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

wbicl
to

vibkl

)le.
,posed
ieable,

room

h,ro
wok
r 113"

be
1 d

°~~,n

land did not de•er the imputationof being fraudulently
inclined vvhich'w:secastuin them, and he contended,
tllierefore, that the Bill was uncalled fel.. He believed
e
bight "50 great moral constrain had been put uporiwtho
4igtt Honourable Gentleman (Sir W. Somerville),
had Riven a sort of feeble assent to the measure on
ftrhisoptaerhteodf4e Governineot— that he hail in fact, boon
gavethe Gov threat of impending danger when he
his assent to the second reading. When, however,.
ahroftated their functions of initiating
Measures of this irno'ortant character, he should have
sthon?ht
they
woul.l have waived their right in favour of
i.tia,le man of undoubted S, as in th sobriety of judgment and poPtl-
e e of the SPlection of the Devon Cam-
sir, DIC
Cls%iol3; bu cast to have selected Lord Westmeath—
oh rose t d
tohfe o
'rt()lrA. liElt said') the er
lion. Gentleman was not
u.llyfr. APCULLA.GII said he had found the Marquis. of
."sandth's natne on the Bill,' and he was therefore
lesti in referring to him. The Noble Lord. it aP:
18):iadred, had two measures on the subject, and he had.
that lf hii o'he Bitnotpassed into a law he
! were , .
;1°2_1,4 impeach the Ministry; so t oat it was under
4inrea of impeachment they now gave their counte-
ef :lei letsearl' measure which was contrary to the spiritl6ss
thatit English law; fir it was not until
Iftawasallowed to distrain anything that partook of the
sallithty °" the soil. And when that power
ye vase in
Ireland bad been so great—(No, no)—
Des; 2°
enernions, so universal, and so notorious that the
...it had been was granted,
h„, no Commission, of which the sponsor to the presenthat
a member, had recommended that. t
frier of distrainins. growing' crops should be abolished.
tioeii((ltlk`Cultagh) would rather vote for the restorfoar-
thi ~. this power of distraiuing growing crops than_
of
3 nil!, Which bor 't the damning brand.
taitt"np.ting toiestabliesh upon
apleanw oft dealing in Ireland which
wince:edict not dare to make for this country.. If there
matter,
444 he _real necessity for doing something
n.,,aidid not deny that there was, he should be Labe ready
which he
mad given to discuss the amendments of
le..4.,gtren notice, with the view of retaining the civil re-
-1,, in the cases to which the provisionsof the Bill
t and most
er_e.(l, and to disarm the measure of its
reduce'hive features. In its present shape
the
and in his Peasantry of Ireland to a statwhteoerosßf sileirwfdoonmld,
a Penortlioona
?of the British dominions.
npiaion it was more fitted for Russia than for
kir el WINNE contended that the Bill. wasnectehse-
iah(iito protect property in Ireland. He denied that
of seetda of Ireland were oppressive. That certainacts
thdesopraeission took place in Irland he admitted,. but they
ehddr also in England. Look at the oppression of little
Ike, en in factories.
Ale
not eAN rtes.
said the Hon. and Gallant Colonel was
had :Pet is his law, and certainly the heat which. he
Thee.,peitibited warranted the House in . doubting his facts.
*la messti • and Gallant Gentleman sai all thweyaswaanitaewd
iv!ures to prevent fraud. Why, there
wtehr4",tlhtte).
cowl
ieet fraud. If that law was not perfect,
toted
14 5 But
this
I%eraosmae
law t to
to Parliamentdo an injustice
uaantide have
t tenant
at
leatter an un-
fair ad. behest of the landlord, giving the
Gentleman re-
ferred 'satage, The Hon. and Learned
effect to ohe of the clauses of the Bill which had
the
lena °f removing a question of doubt as betweenrm_bal
ee._ at and landlord from a civil court into a c i i
hutitit wher
e the landlords would be the judges, and who
Pro!, 6e the tenant 101. for the offence of removing
hisriejtY from the land,for not
and imprison
Qeatilan twelve months. The Honourable himand Learned
