The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-02 00:00:00

SLAVE TRADE.

The Bishop of OXFORD presented several petitions
praying the House to adopt measures to compel the Go-
vernm.ints of Brazil Rini Spain to du away with the slave
trade in compliance with the treaties which they had
entered into with this coutury. Ile trusted the prayer
of these petitiin; would be attended to.

Lord iIROUGIIAII supi.orted the prayer of these
petitions.
NAVY PAY BILL.

Oa the motion of Earl GREY this Bill was read a
second time.

AFFAIRS OF THE RIVER PLATE.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE laid on the cable the
convention entered into with the Argentine Confedera-
tion. _ _

SALARIES IN THE POST-OFFICE.

The Earl of ST. GEHMANS wished to draw
the attention of the Government to the smallness
of the salaries paid to the Post-office clerks in the
money-office. Some of the clerks received only a sa-
lary of 70/. a year, and many of them had passed
through the Insolvent Court, and the judges had ex-
pressed their surprise at the smallness of their salaries.
He asked if the Noble Marquis intended to pro-
pose to the Treasury to increase the salaries of
these clerks ? lie also asked how it came to
pass that several clerks in the office had been
recently passed over, and a clerk from Edinburgh
promoted over their heads ? It bad been stated
that this was in con-equence of a memorial which these
clerks had presented to the Postmaster-General, com-
plaining of curtain regulations, among others that com-
pelling them to find substitutes in case of absence. That
memorial had given offence to a gentleman high in posi-
tion in the Post-office, and on the office of chief clerk of
the money order office becoming vacant, he called toge-
ther those clerks who in right of seniority would have
received promotions in consequence of that vacancy, and
requtsted them to withdrak their names from the me-
morial. This they refused to do, and on that account a
person not connected with the London office was put
over their heads. As this circumstance had been alluded
to elsewhere, ho had thought it but right to give the
Noble Marquis the Postmaster-General an opportu-
nity of correcting the misrepresentations, if any there
were.

Messengers from the Commons here appeared at the
bar, and requested a second conference on the Irish
Franchise Bill, which was agreed to, and managers ap-
pointed en the part of their Lordships.
The Noble Larch, the managers, haring returned,
reported that the Commons had assigned their reasons
for disagreeing to the amendments of their Lordships
to the Irish Franchise Bill; when it was ordered
that they should be taken into consideration on Tues-
day next.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE then rose to rerly
to the observations made with regard to the money order
office of the Post-office. He admitted that the clerks in
that office were inadequately paid, but he could not hold
out an expectation that he c' aid recommend an increase,
or that the Treasury was prepared to grant it. Com-
paring the remuneration given in private establishments,
he could.not think the pay of these clerks so very low,
for if one of those clerks were to resign, he would have
five hundred applications for it, from parties competent
to discharge the duties. lie had also to state that the
situation of those clerks had been improved, within the
last few months a grant had been made to the proba-
tionary clerks. In the year 1846 there were one hun-
dred and twenty clerks at salaries of 701. a year, whereas
at present there were not more than fifty of that class.
With regard to the attack which had been made upon the
party who had been appointed to the office of chief clerk
in the money order office, ho had to say that it was un-
fair. The principle of seniority .could not be taken as
the sole qualification for the promotion, although long
serviCea end experience should not be disregarded. So
large a sum us eixteen millions passed through that
office annually, which rendered it a matter of great im-
portance that the chief clerk should be a person fully
competent to conduct so important a department. Mr.
Farmer had filled the office in Edinburgh, and was se-
lected as the most competent party to fill the same office
in London. He knew nothing of the party, and although
he had from time to time received applications to promote
parties in his department, )et. he had never received
single letter to promote this gentleman. He had been
selected for his merits alone. Then, with regard to the
complaint made of Mr. Hill's severity, when it was stated
that no clerk could get more than three days' leave of
absence, it appeared that the average leave amounted to
twenty days in the year, and an arrangement had been
now made by which each clerk could get a month's
leave every year. The arrangement by which the party
who had been ill—the arrangement by which he was
allowed to provide a substitute—was done through
kindness and consideration for him, that ho might re.
sumo' his situation when capable of discharging its
duties. This attack was most unfair. Though he ad-
mitted the remuneration of the clerks was small, he was
not prepared to recommend en increase.
The subject then dropped.
The third reading of the Borough Courts (Ireland)
Bill was postponed to this day week.
LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT.

