brought in a Bill for making a Harbour and Docks at Trinity, which was read a first time. On the motion that it be read a second time on Monday,

rose to oppose it. He said that every one must admire the zeal with which his hon. and gallant Friend persevered in bringing forward this Bill a third time, but he doubted much whether the House would consent to pass the measure, which had been kept so long before them in consequence of the blunders of the promoters of it. There was no precedent for granting such an indulgence as the suspending of the standing orders for a private Bill of this description, and he hoped the matter would be finally disposed of by rejecting the motion.

assured the House that he was taken completely by surprise on the introduction of a third Bill, and not the less so on reading that morning that the Committee had sanctioned such a proceeding. As he had left the room when the Bill was rejected, he could not say what had taken place afterwards; but this he knew, that if such an arrangement were entered into, he was no party to it. He had given his opinion before, that the parties were not entitled to the extraordinary indulgence which they sought for, and which could not be sustained by any precedent; but it would be entirely with the House to say whether they would uphold their privileges or not. In consequence of the connection of the Speaker with the place, they were precluded from having the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman on the merits of this Bill. All, therefore, he would now say was, that, if they agreed to the motion, it would be opening the door to a practice that would ultimately turn out to be extremely inconvenient.

, as one of the Members of the Standing Orders Committee, was disposed to support this Bill on its own intrinsic merits, and particularly so when he was informed that it was in danger of being rejected on account of the determined opposition to it. But when he reflected that this was the third time of its being before the House, and that it was owing to the blunders of the parties, and, moreover, when he looked to the late period of the Session, he confessed he should hesitate before giving his assent to the motion. With these feelings he could not consistently support the motion of his hon. Friend.

considered, that it would be extremely hard to reject this Bill, the second reading of which was carried by a majority of 64 to 19, on a mere clerical error. The only objection was, that the copy of the printed form of the Bill did not correspond in some few immaterial particulars with the House copy, when it was well known that the latter had become a perfect nullity. If the standing orders were to be now enforced, it would be pronouncing a condemnation on the Bill, and he would impress on his hon. Friend the justice and necessity of persevering in his motion.

said, there was no necessity for urging the hon. and gallant Member to persevere, for he had already shown great intrepidity in bringing in a third Bill on the day the second was re- jected. He was of opinion, that if the motion were now acceded to, it would be a signal triumph over the standing orders; and in future he should despair of upholding them. It was, therefore, in the last extremity that he would call on the Chair for an opinion on a subject of this description; but after the events of the previous day in the Committee, he should like to hear the opinion of the Speaker on the course now pursued by the promoters of the Bill.

was fully impressed with the importance of the opinion of the right hon. the Speaker, and hoped he would be induced to favour the House with it.

Whatever reluctance I may have felt, placed in the peculiar circumstances that I am under, to give an opinion with regard to this Bill, I can have no hesitation on the point, after the appeal that has been made to me. It is undoubtedly true, that this Bill appears to affect the interests of those I represent; but what I am about to say on the particular point now raised will be applicable to the general practice of the House, and will have no relation whatever to the merits of the Bill at present under consideration. This is a case where a party has already obtained the permission of the House to introduce a Bill a second time on account of an error that had been committed, and for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary expense. There is no doubt that such indulgence has been granted by the House in other cases. Indeed I could refer to a case that occurred no longer ago than last Session, in which the parties were allowed to repair an error arising from no fault of theirs, in order to avoid the expense of introducing a new Bill. When, however, the House is asked to give leave to introduce a new Bill, it is a fit and proper question for the House to consider whether the difficulty that has arisen, is not the act of the party making the application, and might have been avoided if due care and diligence had been used? It is of great importance to the House that those gentlemen who practise before it should be brought to use proper care and diligence; and it is the more necessary to enforce such care and diligence on their parts, since, in consequence of the recommendation of a Committee, the House now possesses but a slender hold upon them. Seeing that the pressure of private business is now every Session in- creasing, the House should be extremely cautious in extending any indulgence to parties to private Bills, and certainly such indulgence should only be granted were the parties have employed due care and diligence. Now, applying that principle to the case before the House, I should say that here is a case where the parties to the Bill, having already obtained the indulgence of the House, have failed in the careful and diligent performance of their duty; and it appears to me, therefore, to be a case no longer entitled to any favour from the House.

, after the high opinion that had been so clearly expressed, would not trouble the House further, but withdraw the Bill altogether.