adou.44concluded by
.. .
moving
kir , that this debeatethbee
Bills.ig4dOClK felt it to be his duty to p
vitts not-°°: Members present knew that lando ifinalsnrdelatnhde nate ~, only subject to rent, but to rentcha
nod ,-larddevned to pay it was subject to imprisonmentrge
kr. EN
abour"
fsr‘hiupatiiFaeiltiLdEgYingcould not see that there was”any hard-
ho had
a man to "hard labour,
hw law in
tosia 4413' 'made away with his crops.
drea'd ed, and it had prevailed for more thanTonee hduirts--
train4ets, was, that if the goods which had been
tliewelteci
frtrheirft7udulently removed, they could be fol-
days, and that the man so rhemorveinntg,
we„,,3.nould they, if recovered, fail to realise te
ht;44it; be liable to bo imprisoned for six months, with
la; labour tv
413•6r:u1d be 'Lelett(nlider.dilteoalleryelawnada, obi'
eoepainnsieo n
tthhearte t ht.haoet
1111(14,,te.,0,3' Which a landlord had against a'mallwPor
doehi'nelently removed his crops was a civil Bill e the a
Sir ,i. Mount of the rent.
&died itILLIAM SOMERVILLE said, all that he
kla:rciefierd7 Was
Rea
minimum of justice on the partof
wasthe
believed it was a libel to say that this toineY4 landlord's Bill. Could they not a,t, least
no.")
to kr. ke„ar‘ePan the measure?—(Cries of
litroo i uultE approved of the object of thNeo'Bill,
proposed
to bet 3' objected to the means by which it was a
Ililgroe'elifetieited• lie regarded the proposed means a
*No _ i attempt at legislation, and hoped the House
mkt' "sot assent to it. tneasur 111.411414 N CRAWFORD objected
aided
ele Lilt must be regarded, as this must,. tithts oefasure"--a measure which wholly t co,,
oanney.
/teat 14 the tenant.—(fiear, hear.) The Holgna.eseMaree.dm.rtbehesers
retie ° a detail
, rted t Is he fraudulent process of dist d '‘'nani e .3' the Irish landlords against their oPPresse
Bohr' p• c,
lll°4bljeellti?PbE was glad to infer from the cheers. 0f...
as that ti,_ In ers that they assentedto
to
ohe
Englandprinci
;fgn Ito, r
somesa law should be applied
*toted an; at this late period of the session he ob •
lif°e7thtenillinrat?_er consideration of the
hmoestessuhreelndoowntbi?n-
ai Allen :ie. Notwithstanding the
.4), th Y a SPeech at the commencement of the see::
ti°4
a at
ah°lllelb, i° would be done to settle the qu _
teottata ILt-e me thing
1 Cons between landlord and
'll
- a steP had ngbree a ltaken to remedy the crying
vtenaet4° eould palr "
removal of the crops by the
l
Arehael, when he
considered late the
ktrei had been the fearful crisis to whin
%ate t e exist.subjected withrin
etnheencrlahstwhfeewn
it had
ed th ing law was save re . . .
13ePied Ise landlord of Ireland to evict within a shortfoni
thheepir hoartZt "ix hundreda thousand individuals r
dowof heue"-ea(liear, hear.) Thereturhnasd ohfeetnhepnnunmed-
tie 0'
eonse °f Poor people which _ ietion in opera-
n in „ qttent on the system v
l! tahi‘uat nubs
into it e of the-PllPYouesnea, nbturyt too well-known
ati Was vet not now enter
it
dwofasneot been laid on
o ti, very large. He would
"eted ''
details 1 ' tion
its 1,1-.' la /i,,,,• 0 tills ques ,
ded " legislation
ain's. ''`Die, to any such " one.si
sit b.ecause he ob-
t' 4. lit /,,,,-,-
thatl:r a° arvbAit said that the
towards Bill contained
the tenantprcivi-
laskitestdd ,„ , rary a nature.
i l'h' 4 • .ot, tinder any circumstances, give it his
°litillaene'llse then divided on the question of the ad-
pt (.1 debte, when there appeared
24
.Qeoset adjournment ,
46
)4r,, by,. Ais• • .
et the 41,urici.,,,,..jOrity against ..
••• th-24
at
alioase. ujilDS then rose to move the adjournment
4(4,4 Tien. A he House ought to adjourn in
and
ddienr
)4s ',that th I°,a might be more amply
441111er, 0 enarges which had been made
fully
Hon.and
°II his d of the
to loye„ 3 klo House might be
lilitttife:tto-:t,higealtaerdg.e The Hon. Member was proceedingh
paupers