Lord MONTEAGLE then rose to meve, " That an
humble address be presented to her Majesty for a Com-
' mission to inquire and report on the state of the law of
landlord and tenant in Great Britain and Ireland, show-
ing the differences existing in the laws as affecting the
two parts of the United Kingdom." Ile said this sub-
ject had been for many years before their Lordships. A
Commission was appo:uted in 1843 upon the subject,
which made its report in 1845, than which no other ever
did more evil or less good. He thought so important a
subject should not be left in a state of uncertainty. The
great evils of the system arose out of the injustice and
confiscations of former times, and from the penal laws,
for although these causes might have been removed, the
effects remained. Up to 1849 they were extricating
themselves from the difficulties they encountered in
Ireland. Many of the upper classes were broken by
famine, and many of the middle class were reduced to
the pauper elev. Had it not been for the measure
of 1833, the pauperism of England would have in-
creased. There was a duty and obligation to deal with
the subject in a somewhat] different manner in Ireland.
tie eau endeavoured to show that the mode of dealing
with property an 1 the landlords was encompassed with
difficulty. The occupiers itod the owners were frequently
at variance, and legislation between them was most diffi-
cult, for it might be injurious to both parties, If there
was any one thing which a purchaser of land should
know, it was under what law he purchased. He hoped
that the subject would be wisely - discussed next session.
But before they proceeded with legislation for Ireland,
text the
highest
they should make themselves welt acquainted with the
analogous law of England. Ile wanted, therefore, upon
rthitey,taablreeepforlt):rilloiawtn.
inegtit he, upon
le
of the'two countries, that they might select from both
statethe statute legal:
au
t law h o
laws with discrimination. Mistakes upon this subject
were made by most eminent persons, as
appeared a short
time ago upon the examination of Sir Edward Sudden
before a Commission of Parliament. What he stated in
reference to the law of distraint between the two coun-
tries to be en anomaly Was, in fact, the closest identity.
Well, if mistekes might be made by so eminent a per-
aonage, they might be male by others. The Noble Lord
here pointed out some of the differeeess between the laws
of the two countries. Whet he proposed would be a
foundation for remedying these differences. He con-
cluded by moving the resolution of which he had given
notice.

The LORD CETANCELLOR said that such a report,
however desirable, would be impossible to be obtained in
any useful or available form. The law must be gathered
from judicial decision, and the statutes and the construc-
tion of the law must depend in many cases upon parole
evidence and their Lordships' decision. The haw of
landlord and tenant was a vast subject, and contained
under many branches, and in many volumes. There
was the law of ejectment, the law of distress, and the law
of waste. The latter was a most complicated head.
There was the law of forfeiture, and a vast variety of
other heads, and the more leareed the expositions the
greater wouhl be the length of the report. Any one
given head would he vast enough; but to ask for a gene-
ral statement, without reference to any particular branch
of the law of landlord and tenant coul:i, even if it were
possible to supp!y it, from the uncertainty of decision,
lead to no practical result. By directing attention to
specific heads the object of the Noble Lord might, to
soma extent, possibly be effected He suggested the
withdrawal of the motion.
Lord MONTE A.G LE said that the Noble and Learned
Lord had to some extent misapprehended his object,
which was generally a description of the statute law of
the two countries respecting landlords and tenants in a
plain, accessible, and intelligible form. He therefore
hoped that the motion would be concurred in by their
Lordships, as he intended to enter on several particular
cases relative to the landlord and tenant question,

. ...._ ..
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that he con-
sidered that the information alre icly obtained through
the medium of Committees was far more facile from
remedying the existing evils that prevailed relative to
the landlord and tenant case in Ireland; and also he
felt it his duty to state that he perfectly concurred with
the Noble and Learned Lord (tbe Lord Chancellor)
when he stated that the present motion was to vague,
and that there was a necessity for some specific motion
for the purpose of remed)irg the law of landlord and
tenant in. Ireland, as he considered that the motion then
before the House would add to the complexity of the
present difficulties. Independent of the hopelessness of
any good result arising from tha issue of the Commis-
'aun, lie believed that there would be another mis-
chievous tendency, namely, that it would be the foun-
dation for exaggerated reports of the in' erference of
p
rliatnent on this question, and, moreover, he thought
that any change on the
prire;ple of property would be
bad, as the law on that point was common to England and
Ireland. Ile reretted much that he had to oppose
theo motion of thNoble Lord, because he was singularly