, seeing the right hon. the President of the Board of Control in his place, would take that opportunity of asking what steps had been taken in respect of that important provision in the East-India Company's Charter relative to the abolition of slavery in India?

assured his hon. Friend, that the Government were fully impressed with the importance of the subject involved in the question of his hon. Friend, and grounded on the Charter of 1833; but he could only then inform him that the subject was left entirely in the hands of the local authorities in India, who were on the spot, and could apply the operation of the clause in the Act with better effect than those at a distance. They would take the matter into consideration, and submit to the home authorities certain regulations for the manumission of slaves. Until such a plan was sent home they could not take the subject into consideration. The House was aware that the local authorities had taken means to prevent the introduction or the exportation of slaves, and they had entered into several treaties for that purpose; but he was sorry to say, that at Goa, and other Portuguese settlements, the slave trade was still carried on to an extent which he regretted very much. He would take an opportunity of drawing the attention of the Court of Directors to the fact, that no plan had been yet sent home, but as soon as it was, his hon. Friend might rest assured that every attention should be paid to the important subject.

hoped, that he misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman when he said that the Government either here or in India, did not feel themselves pledged to abolish slavery. It was understood in the House, that means would be taken to abolish slavery in India, and if that were an erroneous impression, the effect would be to raise a strong feeling throughout this country.

would read the clause of the Act by which the Charter was groaned. The effect was, that the local authorities be required to take into consideration the means of mitigating the state of the slaves, and of extinguishing slavery throughout the whole of the Indian territories, so soon as such extinction should be safe and practicable, and that from time to time they should prepare and transmit to the Court of Directors the laws or regulations for this purpose, and in preparing such plans, due regard should be had to the laws of marriage and to the rights and authority of fathers and heads of families. He would, as he stated before, draw the attention of the Court of Directors to the fact that no law, regulation, or plan, had been sent home, to enable them to carry their intention in this respect into effect.

rose to state, that he should oppose the motion which had just been made. It appeared to him to be quite clear, that this Bill would prove a serious injury to those who desired to exercise the elective franchise. The principle of limiting the polling to one day might answer very well in cities, but in the case of counties it could not fail to be an injury. He was perfectly persuaded that if so short a time as one day only were allowed for polling, it would be utterly impossible, when an election might occur in the winter season, for those who resided a long distance from the polling places—suppose the case of a man being entitled to vote for each division of a county, and for a contiguous county—it would be impossible, under this Bill, for such party to exercise his right of voting in each place. An hon. Baronet, on a former occasion, had observed that a man might have a freehold in every county, and that no Bill ever could intend he should exercise his right in every instance; but this argument was, of course, one which went beyond all bounds. But he maintained that the proprietor of freehold property in contiguous counties had a right to exercise his privilege of voting, and that every facility ought to be given to him for this purpose. He had imagined that the first and great object of the Reform Bill had been to extend the elective franchise, and to give to every elector the power to record his vote. And he would appeal to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, if they would only reflect on the matter, whether this Bill was not in direct contravention of what was professed to be the object of that Bill when the Reform Act was first introduced? It had been argued on the other side of the House that, in the case of towns, the limitation of the time of polling to one day had answered extremely well; and certainly, he was happy to say, the plan had not turned out so satisfactorily to his Majesty's Government as they had perhaps anticipated, especially in a contest which had occurred a few days since. By this measure gentlemen of landed property, who supported the agricultural interest, would be left in the lurch. He did not know with what object the Bill had been introduced, but he thought that hon. Members would agree with him that in the counties in England the elections had not turned out more propitious for his Majesty's present Government than in cities; and it might be an object with-certain parties to see whether they could not propose something to turn the tables. But in this Bill there was much which was unfair to the electors without effecting any good whatever. In small populous towns the elections would be carried by clamour. At present there was always a great difference in the polling on the first and second day. There were always to be found many voters who shrunk from the mob law, which always distinguished the first day of polling. It had, indeed, been contended that all elections were decided on the first day; but this proposition was not tenable; because, were it so, practically, they would not have had the benefit of the eloquence of the hon. Member for Middlesex, who polled a smaller number than his opponents on the first day. Now, he would say, that the Bill was one which would be most injurious to the agricultural interest, which was not so substantially represented in that House as it ought to be. Upon that ground, and also because he thought the Bill was in direct contravention to the Reform Bill, he would divide the House on the motion for the third reading of the Bill.

felt satisfied, that the effect of the alteration in the law, would be to give to unprincipled men the opportunity of creating tumult and confusion.

