The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-07 00:00:00

TIJESD AY EVENING,

MAY 7, 1850.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 6.
Their Lordships assembled at Five o'clock.
PETITIONS.
The Earl cf HARE WOOD presented several peti-
tions complaining of agricultural distress.
• The Earl of EGLINTON presented several petitions
with a similar prayer.
The Archbishop of YORK presented a petition
against Sunday labour in the Post-office.
PARISH CONSTABLES BILL.
This Bill was, on the motion of the Earl of ROMNEY,
read a second time.
Lord BROUGHAM presented several petitions in
favour of the extension of the jurisdiction of county
courts, to which extension he expressed himself fa-
vourable.
REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF THE PREROGA-
TIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY wished to ex-
plain the circumstances under which he had appointed
his son to the office of Registrar-General of the diocese
of Canterbury. It had been stated that he had made an
undue use of his patronage by appointing his son to the
office of Registrar-General of the Prerogative Court of
Canterbury. The fact was, that he had nominated his son
to the reversionary office, but not to the sinecure office. A
statute had passed in 1847, placing the Prerogative Court
of Canterbury under the jurisdiction of Parliament with
regard to the duties to be performed by any public
officer, and with regard to his emoluments. Therefore
ho had appointed his son to the reversion of the ()Coco of
registrar, but not to'. a sinecure office. Wherever there
was a court there must be a registrar, and his son was
appointed to the reversion of that office, subject to the
decision of Parliament as to the duties and to the emolu-
ments of that office.
The Bishop of LONDON bore witness to the disin-
terestedness with which the Most Reverend Prelate had
used his patronage when Bishop of Chester.
CASE OF MR. RYLAND.
The Duke of ARGYLL gave notice of a motion in this
case for Friday.

UNIVERSITY REFORM.
Lord BROUGHAM recommended the Government to
pause before issuing their Commission for inquiring into
the state of the Universities. Without an Act of Par-
liament no efficient inquiry could be entered into, as the
proposed Commission could not compel persons to give
evidence.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought that when
Noble Lords saw the names of the Commission they
would be perfectly satisfied.
Lord MONTEAGLE hoped that the representatives
of the Universities in the House of Commons would bring
under the attention of the House what had been done by
the Universities themselves in the way of reform during
the last few year..
Lord BROUGHAM objected that the Commission
could only receive voluntary testimony. Witnesses
egainst the Universities would volunteer their testimony,
but the University authorities would hold back.
JAMAICA.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition from Antigua
praying that the importation of Sugar the produce of
slave labour might be prohibited; also a petition from
the House of Assembly of Jamaica, complaining of the
constitution of the Legislative Council, and of the manner
in which the Council controlled the conduct of the As-
sembly by rejecting their Bills.
Earl GREY was not aware that this petition would be
presented, but he thought it necessary to stew that the
state of affairs complained of had existed for more than
a century past, and he was not prepared to admit that
there had been any error on the part of
the Legislative Council to authorize these complaints.
They had never stood in the way of any reforms pro-
posed by the Assembly; they had only contended that
any reduction proposed by the Assembly should be
prospective, and that colonial faith should be observed
as regards the present holders of office.
Lord STANLEY concurred in the soundness of the
principle laid down by the Noble Earl, and he only re•
gretted that the same principle had not been observed
in regard to Nova Scotia and other colonies.
Earl GREY said the same principle had been ob-
served in all colonies. Salaries provided for by annual
votes might be reduced, but not so with regard to sala-
ries permanently fixed by the Legislature.
PROCESS AND PRACTICE BILL.
The Ea'l of CARLISLE moved that the committal of
this Bill be postponed, as certain amendments were to
be introduced.
Lord MONTEAGLE hoped that the Bill would be
reprinted with the proposed amendments, and that suffi-
cient time would be given to the profession in Ireland to
consider its provisons.
After a brief discussion, in which Lord Campbell, the
Earl of Glengall, and the Marquis of Westmeath, took
a part, the Bill weut through Committee pro forma, and
the amendments were ordered to be be printed.
APPEAL IN ECCLESIASTICAL CASES.
The Bishop of LONDON, who was almost inaudible
in the gallery, was understood to introduce a Bill which
had for its object some alteration in the law of appeal in
ecclesiastical cases.
