INSPECTION OF COAL MINES BILL. MR. FORSTER complained that this Bill had been galloped through its previous stages in a most unseemly way, which precluded all discussion upon it. He should not oppose the Bill; but it was very necessary to caution the public and the workmen in collieries against relying upon it as a substitute for that caution, prudence, and personal vigilance which alone could prevent those fatal accidents. If, relying on the Bill, they relaxed that care which alone could secure them against danger, the most fearful results might follow. In the case of the large collieries, like that with which he was himself connected, the Bill must be a dead letter, because they had as competent inspectors always on the spot as could be found by the Government to act under the Bill. In their workings they employed 1,500 men and boys, and for the last fifteen years their casualties had not exceeded on an average more than one man a year. The same caution and the same system prevailed in the other large collieries belonging to the Earl of Durham, the Marquess of Londonderry, and others. Then, with respect to the smaller collieries, he very much doubted whether the Bill would not do more harm than good in their case, by removing a portion of the responsibility from the owners to the Government inspectors. This sort of legislative interference with trade was most dangerous, particularly in a case of this kind, where you attempt to supply individual care and prudence by Act of Parliament, which is impossible. But it was most important that it should go forth to the workmen that there was nothing in this Act to protect them against the consequences of their own reckless imprudence, and that any reliance upon it for that purpose would be most fatal to their own security. Read 3°; Amendments made; Bill passed, with Amendments. COPYRIGHT OF DESIGNS BILL-EXHIBI TION OF 1851. Order for Committee read. COLONEL SIBTHORP said, that in consequence of the unsatisfactory replies given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the First Minister of the Crown, to questions respecting the expenditure of public money for the Exhibition of 1851, he begged to repeat the questions he had already put on this subject. He had a right to call on the Government to state whether they intended to propose a grant of public money for this purpose or not, and he considered it most unfair and unparliamentary in Ministers to refuse a distinct answer. He thought it would be a gross abuse of the public funds to give one sixpence for such a purpose. Let them say at once, in plain terms, whether they meant to give anything or not. The articles to be imported for this Exhibition were to be admitted without duty, and though it was pretended that when they were taken out and sold the duty was to be paid, he ventured to say they would be allowed to be sold without any duty at all. Where there was a will there was a way. There was such a thing as a Government seal, and smuggling might be permitted. He should feel bound to move a resolution "that it is expedient not to advance or expend any sums of public money for the purpose of carrying into operation the works of the proposed Exhibition of 1851," and he should divide the House upon it, unless he had a distinct declaration from Ministers that they would not make any proposition to the effect he had stated. MR. SPEAKER informed the hon. and gallant Member that the House could not entertain his Amendment, as the Bill before the House was for amending the Act relating to the copyright of designs, and there was nothing in the preamble which concerned the Exhibition of 1851. COLONEL SIBTHORP said, he had had his say, and did not care. House in Committee; the several clauses agreed to. House resumed. Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered on Monday. MR. LABOUCHERE said, that he should move the third reading, as well as the report, on Monday. COLONEL SIBTHORP objected to this as a most unusual course. MR. SPOONER thought it would be much more satisfactory to the public, if they had a distinct statement from the noble Lord at the head of the Government that no public money would be required for the purposes of this Exhibition. SIR H. WILLOUGHBY begged to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he had any objection to give an assurance to this effect? The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, on this as on other occasions on which the subject had been broached, he must refuse to give any such pledge or promise as was demanded of him, and he hoped the hon. Member would not press his request. He had only to say that means had been taken for providing for the whole expense of this Exhibition. His noble Friend and himself had said so, he would not say how often in the course of this Session, but certainly very often, and nothing had occurred to make any changes in their views and intentions on the matter necessary. The House adjourned at half-after Two o'clock till Monday next. -mmmmm HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, August 12, 1850. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-1a Crime and Outrage Act (Ireland) Continuance; London Bridge Approaches; Savings Banks (Ireland). 