remarked, that the object of the framers of the Bill was to diminish the expense of elections, by lessening their duration. The principle was the same, whether in towns or counties, and the multiplication of polling places would effect the object without inconvenience to any party.

objected to the principle of the Bill, feeling convinced that it was destructive to the rights, and was a direct blow aimed at property. He thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have spoken on this matter in the manly way he sometimes spoke of other subjects, and plainly told them that it was a Bill intended to prop up a sinking cause. He looked for protection in another place for property, which protection he could not procure within the walls of that House. He thought the Bill most unjustifiable.

said, that if the, Bill had not been introduced, there were difficulties already which would impede the voting of persons of property. He knew a gentleman, a friend of his, who by right of property, had a vote in twenty-six counties. It was impossible that he could avail himself of all these opportunities.

said, he had taken the trouble to look over the list of the division on this Bill on a former occasion, and he found upon dissecting them, that amongst the ayes, who formed the majority, there were only eighteen county Members. Now, in spite of all the tricks which might be played by the Friends of those on the opposite side—in spite of the practice of throwing brickbats at voters at elections, as in the case of the Warwick election, and though the cloven foot had stuck out in the counties, he only wished for an opportunity to try the practical working of this Bill.

said, when the hon. Gentleman talked of brickbats having been used at the election in Warwickshire —if he talked of bludgeons also, that would not lie at the door of those who sat on the Ministerial side of the House. He could name a rev. Gentleman. ["Hear, hear."] If the hon. Member would take the pains to make inquiry, and would prove to him, that he (Mr. Mark Philips) had stated that which could not be borne out by facts, no man would be more ready than he should be to retract any assertion made under a wrong impression. Now, as to the difficulty of completing the polling in one day he could only speak from his own experience. He had attended a contest for Lancashire in 1832, when he acted as the representative of a friend of his who stood for the county; and he would not hesitate to say, that the number of votes polled on the second day bore no proportion to those polled on the first day. He could not say what percentage they formed to those of the first day; but this he knew, that they waited for hours without a single vote being tendered. Now it was proposed to have so many polling places, that men in all parts of the county would be easily enabled to vote.

happened to have been in Warwick some little time since, and he could take upon himself to say, that from the evidence which he had read, and all that he had been told, he should say that there was not one single word of truth in the report which had been raised, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded.

explained. He begged to assure the House again, that if he had stated that which was not correct he retracted it; but he felt called upon to state, that the clergyman to whom he had alluded, was reported at the time he was down at the election to which he referred to have taken a singularly conspicuous part. That statement remained uncontradicted whilst he was in that part of the country, and he certainly left it under the impression that it was correct. He was glad, however, to hear the refutation given by the hon. Baronet.

had not exactly spoken from his own personal knowledge, but he had read the papers, and the conclusion which he had come to was, that the charge was utterly groundless.

begged to say, upon his own personal knowledge, that he could give the statement which had been made a flat contradiction.

the right hon. Gentleman opposite had said, that the effect of this Bill would be to diminish the expenses. Now, he did not thank the Government for their measure, because it would deprive many men of the exercise of their elective franchise; and as to the expense, it would be as great in the one day as it now was in two days.

thought the Bill would disfranchise many freeholders, and he would oppose it.

would vote against the third reading, because he was convinced that the Bill would increase, instead of diminishing, the expens of elections.

was convinced, that the saving of time would also be a saving of expense. To take all elections in one day would lessen the means and opportunity of obtaining votes corruptly.

adverted to the elections for Yorkshire, one of which, lasting for fifteen days, had cost 250,000l., while the last election, which occupied only two days, had not cost more than 8,000l.

, as a county Member, must say, that his strong conviction was, that this Bill would increase the expense of all county elections.

contended, that the Bill would be of the greatest possible advantage in agricultural districts, by affording an additional number of polling places, where the freeholders might vote without going to a distance: he illustrated this point by reference to Northamptonshire, where, in default of large towns, polling places would be established in small ones. He did not think that the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Knightley) was at all warranted in what he had said about brickbats and bludgeons, when it was a fact that one of the leaders of a party in favour of the hon. Baronet had carried a double barrelled pistol.

thought, that the increased expense would be occasioned, not so much by the number of polling places, as by the fact that the election would be limited to one day.

was of opinion that, the increase of the number of polling places would lessen the expense of elections.