The Bill was read a first time, and ordered to be read
a second time on the 28th of may,
VENTILATION OF MINES.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE then rose to present a peti-
tion, pursuant to notice, from the coal-miners, praying
forqegislative interference for the better ventilation and
regulation of coal mines. He said there was no class in
her Majesty's dominions that was better entitled to
the consideration of the Legislature, whether we
regarded the service which their labour rendered to
the community, or the peculiar nature of the occupa-
tion in which they were engaged. It was a fact
admitted that their occupation was of a character
that exposed them to frequent casualities, which
were considerably increased by the negligence or par-
simony of the employers. He thought that the Legisla-
ture should adopt such practical means as could be ob-
tained for the purpose of increasing the securities of
these men while pursuing their dangerous occupations.
Itjappeared by a return of the casualties in these mines,
within the last few years, that there was, latterly, a con-
siderable increase. In 1838 the number of lives lost
wore 349; in 1840 the number was 498; in 1845, 562; in
1847, 416; in 1848, 570; and in 1849, the number of
lives lost was no less than 704. In 1835 the House of
Commons caused an inquiry to be made on this subject,
and since then there was a series of inquiries up to the
present moment. During the last session the House of
Lords, at his suggestion, consented to appoint a Com-
mittee, and it was a remarkable fact that there was a
most perfeot unanimity amongst the members com-
posing the various Committees on this subject. In
Belgium there was a considerable decrease of ac-
cidents, while there was a vast increase of produce
from those mines. The great evil to which the
miners were exposed was the defective system of venti-
lat.on. The inspectors of mines should be practical
men. He could not concur in all the suggestions made
by the petitioners. When they talked of imposing regu-
lations by compulsion, be thought that such a course
was open to a serious objection—namely, they would be
imposing a responsibility upon those who exercised this
power of compulsion. He would rather place a direct
responsibility upon those who ought to be considered
the responsible party. He would ask his Noble Friend,
in respect to the Commission that had been recently ap-
pointed, whether they had as yet considered their report,
and if so, when they might expect to have it laid before
the House?
Earl GRANVILLE was understood to say that the
report was under consideration, and would be produced
in the course of the session.
The Earl of MALMESBURY thought that the Go-
vernment deserved much credit for the caution which
they had observed in investigating this subject. The
class of persons that sought for protection at their hands
was, no doubt, one deserving of their best consideration
and attention. .Fle was sure that the Government would
see the great importance of guarding them as much as
possible from accident. The Committee, however, on
the ether hand, ought to have some regard to the inte-
rest and the comfort of the proprietors of these mines.
They might, perhaps, see the Government inspectors be-
come directors of these mines, which would not be de-
sirable.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM also recommended the Govern-
ment to proceed with caution, so as not to throw upon
the owners of these mines a responsibility which they
were not fairly entitled to.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS hoped the Government
would not be deterred by anything that had been said
by the Noble Lord from prosecuting the inquiry.
The petition was then laid on the table.
PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL COURTS.
Lord CAMPBELL moved the second reading of a Bill
to emend the procedure in criminal courts. The object
of the Bill was to prevent the lamentable defeat of jus-
tice that frequently took place from mere technicalities,
wholly unconnected with the guilt or innocence of the
parties. One of these sources of the defeat of justice
arose from what was called the variance between the
indictment and the evidence. For example, it was
alleged in the indictment that a man stole a cow, and
it turned out that it was a heifer; or it was alleged
that a man stole five lambs, and it turned out that
they were sheep, and things of that sort, that had really
no bearing upon the guilt or innocence of the party.
He proposed by the present Bill to allow a power to the
judge to amend the indictment, as the proofs camp out,
and if necessary to have the trial postponed. He be-
lieved by the proposed measure much of the existing
scandal on the administration of the criminal law would
be obviated. Another principle involved in the Bill was
to allow a more general allegation of the crime charged.