2 Spitalfields and Shoreditch New Street; General Board of Health (No. 3); Medical Charities (Ireland); Friendly Societies; Transfer of Improvement Loans (Ireland); Law Fund Duties (Ireland). Reported. Westminster Temporary Bridge; Portland Harbour and Breakwater; Customs; Assessed Taxes Composition; Stamp Duties (No. 2); Assizes (Ireland). Resolved in the Affirmative. House in Committee accordingly. Bill reported without amendment. MEDICAL CHARITIES (IRELAND) BILL. The EARL of LUCAN said, this Bill stood for a second reading to-night, and, as it only came up from the House of Commons on Saturday, he wished to ask the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) whether he intended to proceed with it at this late period of the Session? The measure was one of considerable importance, and he would suggest its postponement until next Session, as it would be impossible for their Lordships to consider it before the rising of the House. Several Noble LORDS also concurred in the expediency of postponing the mea sure. The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE could not press the Bill against the almost unanimous request of their Lordships. He was perfectly ready to yield 3a National Gallery (Edinburgh); Duke of Cam-to the desire which had been expressed, at bridge's Annuity; Marlborough House; Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland); Poor Relief; Police Superannuation Fund. PORTLAND HARBOUR AND BREAK- The EARL of CARLISLE moved that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. LORD REDESDALE said, he objected to the Bill, because it was opposed by the great majority of the inhabitants of the island, and because it would deprive them of their rights and property in a manner quite unprecedented. He should move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The EARL of CARLISLE defended the Bill. On Question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion, Their Lordships divided:-Contents 18; Not-Content 6: Majority 12. List of the CONTENTS. Leitrim Minto Strafford Norwich BISHOP. BARONS. Beaumont Campbell Eddisbury Foley Sudeley the same time throwing the responsibility of postponing the Bill on the noble Lords who had called for it. When consenting that the Bill should not be proceeded with so as to pass this Session, he hoped their Lordships would not object to its being read a second time as a matter of form. The principle of the measure he believed to be good, namely, to combine local management with central supervision. By combining and consolidating the medical charities of Ireland, a very large saving might be effected; and the Bill on their Lordships' table was calculated to give satisfaction to the people of Ireland, to the proprietors of different charities, and, he could not avoid adding, to the medical profession of that country. Several petitions had been presented in favour of the Bill, and not one, as far as he was aware, against it. But he agreed with the noble Earl that it could not be properly urged forward by the Government at that stage of the Session. The EARL of LUCAN said, there could be no objection to giving the Bill a second reading, provided it went no further. was a measure that had been very imperfectly considered in the House of Commons; and if there was one Bill more than another which deserved to be carefully considered, it was that Bill. LORD REDESDALE threw the responsibility of postponing the Bill upon the Government, who had impeded and delay- | great question, and it was impossible for ed its progress in the House of Commons. Bill read 2a. SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL. Bill read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments. The EARL of LUCAN said, that some legislation was necessary with respect to the practice which had become so prevalent in Ireland of carrying away crops. He now intended to propose an additional clause intended to repress that crime. But, first, he would take the opportunity of denying a report which had been circulated, that he was the author of the Landlord and Tenant Bill. He had had nothing to do with it, and was the only person on that side of the House who had objected to its provisions. He could not believe that if Her Majesty's Government were really in earnest in wishing to put a check to the system of depredation which prevailed in Ireland, they would be disposed to make any objection to the reasonable proposition he was going to make. He was at a loss to know what defence the Government could give of their conduct, in permitting the state of turbulence and violence, and the loss of life which prevailed last year, in consequence of large bodies of persons assembling to assist tenants in carrying off their crops, to continue without making any attempt to put a stop to it. It had been proposed in the House of Commons, during the debate upon that Bill, to assimilate the law of England and Ireland on the subject of landlord and tenant; and his proposition was, to insert a clause in the Bill giving the Irish proprietor the same protection which the English proprietor enjoyed. The noble Earl then read the clause, which was to the following effect : "And be it enacted, that if any tenant, lessee, or occupier of land, or any other person, shall knowingly and fraudulently take or carry away any goods or chattels from his land, in order to prevent any payment of rent, it shall and may be lawful for any landlord, lessor, or owner of the land, to exhibit a complaint against such tenant, lessee, or other person, before two justices of the peace, who may examine, convict, and in a summary way determine the