said, that it appeared to him that electors exercised the privilege of the elective franchise in such a manner as would lead one to suppose that they were conferring an obligation on the object of their choice, rather than impose upon him a heavy responsibility. Farmers found no difficulty whatever in attending races, and such places of public amusement. Why then should their convenience be so scrupulously attended to, when they were called on to go some distance to the place of polling, in order to exercise so important a right as the choice of representatives? He thought that such a number of polling places would destroy that salutary energy and excitement which should prevail on such an occasion as that of an election. The noble Marquess (Chandos) had said that confining the duration of the election to one day would have the effect of disfranchising freeholders who resided at a distance. Even though they were, he did not see that any disadvantage would arise from the circumstance, because he thought that one vote was sufficient for any elector. Besides, limiting the time of polling to one day would have the effect of compelling those who might be fairly termed political trimmers, and who at present always found some excuse for deferring their vote until the last day of the election, to vote at once for a candidate. Thus, by the proposed alteration, expense would be saved and voters made honest.

thought, that the hon. Member for Southwark was the only one of those who intended voting for this proposition who would take that course consistently, for the hon. Member plainly avowed that the elective franchise being a duty, and not a pastime, the performance of it ought to be attended with some inconvenience to the elector.

then proposed the following clause:—"And whereas it is expedient, that in the elections of knights to serve for any counties, ridings, parts or divisions of counties, which may be contiguous, the polls shall not take place on the same day; be it therefore enacted, that it shall be lawful at any general election for the Lord High Chancellor or Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, for the time being, to ascertain and define the several days on which elections in contiguous counties, ridings, parts or divisions of counties, may be conveniently held, and at the time of making out the writs to direct letters to be sent to the sheriffs or returning officers for the respective counties, ridings, parts or divisions of counties, requiring them to fix the days of polling as he shall appoint, in order that no poll be taken for any county, riding, part or division of a county, on the same day, with any contiguous county, riding, part or division of a county: and the said sheriffs or returning officers are hereby required to fix the days of polling accordingly, any law or statute to the contrary notwithstanding."

thought the discretion was properly placed in the high sheriffs. If it were placed in the Lord Chancellor, as proposed, he could not help believing that imputations would frequently be cast upon that functionary of fixing a particular day to answer political purposes. He must therefore oppose the clause.

seconded the amendment, from the conviction that it was only introduced to assist party purposes, and would inevitably tend to injure the interest of the Established Church.

concurred in the amendment. He did not think there was any one sect in the country which would bear being treated as the Established Church had been treated in the instance of this Bill. He hoped the Bill would not pass in its present state.

was convinced that no danger was to be apprehended to the Church from the Bill.

contended that the Bill would not carry into effect its avowed intentions, but that it would put the whole of the charities into the hands of ministerial partisans, who would apply them to political purposes.

certainly thought, that the interests of the Church would be compromised by the Bill.

felt, that he should not do his duty to the Established Church if he did not press his amendment to a division.

declared himself opposed to many of the details of the measure.

stated the objects of the Bill, one of the principles of which was, to make the vice-warden an effective judge both in the equity and common law courts of Cornwall. The expense would not be great, and the mode of defraying it was satisfactorily arranged by the provisions of the measure.

bore testimony to the fact that the Bill had no party or political purpose; the principle of it had been discussed and agreed to at several county meetings.

opposed the Clause,

said, that he had intended to move the further consideration of the report on this Bill to-night, in order to introduce some amendments, which he was about to propose to the House; but not being so entirely prepared to do so as he could have wished, he thought it better at once to postpone the further proceeding with the Bill until Monday. At the same time, however, he wished to state the conclusion to which he had come on a proposition which had been made from, the other side of the House, on the subject of the appointment of Revising Barristers. The mode proposed by the Bill—that of vesting the appointment of these officers in the Crown—had been much objected to; and it had been suggested to him to propose some other method. With that view he had considered the question, and it seemed to him that it might be possible to concede to the proposition which had been made, by naming one chief and a certain number of other Revising Barristers in the present Bill, and vesting the appointment of them hereafter in the Lord Chancellor. The number of Revising Barristers at first proposed had been eight, but he now proposed that there should be eleven, including the chief, inasmuch as it had been considered that eight would not be sufficient for the performance of the duties, and that the public business might be therefore impeded, to the serious loss of bodies of constituents. With respect to the Chief Revising Barrister, he would propose the right hon. Sir Thos. Erskine, Chief Judge of the Court of Review, for that office; and notwithstanding the great difficulty there was in finding individuals sufficiently qualified who would be ready to leave their professional practice and prospects for the situation, he did hope that on Monday he would be enabled to propose the individuals to fill the other ten situations. The House would, however, be able to consider whether the general proposition he now made would be calculated to remove the objections which had been raised to the plan proposed by the Bill.