4., iltatt -ere from Ireland, and to save their children
(1 -()Jatioe, when the Hon. Member for
Ahliti y 4 ,
out " Hear." The Hon. Member_
110 ti
°lda) turned towards the Speaker,.t th from the
te,„rt1.40,,,t,he interruption he always me and com
terlll4,49er for lierry, who had, wlnowehye ii
nn :
life o'l when seated behind him, butt
lilt 41. antvhen before him.
tot 1.• 4t1;...;,.? CONNELL—It is not true.
KkelT'
tNs 'OOLDS—The Hon. Member tells me it is
•mpt,fi' J. nin
410,
wh--- CONK ELL—It is untrue that I inter-
Iht 4• ...ty, ea sitting behind.
to Peok. LDS would put himself in the han hands of
I) taMart-
ttive "t• The Hon. Member proceeded with his dis-
t, r. Nle ...SI when
teket riddtlreClaslrisL
himself
se to order, The Hon. Member
14. use, g linself at all to the question before
"liar. 4ZXOL
II)
tills-e
SPR i LDS continued, and was again called to
,lailrtioien,,,ts,4o;e4,taß reminded the Hon. Member that the
(o neeat. OLDS would strictly
'vitt • ...tA-N. "ne House related to the adjournment..
(Or
I°ll. Th
Rochdale was—
aft,i, , °Me* -e Hon. Member for
sat down
confine himself to
14,,eltin J The Right lion. Gentleman
the
Ge ;jilt J. -,ft few words in condemnation o.t.Tlßoi lnl :
Right
.-1-1-
I._
pili'etaaa fm`' C2NNELL was glad the Por eR hin,'—r* neynolds) had charged him
hae:naity -0-1 whets sitting behind, as he had
had
with intoep_
tor; the abeebliely contradicting a matterwhich,
f;leti3:llte set `lt of previous rumour.. He shouldthoee
Meet,vt Y int a the way imputed to him, because b
itn llisa'~selrfeetirse which had formerly subsisted e-
ieha, qid, („atid the Right Hon. Gentleman was now
ktkit,;'" hs,;.-o.oar, hear.) Ile objected to the way t e
raal if the carried on. The discussion had been
toit-'2eirs did"le Bill were in Committee, while. Hon.
attihltF4totisQ.,,,n- al] Bill
could to prevent the Bill from
!tetlrtteat fk. said f 0 ds in vindication of his
jai It, cjalll,ew ona the subject. The Hon.. Member
I,"uieh'keri - eta," oPposed the motion for adjournment
c"..e_ he thY disting,uished for the pertinacity with
it,. el e %din Lat. Ras in °o
nruments when the Ministry of Sir
hie, -% J. cer, e• iotti,,, It tisi,D,`-'ONNELL—Never.
t!te gllilleat of Zii-I said, he and his friend.s moved the des
that
„ • It question with the view of defeatint.g
ht_thot he
_Was to save the time of the House on bo._.
the L•e111/0.1,71,,Ve these motions for postponing the Bill
lape`,;', Ole it Ie.,RION said, in the present temper of
o,,,s..e'italliily aftewratablernp‘ossible to go into
.Committee, and
It W rig to„ Y nad already sat for thirteen hours.
the bit: hard o'n'ttlibe done to check these irregular debates.
the ateourBe . e nasjority of Members, and he though. t
erpon ‘o take was for the House to agree to
of tht4 O. ['Alt
lion„eenntre Iti.ToN wished to protest, in the face
Nbo .'• It. -, , against the abuse of this privilege of the
41a, 4tte
ill's by
eurnopts were made to impede the public
444,
ikk, the 40
n proceedings as had occurred that
AftZnero, use ought to pass a censure on Members
1. 4r. t setae ft,
aaord Atc,,.1,, ther remarks to the same effect,
l'i %vas ' '.5( wi h d knowN ble
th ~ nun, /, , . 8 e to whether the . o
eillh ? Ith tni?„. 4rtiatnentary language when he charged
L --(Llti htLg a question into ridicule over his
tie I°ll C. tekttifer.)
Itnalt1"°1113, sakilLlON denied he had used the words.
ettpa P.rhaps that the Iion• and Learned Member
the .(fatti . tlllll th • into ridicule his
b %ars gn'er ) e matter
kra3iites -e adopted , What he again repeated was, that
-clse 8 1V44 C l -7 lion. Members to obstruct public
tit nose, BRIG a COlated to lower the dignity of that
fo • 431fIGRht to be
Lhtt the 4 tiT said repressed. .
ti :4se the x!„ *en the Franchise Bill was he-
'll:le %I ."ble Lord himself divided about
Nth ;let Proceeding with the Bill, arid upon
4'4480 determined etch time Were

