The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-07 00:00:00

THE

frivoloue. That was a sufficient answer to the Noble
Lord.—(Hear.) He would state a reason why the de-
bate should be adjourned—tiaat reason was to be found
' in the report of the Commission, to which he would refer.
He f 'Lind that during the evening no lawyer had spoken
in favour of the Bill. The English law officers were ab-
sent, and be contended that the alteration proposed by
the measure in the law of landlord and tenant was such
as ought not to be made withoct obtaining their sanction.
On these grounds he maintained that there ought to
be an adjournment of the debate. No charges of factious
opposition would induce him to withheld his support
from motions of adjournment, and he put it to the Go-
vernment whether, under these circumstances, there
ought not to be an adjournment. The Government had
not the manliness or the fairness to call it their Bill—it
was a measure begotten of the Marquis lof Weatmeath,
and recommended to them by Lord Clarendon, and they
had lent themselves to work that they ought to be
ashamed of.
Lord PALMERSTON, in the present temper of the
House, did not see any prospect of discussing the
clauses in Committee, aad suggested that they should
go into Committee pro forma—(No, no)—and take time
then to consider whether some modifications might not
be advantageously made in the 8111. He did not suppose
there could be any second opinion as to the necessity of
enforcieg the principle of the Bill, namely, the preven-
tion of fraudulent practices, which must ultimately tend
to destroy all confidence between landlord and tenant.
He hoped both sides of the House would agree as to
what course they ought to take, and probably the best
thing they could do would be to toss up whether they
should adjourn the debate, or go into Committee pro
forma.—(Much laughter.)
Mr. NAPIER pointed out what the law of England
was with regard to the miming away of crops fraudu-
lently for the purpose of evading a distress for rent.
Both in England and in Scotland such a proceeding was
regarded as a criminal offence, and punished accordingly.
Why should there not be some remedy for the landlord
in Ireland? If he evicted the tenant, he was liable to by
assassinated. If he distrained, the tenant was assisted
by his neighbours, and the crop was carried off. As to
the precise remedy, if that suggested in the Bill was ob-
jectionable, they could make au alteration of the clauses
in Committee.
Mr. HAVES said there appeared td be a general
understanding that there should be some alteration made
in the Bill. The suggestion of the Hon. Member for
Oxford, that the law ought to be assimilated to that of
England, appeared to be received on his side of the
House with approbation.—(No, no.) At all events, it
was evident that the Bill must receive some further con-
sideration.

Mr. HAMILTON appealed to Hon. Members opposite
to allow the Bill to go into Committee pro forma. He
was satisfied that no Hon. Member opposite would coun-
tenance fraud, and that all were anxious to see j ustice
done between landlord and tenant.
Mr. M'CULLAGH said if Ireland was a colony she
might expect the favour of the Government; being mere
Irish, they had no hopes of obtaining justice from that
House.—(Oh, Ohl)
Mr. NE WDEGATE said it was evident that a system
of organised violence and fraud was being practised in
Ireland; and if Hon. Members would persevere in op-
posing the present measure, the object of which was
to prevent the continuance of that fraud, they must
lie under the imputation of endeavouring to abet and
shield it.
Colonel DUNNE objected to the adjournment of the
debate.
Lord PALMERSTON trusted the debate would be
adjourned, as it was impossible they could come to
any satisfactory conclusion in the present temper of the
House.
The motion for the adjournment of the House was then
by leave withdraws, and the motion for the adjournment
of the debate was then agreed to.
The Canterbury Association Bill went through
Committee.
The other orders were then disposed of, and the House
adjourned at a Quarter to Two o'clock.

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE

- -
BRADFORD REFORM ASSOCIATION.
Sir,—On Monday the sth, the Ministerial Resolution
that the Member fur London is not entitled to sit till he
with the Old Testament in his hand shall take the Oath
of Abjuration on the true faith of a Christian, was
carried in the preliminary stage by 163 against 101, and
in the next by 166 against 92.
Will not this remind the public of Hone's once cele-
brated rhymes, containing the lire " And the Pope
don't turn a Protestant, though we'd let him, but be

won't."
The second Resolution, that the House will take into
its serious consideration &c., was carried by 142
against 106.
In the course of the debate arising, the tone of the
Liberal side appeared to be considerably strengthened,
and or the other lowered. On the whole it was to have
been desired that the discussion should by any means
whatever have been prolonged, because it is by discus-
sion that the true truth always gains. But it is impos-
sible to doubt, that the cause has been considerably ad-
vanced.
In the evening the Stamp Duties were considered in
Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stood
stoutly to his principle of making the duties proportional
or ad valorem. Which is a a point gained for justice and
for the people.
On Tuesday the introduction of the Bill to continue
the Crime and Outrage Act in Ireland was warmly de-
bated. It might have been supposed the Government
would have been glad to declare they could dispense
with the rough-rider. Unless they progress faster than
they do, it will be a long time before the _steed can be
counted in the ranks. .

