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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 6.
PROCESS AND PRACTICE (IRELAND) BILL.
The Earl of CARLISLE moved that the committal of
.his 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 went through Committee proforma, 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
for legislative interference for the better ventilation and
regulation of coal mines. Ile said there was no class in
her Majesty's dominions that was better entitled to
the consideration of the Le:islature, 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. Ho 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.
Itiappeared 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
Were 349; in 1840 th© 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 perfect 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-
laVon. 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, he 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 bad 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. Ho was sure that the Government would
see the great importance of guarding them as much as
possible from accident. The Committee, however, on
the other 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 record 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 tu:ned out that it was a heiti,-; 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, us the proofs came 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 parEculars. 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 wa, caused, and, to avoid the clangor of

defeating the ends of justice, ------—the
Pt.
an i•--- •----'-' • a'. i . 'to "/
4wctaitut f,r murder, it shouhelluanstulfhiricttehuf:,%:
tha' a pers:;n, or; such a day and place, murdered gifbile
person. That would of all existing deie6ef old
itb gave the prisoner every advanta.o to which b :
e ',ith
3 ftirly entitled. There were other enactments ,-ary
the :sallo view, with which ho did not think it needs
to trouble their Lordships.
The Bill was then read a second time, and th_ eir id ord'
ships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 6'
ILL.
AUSTRALIAN COLONIES GOVERNMENTS et)
(Continued from our Third Edition of last night reply
Mr. A DI)ERLEY had never heard so meagre,a Tbs
tO an elaborate scheme of colonial governmenieefrece
Right Hon. Gentleman who had undertaken the " tes to
of the Government Bill had taken up just 10 loielleoeett
reply to the clever speech of the Honourable 13("Gee-
but it would seem that the Right Honourabloss. 9
tleman treated the plan propounded oteir
mad scheme, and it was unworthy of bit serieti
tion. But if the Right Hoe. Gentleman th"ughttotioe
why did he venture to tell the House that the wool
only served to re-open a question which httucideeey)
times been decided in Committee? Ile (Mr. d Wee
denied that it was a mad scheme, or that it h,41 s. alto"
decided before. It was entirely a new question
es'
gather; what they had been discussing hitherto that
whether or no it was the wish of the colonies bo
there should be one or two chambers. Tbele +/bat
settled that matter, and now they had to deternunv toes
was the best plan of carrying out the liberal merit" .the
were to be extended to the colonies ~1' co•
Bib'. They had already decided that tun local
lonies were able to =rap their own to de
affairs, and all that they were now called
was to put an end to the meddling 'au° thee?
the Colonial-office, so that the colonies ~juts
selves should have the fullest optiortg',,,,et.
of testing the principle of self-govern re out
The principles laid down by the Government
carried out; they attempted to give to the
sort of bastard constitution, something of act° boa
tween that cf Russia sled England. Theydovent
promised to give the colonies a right to hb,
their own local affairs, but, instead of doing oth,t,„.- own
vernment proposed to take the subject in tue`r-lose
hands and govern, but with a looser rein.