frivolous. That was a sufficient answer to the Noble
Lord.—(Hear.) He would state a reason why the de-
bate should be adjourned—that reason was to be found
in the report of the Commission, to which he would refer.
He fund that during the evening no lawyer bad spoken
in favour of the Bill. The English law officers were ab-
sent, and he contended that the alteration proposed by
the measure in the law of landlord and tenant was such
as ought not to be made without 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 withhold 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 Ma•quis of Westmeath,
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 prospe9t of discussing the
clauses in Committee, and 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 Bill. He did not suppose
there could be any second opinion as to the necessity of
enforcirg 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 carrying 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 be
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 an alteration of the clauses
in Committee. _ _

Mr. HAWES said there appeared to 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 justice
done between landlord and tenant.
Mr. M'CULLA.GH 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, oh!)
Mr. NEWDE GATE 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 withdrawn, 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 for 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 line "And the Pope
don't turn a Protestant, though we'd let him, but he

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 of 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.

SIR,—I 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 statements 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 Lansdale and myself. Does ho
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 Carlisle'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 wisely 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 had received from the most important coal-
owners of the north district—superior proprietors, no
doubt, 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 patronage of coal-mine inspectors to the office of
Secretary of Sta'e. 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
Government direction shall arise. The large sums now
borne on our books for 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 interferes in its control, ought to provide for
all consequences, and I trust the House of Commons
will shape out due provision accordingly; 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

and costs for maps and plans of my extensive coal-
fields at the ad libitum discretion of the paid inspector,
who will like no better business than placing the trade
in absolute confusion. Employing, as we coal•owners
all do, for our people's safety, our own interest, the pre-
servation of life, and the wealth of our concerns, the
ablest and most scientific viewers and practical men in
the trade, nothing but absolute compulsion and force
will induce me to surrender the property 1 preside over
unto othsrs.—l remain, Sir, yours, Soc.
VANE LONDONDERRY.
S3aham Harbour, Aug. 5, 1850.

REDUCTIONS OF OFFICIAL
SALARIES.

REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE.
The Select Committee appointed to inquire into the
salaries and emoluments of offices held during the plea-
sure of the Crown by Members of either House of Par-
liament, voted in the annual estimates; and also into the
salaries and emoluments of judicial offices in the superior
c2urts of law and equty in the United Kingdom; and
into the retiring pensions allotted to the judges; and
also into the expense of diplomatic establishments
charged on the Consolidated Fund, have considered the
maters referred to them, and agreed to the following
report:—
In fulfilling the important duty entrusted to them,
your Committee, in the first instance, directed their at-
tention to the salaries attached to those offices held dur-
ing the pleasure of the Crown, which are usually filled
by Members of either House of Parliament, and are
voted in the annual estimates.

Your Committee first selected those offices which,
from the nature of the duties attached to them, have
always been considered of the greatest importance in
a Government, namely, those of First Lord of the
Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the
three Secretaries of State, and the First Lord
of the Admiralty. For these offices it is requisite
to secure the services of men who combine the highest
talents with the greatest experience in public affairs;
and, considering the rank and importande of the offices,
and the labours and responsibilities incurred by those
who hold them, your Committee are of opinion that the
salary of these offices were settled in 1831 at the lowest
amount which is consistent with the requirements of the
public service.