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
AN OLD REFORMER.

London, Aug. 7, 1850.

VENTILATION OF COAL MINES

BILL.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Silt,—l solicit your courtesy and candour to insert in
your widely-circulated and able journal the following
observations on the report you have given to the public
of the second reading of the Inspection of Coal Mines
Bill. in the House of Commons.
It seems to me quite impossible the Secretary of State
(Sir G. Grey) should have been so ignorant (I will not
say wilfully mistaken) of what passed in the House of
Lords on the debate on this Bill as to assert " the
necessity of the Bill had been universally admitted; the
Bill had received much consideration in the other House,
in which there were large coal-mine proprietors, and
he had also received stat-ments from the most important
coal miners in the country approving of the Bill in its
present shape."
Now the petitions against the Bill on the table in the
Commons will prove it is far from universally approved.
The only two c al proprietors that spoke in the House
of Lords were Lord Lonsdale and myself'. Does he
pretend (the Secretary of State) that we were in favour
of the Bill? Does he not know we have more stake in
the coal trade than those with whom he has communi-
cated? In whose charge was the Bill in the Lords?
Lord Carli.le's, who can, with all his ability, know
nothing of the working of collieries in Northumberland
or Durham. Why was the Earl Grey and the young
Earl of Durham not ready to uphold the measure?
Can it also be supposed or believed that Sir George
Grey did not know or hear of the powerful address of
Lord Brougham on the Bill, who with more than his
wonted ability, investigating and searching powers, went
into all the inextricable evils that must arise from
legislative interference in the ticklish and very • nice
operations of the workings and discipline of the deep and
intricate coal-pits of the north of England? Was it fair,
then—was it just—above all, was it consistent with fact
for the Secretary of State (always presuming your re-
porter was accurate) to make such a statement of uni-
versal support as I have noted to the Commons House
of Parliament.
Fortunately, I perceive, Mr. Disraeli expressed his
great surprise, and most ably exposed the determined
opposition it had met with by extensive coal proprietors,
and energetically and wi.ely pointed out that instead of
bringing in such an important Bill in the last hours of
the session, when so many legislators had left their duty,
and only Government placemen remained, a delay, at
least to the next session, was absolutely imperative and
necessary.
The Member for Gateshead need not have challenged
the Member for Buckinghamshire to state the coal pro-
prietors who were in opposition to the Bill. The
House of Lords' debate pointed out this fact clearly, but
certainly did not reveal to the House the representations
Mr. Hutt bad received from the most important coal-
owners of the north districtsuperior proprietors, no
dou6t, to those noble personages who headed the opposition
in the Lords. I cannot but observe that it is somewhat
singular that both Lord Lonsdale's and Lord Brougham's
most singularly able -speeches were scarcely reported in
any one of the papers, and there seems to have been a
studious attempt in some quarters to stifle the real de-
merits and mischief of this Bill under the influence of
the political economists, philanthropists, and, ultra-
humanity conceptions and feelings.
In conclusion, Sir, I beg, through the medium of your
journal, to protest in the strongest manner, as the prin-
cipal coal-owner in Durham, against the principle of this
unwise and most injudicious Ventilation of Coal Mines
Bill. No amendment in Committee will overcome its
meddling and vicious effects in the interior administra-
tion of the intricate workings under ground in the pits.
It will create endless contention and squabbles between
• the Government inspector and the viewers charged with
the active duties of the mine below ground.. The impe-
rium in imperio in such positions must have fatal effects,
and it will have accomplished no other result but adding
the patronae e of coal-mine inspectors to the office of
Secretary of Stale. In addition to my solemn protest, I
hereby publicly declare that if ever any inspector shall
interfere in the working of our pits, in any manner,
with my appointed agent and viewer, I shall charge
upon such inspector and the Government all the
consequences of any and every accident that may
occur, and I shall make known to all my col-
liers that I will never (as heretofore) provide for
and domesticate on the colliery premises, tor ever, as we
now do, the wives and children of those who may be left
destitute by any explosion or accident that under the
Governmeet direction shall arise. The large sums now
borne on our books fir maintaining those who, from un-
avoidable accidents, become paupers and burthens on the
concerns, may be henceforth borne by the Government
(as well as all losses and damages in the pits), as that
enactment which seizes the management of private pro-
perty, and interfere* in its control, ought to provide for
all consequences, and I trust the House of Commons
will shape out due provision accordinuly; and further, I
humbly but respectfully declare that I will submit to all
the penalties of the Bill rather than yield to the mon-
strous; injustice of allowing. a Government inspector to
survey with his people, and take plans of my under-
ground and old workings; nor will I yield to any charges