We are sure
that a verdict expressing so distinctly and sensibly
the true state of the case will have due weight both
with the public in general, and with her Majesty's
government and the houses of parliament.
We wish, however, to recall the simple facts attend-
ing this melancholy accident at Barnsley, in order to
place the subject in its proper light. There is nothing,
indeed, very unusual in the affair ; and almost all the
evidence adduced might have been copied from the
records of the late accident at Oldbury, the previous
one at Rises, or that which preceded it at Jarrow.
But still we may learn something from the mere repe-
tition of the sad story.
There are in the Oaks colliery two shafts : one used
chiefly for drawing coal, and the other for producing
an ascending current of air, and carrying away from
the workings the air that has been used. It is quite
clear that the air must pass down the drawing shaft
before it can get into the underground works, through
which also it passes before amending the other, or
ventilation,shaft. Anything that interferes greatly with
the current of air in either shaft must interfere with
the ventilation : and yet it is acknowledged that " a
circular scaffolding, nearly the width of the shaft, was
let dawn into the ventilation shaft, about a month or
five weeks before the accident, and was in the shaft at
the time of the explosion." Thus, the freedom of the
ventilation was completely checked ; but no one
seems to have thought this extraordinary or dan-
gerous. There was no person officially called on to in-
terfere, and any interference, not official, would, in all
probability, have been thought highly impertinent.
It is clear, however, that efficielt inspection would
render such a state of things as impossible aa it would
be to have, on a railroad, an embankment or a cutting
left knowingly in a dangerous state for an indefinite
time.
The workings underground in the Oaks pit were of
two kinds, the old and the new ; the old workings
were known to be in a bad state from foul air, and
this was especially the case when the coal was being
obtained from these places. The men were told to work
with safety-lamps in certain galleries, or " breaks," but
they appear to have been left entirely to themselves
in carrying out these instructions, since the lamps
were neither locked nor examined, and the only inti-

I make of the existence of danger appears to have'
been the placing of a shovel across a passage. It was
I admitted also, that new men might not be aware of
this eastern, and no 'punishment was inflicted when a
foolish or obstinate man chose to risk the lives of the
hundred who might be in the pit with himself, by
going about wherever he pleased with an open light.
Now, we have uo intention of declaiming against
Dither the owners, the foreman, or any one of the
sufferers. We are convinced that the fault is more in
the system than in the individuals. But when we
consider for a moment the constant imminent danger,
the well known fact that in cases of this kind
the foul air is likely to come suddenly and rapidly,
into those places where the men are working—that
the fall of a prop, the accidental approach to a small
fault or dislocation of the beds, and a hundred other
causes, may create a rush of explosive gas sufficient to
endanger the lives of every one underground at the
time, we do say that there should be some efficient
underground police—something like inspection and
superintendence, and some method adopted to ensure
the observance of any plan that may be suggested,
whether of improved ventilation, or of constant work-
ing with the safety-lamp.
There is one point in the evidence on this inquest
which seems at first sight so strange, and is eo regu-
larly repeated on the occasion of every. accident, that
we cannot help alluding to it. It is in the evidence
of Mr. E. Wniatev, a colliery viewer, who " had
been in the pit in January, and the only fault he
found with it was, that it had too much air." Now,
without dwelling on the fact that the ventilation had
been for more than a month impeded by a scaffold in
the upcast shaft, we would just inform our non-pro-
fessienal readers that this apparent excess of air, sup-
posing it to exist, does not in fact very much affect
the question at issue, for if there is enough foul air
given off to render a pit fiery, and therefore dan-
gerous, the danger is by no means diminished by
coursing the air rapidly along the main passages. If
there is danger, it will then be only . more widely
spread far, acoordiog to almost invariable custom,
there are, even under the most dangerous circum-
stances, abundance of open lights about, and the air
becomes explosive without much reference to the
general ventilation. We believe that a number of
moderate but short currents, well distributed,are really
far more efficaeioua than the rapid blast that almost
blows out a candle. At any rate, this mach is cer-
tain, that in working coal that gives off a large quan-
tity of gas, there is ix, real safety if open lights are
used at all.
The absolute necessity of determining in each pit
what would render those particular workings safest,
and insisting on such things being done, must, how-
ever, act as a check upon positive general legislation
with regard to method, and ought rather to suggest
the appointment of efficient inspectors, whose judg-
ment could be relied on, and who would not insult on
vexatious interference. Each district has its own
method, and that method almost always has reference
to some local peculiarities, which have suggested it.
Whatever the present result may be, we feel eatis-
fied that, before long, the strongly expressed opinion
of the mining districts will reader some measure of
legislation imperative.