solo'
ever, the Right Hon. Gentleman thou ht that the g 11a
g
nists would be satisfied with the scheme be Pr op °
floc
for their Government, he would find himself very 7, themistaken. The Right Hon. Gentleman objeete°
al
plan of the Hon. Baronet on the ground that law
tempted an impossibility—namely, attempted to, pee
the royal prerogative ; but was it not one of the the
vileges of Englishmen to define the prerogative °,.go'
Crown ? This was indeed a strange and curious 7lote
went t_, be used by a Whig Minister. The Righl,s,„ pro'
Gentleman objected that the plan would define tu:oir
rotative; but if he (Mr. Adderley) was not intle'ettor
taken—and he spoke uader the correction of the the
ney-General—there was a succession of statutes fro
Edwards downward!, defining that attribute eif test
Crown. The Right Hon. Gentleman then urged jogd
there were some prerogatives of the Crown toil
from the plan of the Hon. Baronet, and he ilia"' gai
the proclamation of martial law as among thew. o'o
fortunately, however, for the Right Hon. Gentle& to
argument, it had been held necessary very receen,ifoo'
proclaim martial law in Ceylon. Did the Rig," ro'
Gentleman mean to say that it should not have hfel3, 'OO
claimed on that occasion by Lord Torrington, olle• tee
it should have come from the Queen throng do to
Colonial-office, upon appplicatien to that effect reesresi
ID the Government in this country. The value of lo
law consisted in the promptitude of its apeliet"feeet
eases of necessity; but to follow out the eroPeP'teo
couched in the Right Hon. Gentleman's objection, net
rat cessity would have ceased to exist, in the case of dliseLbo
colony, before permission to apply martial law Cot; oso
obtained from this country. The Right Hon. Gentle tbo
had asserted that there was no analogy betwee-,, the
United States and the English colonies, because bet'
United States were each net so distant from the boa
as Australia was from England. But the li,
as die
Gentleman forgot that it was this very element 0,1 jar
tance that rendered the separation of the local anegoie
perial functions, sought to be established by the or
Baronet, absolutely necessary, and gave all the greefteo
strength to the arguments of the Hon. Baronet- there
-
Australian colonies were as near as Cornwall, then t'
1100
would be no need of a separate constitution for t'tives
but it was their distance that rendered it imperna-ra•
The Right Hon. Gentleman had argued as if a 807,10,
tion of the local and Imperial Government of the e° s,
vies was an impossibility. But where was the at
sibility ? in what did it consist? The theory ws,,g;-,etO
a line should be drawn between the two on'-',,J0016
of legislation, ono of which was proposed to be "or
with by the mother country alone ' • the etocel
entirely local, and to be dealt with as such by the.'
Legislature. The truth was they could never clash, ; it,
the Right Hon. Gentleman had no argument ageO3',,,fs
only au objection. There were, in fact, plenty of Pri"ito
not alone of the possibility of separation, hut°,,,hieli
propriety; and not one against it. The first proof " ofe,
might be adduced was, that there had never been 111:1
tee
gregate empire without such a separation. Tin: tie
whole of history showed. The second proof was, t'ull 0
all the early American colonies such separatierEle,:e'
made. :The third was, that in the United States of g
rice that separation was even now in the course of "etch
carried out; and the fourth was, that in the Bill wb-eflf
had been prepared by themselves they bad aqua et
attempted to effect such separation. In corroboratie" of
his first proofs he read a long extract from the work 0
Mr. Gibbon Wakefield; the second, he state', !de
fully set forth by the Honourable Baronet in the
of his able speech. The third was shown by the ass
tory of the United States; while the fourth no
supported by the Bill itself. Why not, he asked, raga
advantage of the opportunity, and adopt the OW
system of separation proposed by the Hon. Bar013;00
The idea of the American Congress had taken posseeeibe
of Lord Grey's mind in preparing the Bill; btlt,bst
Noble Lord made the grave mistake of not seeing ie
the proper congress of the Australian colonies "toe
London, and that the president of that congress w0,,,,t1h,,bei
her Majesty the Queen of this country. If theld
Lord had succeeded in creating this congress, he lee
take the rudest way that could be conceived to c—s, o'
the colonies from England. There was something °",:eg
lutely startling in the Bill of the Government n t-eas
the first time in the history of the world that a met,
politan power proposed to form a sub-metroPlog
power for the achievement of the same objects. t3eelei
that the Ministers had promised local governoe-re
to the colonies, and then said that they
'""
g, the-