, having before expressed a strong opinion against the appointment of the revising barrister by the Secretary of State, felt bound now to express his concurrence in the mode of appointment proposed by the noble Lord. He still thought, however, that the number of barristers named by the noble Lord would be quite inadequate to the discharge of the very heavy duties which would be imposed on them. He felt quite sure that if the noble Lord would look at the mass of business which had been done by the revising barristers on former occasions he would see the necessity of enlarg- ing his plan as far as regarded the number of barristers to be appointed.

said, that, although he might not entirely agree in the plan of the noble Lord, yet, as the point had been conceded, he did not wish to offer any unnecessary opposition. He hoped that the appointments to the ten revising-barristerships would be as satisfactory as that which had been mentioned for the chief. Further consideration of the Report postponed.

said, that he should endeavour to comprehend the two questions which arose out of this Bill in the observations which he meant to make, namely, to defend the proposed alteration which placed the administration of the Post-office in the hands of Commissioners; and next, to state the reasons why he conceived one member of the commission should also be a Member of the House of Commons. Now, as to the first branch of the subject, which referred to the administration of the Post-office, he relied on authority for a justification of the change which was proposed; because, whoever read the Report of the Post-office Commissioners would see, that whenever the department of the Post-office was brought under the consideration of a tribunal appointed to inquire how it might hereafter be managed, the result (no matter what was the constitution of that tribunal, whether Whig or Tory) which had been arrived at on all occasions was, that the present system of administering the Post-office was objectionable and indefensible. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to consider, that the present measure was a discovery first made in the year 1836, and that the object of it was to add to the political influence of the present Administration, But it was a well-known fact, that whoever were appointed to consider this subject, however they differed on other questions, and however remote the period at which the inquiry was instituted, came all of them to the conclusion, that a change was required in this department. But the case did not stand simply on authority; it was supported also by common sense and reason. The result of the present system had been, to show that those individuals who had been appointed Postmasters-General, however endowed with abilities, could not (to use a phrase applied to represent the difficulties attending their office), if they were angels instead of men, properly perform the duties committed to their care. The consequence was, that the administration was placed in subordinate hands, which, though they were ever so able, were yet under no due responsibility for the discharge of such important functions. He should now proceed to show, in a very few words, why it was expedient that one of the Commissioners should be connected with Parliament. In the first place, the head of the department was now connected with Parliament, but he was a Member of the House of Lords, and not of the House of Commons. The department, then, was at present represented, not in the House of Commons, but in the House of Lords. Now he should like to ask in which of the two Houses of Parliament ought it to be represented? If explanations were to be given of its measures, and attacks on them to be defended, where were these explanations more likely to be called for, and these defences to be required—in the House of Lords or the House of Commons? He decidedly maintained in the House of Commons. It was a mistake to suppose, that they were for the first time connecting this department with Parliament: they were only anxious to attach that responsibility to it which was due from every great officer of the state to that House, and in which it might be most actively called into operation. But it might be said, why connect it with Parliament at all? For this reason, that there was a wide distinction between this department and the ordinary departments of revenue. The officers of customs, excise, and stamps, were purely revenue departments, the object of which was, to collect as large an amount of revenue as they could under the law, for the purpose of having it transferred to the Exchequer. But was this the case with the Post-Office? Undoubtedly it was a department of revenue; but it was also a most important and responsible department of administration; and intimately connected as it was with our trade, commerce, and social intercourse, ought, in his opinion, to have a responsible representative in the House.

opposed the motion. If the Government wished to introduce an ameliorated system, they should be called on to do so, without prejudice to other interests, else they were liable to all the censure that dereliction of duty called for. He was of opinion, that the appointment of Commissioners would not serve the object looked to.

was surprised to hear it insinuated, that the House was taken by surprise upon this occasion, when it was perfectly well known, by the Report on their table, that the Committee to which this subject had been referred, had reported, after mature and cautious consideration, that it was expedient for the interests of the Post-office, and still more so for the interests of the public, that some person at the head of a governing board like this, should be in the House of Commons. It should also be recollected, it was now become more necessary than ever it had been previously, that the duties of this department of the Government should be performed efficiently, and under a stricter system of responsibility, in consequence of the pending improvement in the several branches of this important department, and the great beneficial changes which were either actually made, or in contemplation, with respect to our foreign correspondence, and our future mode of intercourse with the other nations of the globe.