According to the old form, they were obliged to enter
with great minuteness into particulars. For instance.
in case of murder, the length and depth of the wound
' must be specified, and the value of the instrument by
which the death was caused, and, to avoid the danger of
defeating the ends of justice, the counts in the indict-
ment were infinitely multiplied. He proposed that in
an indictment for murder, it should be sufficient to say
that a person. on such a day and place, murdered such a
person. That would obviate all existing defects, while
it crave the prisoner every advantage to which he could
be fairly entitled. There were other enactments with
the ;erne view, with which he did not think it necessary
to trouble their Lordships.
The Bill was then read a second time, and their Lord-
ships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 6.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
TURNPIKE ROADS.

Mr. W. FATTEN moved that the standing orders,
No. 6 and No. BS, relative to private Bills, be suspended,
in the case of the Turnpike Road Bills referred to the
Committee of Selection during the present session, and
that any Committee, or Committees, to whom any unop-
posed Turnpike Road Bills might ba referre I, should
have power to consider the same, any provision in the
109th standing order notwithstanding.
The motion was agreed to.

THIRD READINGS.
The following Bills were read a third time azd
passed:—
Elgin Guildry Fund Society Incorporation.
Shrewsbury and Hereford Railway.
South S:affirdshire Railway.
AMENDED BILLS.
The following Bills ai amended were consi:iered and
a4ree 1 to:—
Cambridge Regula:ion and Improvement, Markets,
and Fairs.
Childwall Waterworks.
East and West India Docks and Birmingham Junction
Railway.

PETITIONS.
Mr. DUNCAN presented a petition from Angussbire
against any alteration in the parochial system of educa-
tion in Scotland.
Mr. ANDERSON presented a petition from the
Orkneys praying for some alteration in the Scottish
Poor-law.
Several petitions were presented against Sunday la-
bour in the Post-office.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER presented several petitions from
Lincolnshire complaining of agricultural distress, and
praying for relief.
Mr. HOLLAND presented two petitions from Wis-
beach, one in favour of the Parochial Assessments Bill, and
the other in favour of a reform in the Court of Chancery.
Mr. BECKETT presented a petition from Leeds in
favour of the Ten Hours Factory Bill.
Mr. COCKBURN presented a petition from the Ro-
man Catholics of Kilkenny praying for additional
church accommodation.
Lord JOCELYN presented a petition from King's
Lynn in favour of international arbitration.
Sir J. DUCKWORTH presented a petition from
Leith in favour of a remission of the duty on spirits.
Mr. J. B. SMITH presented petitions from Stirling,
Dunfermline, and other places in Scotland, against the
Public Health Bill for Scotland.
Colonel THOMPSON presented petitions in favour of
the Extramural Interments Bill from Bermondsey, St.
Luke's, Chelsea, the members of the Stock-Exchange,
and St. John's and St. Peter's, Saffron-hill; also a peti-
tion from the board of highways at Bradford, praying
that the 28th clause of the Highways Bill might remain
unaltered.
Mr. PELHAM presented a petition praying fur the
abolition of the attorneys' certificate duty.
Mr. F. SCOTT presented a petition from a place in
Scotland complaining of agricultural distress, and pray-
ing for a return to protection.
Mr. HUDSON presented two petitions from Sunder-
land, one in favour of the extension of county courts,
and the other praying for certain alterations in the
Merchant Seamen's Bill.
Mr. T. D'EYNCOURT presented a petition from
Lambeth in favour of the Extramural Interment Biil.
Sir GEORGE PECHELL presented a petition from
the attorneys of Brighton against the attorneys' certifi-
cate duty.
Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from St.
Mary's, Lambeth, in favour of the Government Inter-
ment Bill.
Mr. COWAN presented two petitions from Edinburgh
against Sunday labour in the Post-office.
AUSTRALIAN COLONIES BILL.
Mr. E. DENISON said the clauses in the Australian
Colonies Government Bill, the clauses forming the Fe-
deral Assembly, were to be considered at the time this
matter was discussed in Committee, upon the distinct
understanding,' that those clauses were to be revise -I by
the Government. lie wanted to know what view the
Government took upon this point.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said the Government still ad-
hered to the principle involved in the clauses which had
been withdrawn, but they were desirous of giving the
smaller colonies greater weight in the assembly. Those
clauses would be laid on the table, when the matter
would be brought before the House in a regular manner.
AUSTRALIAN COLONIES GOVERNMENT BILL.