same.' The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE could not consent to the insertion of the clause proposed by the noble Earl, though he would not then enter into an argument on the subject. The observation of the noble Earl referred to but part of a very Parliament to legislate wholly on one side of that question. It was one which should not be taken up piecemeal; and while care should be taken for one party, the interests, and, he might say, the rights of the other, should not be neglected. It would be necessary both for landlords and tenants that this subject should be considered next Session; and a most difficult one it would be found to be. The EARL of GLENGALL said, the clause now proposed contained a summary of the law in England with regard to fraudulent tenants; and the same law had existed in Ireland until that most absurd of reports, the Devon Report, was issued, which recommended its abolition. The Commissioners had disagreed respecting that report; but, seeing that they must do something, they at last settled among themselves that the nostrums of each were to be agreed to. The settlement reminded him of the plan of putting a parcel of Motions into a hat, and adopting them according as they were drawn out. Now, the fact at present in Ireland was, that many of the tenants, with the view of evading the payment of rent, were removing their crops from one county into another. The question might be called a landlord and tenant one; but, in his opinion, it would be found a poor-rate question, a county-cess question, and a question greatly affecting the petty creditors of the fraudulent farmers. Was this state of things to be permitted to continue until next February or March, and was Ireland to be kept quiet by allowing every man to rob his neighbour? He regretted to find that the tenant-right meetings now being held in Dublin were attended by many of the Presbyterian clergy, as well as by large numbers of Roman Catholic priests; and he concluded by deprecating the strong language which had been used in the House of Commons in the course of the late debates against the Irish landlords. LORD REDESDALE approved of the clause, though he considered it might endanger the safety of the Bill; and therefore he hoped his noble Friend would withdraw it. Still, he was so sensible of the merit of the principle involved in the clause, that if it went to a division he must support it. The EARL of LUCAN said, he should certainly divide their Lordships upon it, as he could not consent to relieve Her Majesty's Government from the responsibility LORD MONTEAGLE said, that the rejection of the clause at present might throw difficulties in the way of a just consideration of the whole case next Session. Still, the allusion of the noble Marquess with respect to piecemeal legislation came in the wrong place; because if they waited for a general system of legislation on the subject it would never come at all. He hoped the noble Earl would not press the clause to a division. which attached to them, arising out of the | Now, if it were proper to give this power present state of things in Ireland. over houses situated in any city, town, or village, why should it not be extended to houses in every part of the country? He could see no reason; and therefore he proposed to leave out the words "situated in any city, town, or village," the effect of which would be to extend the jurisdiction to houses all over the country. To a certain extent, this would assimilate the law of England and Ireland. He appealed to the noble Marquess, whether this proposition was not totally unobjectionable. If the noble Marquess saw fit to reject the Amendment, upon him he would place the responsibility of all the ejectments and pulling down of houses that might hereafter take place. The EARL of LUCAN said, the principle upon which the House of Commons had acted was the principle of communism, namely, to remove all protection from property. [Earl GREY: No, no!] He was not surprised at the interruption of the noble Earl, as his relative had opposed a similar proposal in the Commons. He wondered that he had sat silent so long. EARL GREY thought it perfectly clear that whatever might be done in another Session, the introduction of the clause now would only cause the loss of the Bill, upon which they were all agreed. On Question, that the Clause stand part of the Bill, Their Lordships divided :-Content 6; Non-Content 22: Majority 16. List of the Not Contents. The EARL of LUCAN said, that he had another Amendment, and he could not allow the Bill to pass without giving their Lordships an opportunity of considering it. The noble Earl, adverting to the defective state of the law, and the evils that existed, the ejectments and the pulling down of houses, said, it could not be denied that such a system unfortunately prevailed, but it prevailed contrary to the wishes of the proprietors. The alteration he proposed was this: By the 31st clause jurisdiction was given to the justices over all houses and parts of houses, provided those houses were situated in any city, town, or village. The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE said, that the Amendment moved by the noble Earl raised a question of landlord and tenant, which had nothing to do with this Bill. The noble Earl proposed to extend the jurisdiction to houses in all the rural districts; but the effect of that would be to include all the houses that were left for a calendar month-a result the noble Earl would scarcely desire. The Amendment of the noble Earl would give rise to a discussion on the whole question of landlord and tenant, and the present Bill was not intended to meddle with that subject. The EARL of LUCAN defied the noble Marquess to bring forward a good reason for rejecting the Amendment. The noble Marquess's objection was, that it would bring the power into the rural districts; but he must ask his attention to the fact that the Bill applied to "villages ;" and what were villages but rural districts? He complained that the noble Marquess would give no reasonable ground of objection to a reasonable proposition for amend ment. Amendment negatived. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons. CRIME AND OUTRAGE ACT (IRELAND) CONTINUANCE BILL. The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE moved the First Reading of this Bill, which had just been brought up from the House of Commons. The noble Marquess explained that the Bill was, in substance, the same as that which had already received their Lordships' assent; but, on its going down to the other House, it was discovered there that one of its clauses interfered with the privileges of that House. In but he must, in justice to them, say, that they had taken great pains to have their tables based on sound calculations, since the report of their Lordships on the subject. The noble Lord concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill. LORD REDESDALE was extremely sorry the Bill had come before their Lordships so late in the Session, as it introduced a new principle into the management of friendly societies which ought to have been fully and maturely considered. To some of the details he objected; and he trusted their Lordships would pause before they assented to all of them, because it was quite possible that these societies might change their character and become converted from provident institutions into others of an objectionable, not to say dangerous, nature. He would not object to the second reading of the Bill; but he recommended that they should strike out all the clauses in which distinctions were drawn between registered and certificated societies. He hoped also that means would be adopted to get rid of secret signs in these societies. LORD MONTEAGLE hoped the Bill would pass; there was much force in the objections which could be urged against some of its provisions. He should be very glad if the evils of the burial clubs, which had led to the spread of child murder to such a horrible extent, would be got rid of by some of the enactments of the Bill. FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL. LORD BEAUMONT, in moving the Second Reading of the Friendly Societies Bill, expressed his regret that it should have come into the House at this late period of the Session; but, as their Lordships had had the opportunity on an antecedent occasion of discussing the subject, and as the most minute attention had been given in the other House to all the details of the measure, he hoped their Lordships would waive that objection. It was most important to avoid delay; for the principles upon which friendly societies were conducted, both in England and Ireland, were most anomalous, and required a speedy remedy. The amount of money invested in these societies, and the number of their members, were very large, and showed the great importance of the subject. According to a summary he held in his hand, there were actually 3,050,000 persons, or almost one to two of the whole adult male population. The annual revenue amounted to 4,985,000l., and the accumulated fund to 11,360,000l. The Bill introduced many improvements in the present law, and also made provisions with respect to the mode of conducting these societies, which he believed to be perfectly safe, as far as they went; and he thought they went as far as it would be safe to go. It was most important that the Bill should now pass forthwith; for if it were not at once to become law, there would be time for incalculable evils to arise before the Legis- The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE lature could have again the opportunity of moved the consideration of the report on interposing to prevent them. Friendly this Bill. LORD BEAUMONT would not pledge himself to make the alteration suggested, but consented to give notice for To-morrow, of a suspension of the Standing Orders, in order that the question might be considered in time to obtain the consent of the Commons, should the alteration be made. Bill read 2a. SECURITIES (IRELAND) ACT AMEND- societies were divided by the Bill into two The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that classes, namely, registered societies and his objections to the Bill had not been recertified societies. The only power given moved since the second reading. He conto the former was the right to sue and be tended that it involved a dangerous innosued. This was necessary to prevent em-vation of the principles by which the powers bezzlement of the funds by officers, or the and functions of trusteeship had hitherto withholding the sums due to rightful claim- been regulated. ants. The Odd Fellows, the Foresters, &c. would be registered societies, as their tables could not be certified by an actuary; The EARL of GLENGALL concurred partially in the view taken by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, but |