AGAIN the Iron Duke! Even in bronze the hero
of a hundred fights moons retreat, NAPOLEON used
to object to the original WELLINGTON that he did not
know when he was beaten. We may say the same
thing apropos of his colossal effigy and its equally
immovable sub-committee. The abomination has

been seen and judged. The public eye, familiarized
with its proportions, has lost all sense of their vast-
ness in a contempt for its bold and prosaic poverty of
conception. It is the littlest big thing that ever
paraded sham grandeur before the world. A dwarf
magnified will not be a giant, nor will a giant viewed
through the reverse end of an opera-glass sink into a
dwarf. They are dwarf and giant respectively, as
much by the relation of their parts and proportions as
by their actual dimensions. Reduce MICHAEL
ANGELO'S "Moses" to a scale of lines for
yards and it is still a colossus. Blow out
Mr. WYATT'S man on horseback, to its pre-
sent bulk, and it remains as paltry a statuette
as ever disgraced a pendule in the Palais
Royal. Fortunately for good sense and good taste,
neither the public nor the "competent persons" have
been led away by the childish awe of mere bigness.
Even omnibus cads have ceased to criticize the
horse. They feel he is on view only. The scaffold
stands like a warning of instability.
In this general defection, the committee alone are
true to their idol. They will bow down to it still, if
they bow alone. Sir FREDERICK TRENCII resembles
the last priest of a decayed worship. Perhaps he
rneaks out at quiet times to worship the statue, as the
remainder Druid might snatch a half-hour's forbidden
devotion at nightfall within Stonehenge.
We should not be surprised to catch him and the
Marquis of LONDONDERRY at their kotow early some
fine morning, knocking their foreheads against the
Fround in Grosvenor-place, or sitting under the arch
in sackcloth shirts, and the contents of Holdernessc-
house dust-pan strewed over their holds. When
1 these respectable old gentlemen are attacked by devo-
tion to art, they take it in a very malignant form.
Bat when they catch it in the WELLINurox-fever
variety, it is hardly curable. However, the colossus
must come down. Like Humpty Dumpty, of nursery
notoriety, the statue has " sat upon a wall." Like
him, the statue has " had a great fall." But here the
analogy stops.
- - - • -

"All the Queen's horses and all the Queen's men,"

We are expressly informed in the poem referred to,

- -
•' 'Wouldn't Pet poor Rompty Thunpty op arum"
In the present instance, the sub-committee ex-
pressly declare that if their humpty-dumpty is to be
set up again, it must be by the very royal agency
which failed in theoriginal instance. They won't set
bim up again, at all events. They won't aid in
ro dis-
el cwnin their own altar, to erect the image on an
alien pedestal. They have bound themselves to take
him down. But, as the Marquis of LONDONDERRY
awfully declared on Friday night, if they do, " they
will leave him at the foot of the arch." They
probably rely ou the effect of such a statue
in such a homeless, homeless, hopeless con-
dition. It will be a bronze Belisarius for
this hard-hearted generation. Date obatana will
be read date pedestal. It is clear, in fact, that
this determined body hopes still to frighten the
government from its intention of removing the
Colossus. They have "dodged" him on to the arch,
and trust to another " dodge" to keep him there.
" Only let us pat him up," was their former cry ;
" you will see what an effect he will produce. If you
don't like him you can take him down. Give us three
weeks' trial." . . .. . .

The trial was granted, in spite of warnings con-
veyed in every form public opinion could assume.
His bronze Grace was found " not to suit the place,"
and warning was duly given to his patrons to look
out for another situation. " No, no," they say now,
" that's not in the bond. We promised to take him
down, but did not promise to set him up elsewhere."
It is a very pretty piece of special pleading, and
deserves to be put on a par with PORTIA'S answer to
SUTLOCK, in the Merchant of Venice.
We have been Laocoons from the first. We raised
early the cry, " Equo ne credite Teacri." We felt the
image carried in his belly, if sot armed warriors, at
least dangerous preoedents,—if not sword and fire
for Trojan hearts and houses, means of fatal
offence to art and taste in London. We had
acquired some previous experience of the stuff
which composed the sub-committee. The job of
the Exchange WELLINGTON statue had taught us
with what men we had to deal in the TRENCH-WYATT
affair. " Time° Donato et dons ferentes" was an
inevitable result of our experience. Has our fear not
been justified as much as our objections?
The committee, we apprehend, are " o the windy
aide of the law" in refusing to put up the duke again,
or lend aid towards doing so. Their promise was,
without doubt, to take kiin down only. Whether,
under the circumstances, this premise involves
an " implied obligation," as the law calls
it, to put him out of the way at least,
if not to erect him elsewhere, we leave to the
law officers of the crown to determine. But the
removal of the man-mountain from his present site
will be a blessing, cheaply purchased even at the
expense of a reconveyanoe to a new destination, and
the erection of a new pedestal. Bad anywhere, en
the arch he is intolerable. In Waterloo-place, he will
be a brazen, big, mindless statue, but he will at
least not parade his contrasted size of limb and
smallness of conception on the moat prominent, and
at the same time the most unsuitable, pedestal which
London can furnish.