Sir. W. MOLES WORTH rose to move that the Bill
be recommitted, for the purpose of omitting all clauses
which empower the Colonial-office to disallow colonial
laws, to cause colonial bills to be reserved, and to in-
struct colonial governors as to their conduct in the local
affairs of the colonies; and for the purpose of adding
clauses enumerating and defining imperial and colonial
powers. He said this Bill raised two questions, one of
which was a special question with reference the
Australian colonies, namely, what would be the
best form of government for those colonies?
That question had been fully considered in
Committee, and he would not ask the House to re •
verse their decision upon it. The other question bad not
yet been discussed; that was, what amount of self-go-
vernment a colony ought to possess? Now the Noble
Lord (Lord John Russell) bad admitted that a colony
ought to possess the greatest amount of self-government
consistent with the integrity of the mother country.
This Bill would not secure that end. If it passed in its
present shape, there was not a single act which the Co-
lonial Government or. the Legislature could do without
the express or implied sanction of the Colonial-office. If
this Bill were to pass, a colonial governor would be a
mere puppet of the Colonial-office, pulled by the
wires in Downing-street. The Colonial-office by
this Bill would have the power to annul any
act of the colonial governor. It was evi-
dent that by this Bill the Colonial-office would continue
to possess all those obnoxious powers which they now
held. He would ask to whom all these vast powers were
to to granted? To persons who had never had expe-
rience who were obliged to trust to second-hand informa-
tion, who were necessarily ignorant and generally misin-
formed. It would be easy for him to take colony after
colony, and to mention the numerous instances of the
evil effects, both to this country and to the colonies, from
this system. But perhaps the Hon. Gentleman the Under-
Secretary of State for the Colonies was instructed to say
that such errors would never again be committed, that
these powers would be used with the greatest circumspec-
tion. If the menaces of the colonists were unattended to acts
of retaliation on their part might follow, and they perhaps
wouldce d lead to the repentance of this country—such, for
insta, as the remonstrances of Canada, the menaces
of New South Wales, the murmurs of New Zealand, and
now the demand of the inhabitants of the Cape of
Good Hope for free institutions. The Colonial-office
was, in fact, a weak, ill-tempered, and vacillating
authority, which tyrannized over the people, and brought
this country into universal hatred and repugnance. The
question, therefore, was how they could give the colonies
the greatest amount of self-government consistent with
the position which this country occupied. He main-
tained that the inhabitants were entitled to certain
rights and privileges, which ought to be reconciled
with the local condition of each particular colony,
and the maintenance of its allegiance with the mother
I country. The colonial Parliaments were entitled to
possess powers corresponding to those enjoyed by the
British Parliament, with the exception of having an
imperial power, for there could be no doubt if they had
such power that they would become distinct empires,
and form no longer an integral portion of the
British dominions. Then came the question, how
was this to be given to them. The greatest amount
of self-government was not inconsistent with the
purity and , integrity of the British empire.
The immediate question' then, for them to decide was
how to draw the line of demarcation between imperial
and colonial powers; to decide that question they must
determine what were colonial powers, and then those
which were not enumerated must be taken as imperial
powers; or they must first settle what were imperial
powers, and leave those unenumerated to be con-
sidered as colonial powers. Now he proposed to
adopt the latter course, because colonial powers
were not so easily determined as imperial.
Excepting those imperial powers he proposed to give the
colonial Parliament all the power they were possessed
by the British Legislature, and in order to establish
what those imperial powers were, he had taken Black-
stone far his guile. In domestic matters the Crown
enjoy ed the prerogative of passing its veto
upon all measures passed by the Legisla-
ture, whether in the colonies or at home.
New that prerogative could not be individually exercised
by the Crown, and so tar as the colonies were con-
cerned, it was delegated to the Home-office, who,
in its turn, sometimes delegated it to colonial
governors. He proposed to transfer this veto to
the governor and council of the colony.—(llear.)
The colonial Parliament should be restricted from
touching the royal; prerogatives, some of which, how-
ever, he proposed to transfer to the colonial governor.
He proposed to vest all the imperial powers in a person
appointed by the Colonial-office, paid by them and re-
sponsible to them, and the colonial powers in an officer
paid and appointed by the Colonial Legislature.