not able to give it—gratuitously refusing, in r
what they had promised—the question was, wee • I
the Bill did not contain materials which the coie-ljeo
might wrest to the purposes cf self-government' tbe
support of the view that the colonists did not look t;),,,-tes
Bill for a chance of local self-government, the Hon. L''gr
tleman read an extract from a recently-arrived ntl°7-ies
of the New South Wales Vindicator. What the colon 4
looked for was a loophole in the Bill out of which twee
could wring self-government. The Hon, Gentle aO,
then read a letter from a colonist decrying the
nouncing the Government, and stating that the,:poe
would irritate the eoloniSts, but would not content te, I
He, therefore, appealed to her Majesty's Governol
.300
whether it would not he better to adopt the proPeniti to
of the Hon. Baronet, or some other proper measure' to
meet the requirements of the colonies, rather then et,
force the Bill before the House through Parlititeei-ea
against their own expressed conviction; and he apPe6;),
to the House, under the circumstances,
whether. t-•eo
would vote with the Government against the pro..,ige
that had been so repeatedly made of local self-go'o
went for the colonies.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir G. GREY would not enter on the wide field *
discussion opened up by the Hon. Gentleman, but e`
fine himself to the specific question before the Bo' e,
Test
question Tsai, whether the Bill should be r '0
committed for the purpose of considering call:, )f ,
clauses proposed by the Hon. Baronet the Member '
Southwark. These clauses proposed to give the colon' tO
legislature unrestricted power of legislation, reserving
the Imperial Parliament the power of legislating for I; 0)
perial matters alone. This, in his (Sir G. Greyfi o
opinion, would be highly objectionable. The '
Gentleman had mistaken the argument of his Rag .
Hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade wb0'
he charged him with inconsistency in opposing the Pt
position of the Hon. Baronet, and defending the Bih
the ground of definition in respect to the royal prerof
tive. But in his (Sir G. Grey's) opinion the great 1 ea
jection to the clauses in question was, that they show pie
the absurdity of any such definition. The extra 10
vagueness of the definition they proposed was fatal eto
them ; because there was nothing more likely to crs the
a collision between the Imperial Government and or
several local legislatures than such vagueness and iIE" the,
tainty. The powers sought to be conferred on /eV
colonial legislature by the clauses could not be se oelt
exercised under these circumstances, and the r' 00°
would be, as he had stated, continual collision betsoll/
, them and the mother country, without any possil tee/
of an harmonious arrangement of the differences
caused it. t
JIB
Mr. GLADSTONE would briefly state wb
wished to imply by the vote he proposed to give. le to
Right Hon. Gentleman had stated it was impossi' the
draw a line of demarcation between the power ndisle
Crown on the one hand and the power of the 10 )5 tn
tive Assembly on the other. It would be too In 9""ioatf
assert in strong terms a direct negative to this star o`,,olte
but this he would say, that the object the most cc'
able and important to obtain was to emancipate ests°
lonial legislature from all control, save that whit 1. 'Jt Do
imposed by certain Imperial question!. This of i eta St/
considered second to none in importance. He h:
t be
much assurance of its perfect practicability tb loth
thought it ought to be formally and carefully axan 10
and that vague opinions of the difficulty of sepal' ',"oieni
these subjects ought not to be considered a sub
answer to a motion that contemplated practical of 4'oo
The system had been tried in some of our I
American colonies—they had been subject to no ootl'
trol, and had been found to grow and prosper in fle
sequence of this system. If the Act
passed,- .
found to require amendment, they would again be fel'li;
upon by the colonial legislature to amend it ,
should the laws of England override the colonia .:41c1
of
fture ? He wished to rid this country of the in feel" it
interfering with matters at a distance, over sv hic"o.jett
could not exercise efficient control. This subjec oat' ,3
to be examined by persons of legal knowled go - •
cern°
acumen—and they ought to decide whether, witho
exceptional cases, the colonies could not with ad ""n;t6
be left to manage their own affairs, so that the y at 11)
get rid of an administrative department wb iil
worked in a way to cause painful divisions and tie,.
volvo us in serious national discredit and ge 'l5
ar ci
(Hear.) He troubled the House with these texas 't
because he was anxious to bear testimony to a arlinc
which was one of great value and importance.
The House then divided, when there appears ti—