To remove the colonial governor he proposed that an
address to the Crown shall be necessary. With regard
to the colonial Parliaments, he proposed to restrict them
from interfering with any foreign relations, with the
command of the imperial forces, and from violating
certain principles of polity which he held to be
sacred, such as the establishment of slavery,
&c. With these exceptions, he proposed that the
colonial Government should have the same powers as
the Imperial Parliament; and he would establish a
supreme court, which should ,have the power of deciding
all matters connected with the acts of the colonial legis-
lature. In this he 'was justified by the example of the
American judicial system. In support of this scheme of
his ho might quote many eminent authors; and if this
country had listened to such doctrines as these she would
never have lost the North American colonies, and he was
entitled to say, he thought that there was an analogy
between the system of the United States and what ought
to be our colonial system. And in order to give to the
colonies the greatest amount of self-government which
was consistent with the unity and integrity of the em-
pire, he proposed to withdraw all control over the colonial
legislature from the Colonial-office, and to vest it, by the clauses which he now brought forward, in a separate
tribunal. The Hon. Baronet concluded by moving that
the Bill be now recommitted.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said he agreed that the ma-
nagement of local concerns should be given as
far as possible to these colonies, and that the inter-
ference of the Imperial Government should be confined
to those cases where the safety of the imperial interests
was concerned, and where it was necessary to restrain
the colonial inhabitants from acting in a hostile or inju-
rious manner to each other, and it was not to the object
cf the Hon. Baronet that he offered any opposition, but
his objection was that he was firmly convinced
that the scheme of the Hon. Baronet, and the
machinery by which he proposed to carry it out,
would, so far from having a beneficial effect, introduce
contu&ion and discontent into every part of our
colonial empire to which he proposed to extend the
measure. What, in fact, was the principle of
the Bill? The Honourable Gentleman undertook in
an Act of Parliament to define the prerogatives of
the Crown, and ho mentioned nineteen instances in
which the colonists were to have no jurisdiction; but
as to all other rights beyond these they were to act
as they pleased. Now he maintained that it was im-
possible in any Act of Parliament to define the rights
of the Crown with precision, or to separate

t 136'
)
.. Mr. GLADSTONE would briefly state wheoe
wished to imply by the vote he proposed to give.,oo 0
' Right Hon. Gentleman had stated it was impostiet
,e 0
draw a line of demarcation between the power f;_rr, 0
Crown on the one hand and the power of the Legtiti'G, 1
tive Assembly on the other. It would be too Intl° oo IP
assert in strong terms a direct negative to this Olteni
but thin he, would say, that the object the most /a].
able and important to obtain was to emancipate the
lonial legislature from all control, save that which ' t'
GLo
imposed by certain Imperial questions. This objet :I so
considered second to none in importance. He 131- ' be assurance of its perfect practicability t',
,go, 'odr
thought it ought to be formally and carefully 00 had' id
and that vague opinions of the difficulty of se intro! 06
these subjects ought not to be considered a suffi,e' tg,"
answer to a motion that contemplated practical Alec to
The system had been tried in some of our 11°,r, V
American colonies—they had been subject to no
~„c", a,i
trol, and had been found to grow and pre spa* in ''',l /A
sequence of this system. If the Act r mired, B°7l fr
found to require amendment, they would imin be calls if
should he laws of Englande' override tl
upon by the colonial legislature to ar
.tend it. ,",) r
lature ?He wished to rid this country of the necesLei lof interfering with matters at a diets ice, over which 13,
could not exercise efficient control. This subject ceg so
toutoe examined by persons of le gal knowledge 8 iili
aen—and they ought to decide ff holy:1r, with Cate ge
exc:ptienel ettses, the colonies Coe id not with advacr ,ilf
be left to manage their own tiff:4i es, so that theyjnt ,0
as colonial legs li
get rid of an administrative
worked in a way to cause pair ful divisions and t°
volve us in serious national discredit and disgraCe Of
(Hear.) Ho troubled the fiouse with these reola!' r' pie
because he was anxious to ' Jeer testimony to apricel
Which aas one of great ye
,itte and importance.
The House then divide d, when there appeared--
1 iepartmect which. ,02.