said, even if it were necessary to have a Board, still it was not desirable to have one of the members of it in that House. He never understood that Lord Wallace recommended that any member of the commission should be a Member of that House. If there were changes in the office of Postmaster-General, it was the result of the changes of Government. If the Government changed, so did the Postmaster-General. But though a change in name was proposed by the Bill, yet the control was given to the chief Commissioner. Where, then, would be the advantage? It might not be fashionable to revert to the old practice of the Constitution; yet he would do so, and say that the spirit of the Constitution excluded all officers who had the management of money from that House. If this precedent were established, they would have all the chief officers of the revenue departments in that House. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by entering his protest against the introduction of a Commissioner of the Post- office into the House of Commons, as an infringement on the first elements of the Constitution. Any proposition for making such an innovation should have been founded on former rules and precedents. But it was not so. He objected to the proposition as a gross violation of those principles laid down at the Revolution, and a departure from which would lead to the most dangerous consequences. He admitted that the Report of the Commissioners was of so high a character, that lie knew of nothing that had appeared before Parliament of a similar kind during late years; but, at the same time, he could not adopt all its recommendations.

supported the Bill, and denied that admitting public Commissioners to be Members of Parliament was contrary to law, or without precedent, even of recent date.

said, as to the objection urged by the right, hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) to the sitting of one of the Post-office Commissioners in that House; if his (Mr. Baring's) memory served him, there were, in not very remote times, four postmasters, two for England, and two for Ireland—every one of whom might have sat in that House. The objection urged by the right hon. Gentleman might have held good some hundred years ago. But now, considering the great changes in the Government—considering also the much greater check and control which now existed over the Representatives of the people in that House, in his (Mr. Baring's) opinion, there was not to be apprehended such great danger from the placing an additional revenue officer in the House of Commons, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to anticipate. The right hon. Gentleman had argued upon this question,—whether or not, the business of the Post-office would be better conducted on the plan recommended by the Government, one of the Commissioners having a seat in that House, than by a permanent board. That question he (Mr. B.) admitted might fairly be open to considerable doubt. But certainly he had reached this conclusion—that though undoubtedly, as the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, there might be some advantages attached to the permanent board; those advantages were counterbalanced by equal or superior disadvantages. On the one hand, he allowed there might be expected in the members of a permanent board, more thorough acquaintance with the details of business, and the arrangements of the office; on the other hand, there was to be apprehended, if he might use such an expression, (without reference let him add to particular parties) a strong departmental feeling, a feeling that they were relieved from responsibility, and that they were only the independent officers of the Crown. But the plan, as proposed by the Government, combined the advantages of both arrangements, without, in his opinion, retaining the more striking disadvantages of either. The two permanent Commissioners would be possessed of that experience and practical knowledge which was necessary for the well-administration of so important a public office; while, on the other hand, by having one of the Commissioners in the House of Commons, a greater degree of responsibility would be secured in the management of the Post-office than had ever yet been attained. On these grounds he hoped the House would support the Bill as it now stood.

said, he agreed with the noble Lord (Lowther) that the plan of the Government was generally likely to work an advantageous alteration in the administration of one of the most important public offices, by establishing a board for its future management more permanent in its character than the present office of Post-master General, and in his opinion calculated to prove more efficient in its operation: with reference however, to the chief Commissioner having a seat in that House, he confessed he entertained great doubts as to the expediency of that part of the proposed plan. It did appear to him that some danger was to be apprehended of incurring, by such a measure those very evils which it was the main object of this Bill to get rid of. He (Mr. Young) could not help fearing that the chief Commissioner being thus to a certain degree necessarily rendered a political character, being liable to the loss of his seat, and the consequent vacation of his office almost upon every change of Government, and being consequently much less acquainted with the business and internal arrangements of the Office, would inevitably become, in all matters relating to the practical administration of the Post-office entirely subordinate to the two assistant Commissioners; thus those advantages which were anticipated from this plan would be rendered nugatory and especially that every practical irresponsibility would remain which was so much complained of in the existing system.

only rose to say, that although he had before expressed very strongly his dissent from that part of the Bill which related to the Chief Commissioner having a seat in that House, he had received so many communications, and heard so many opinions, from persons more competent than he was to judge of the matter, all in favour of that arrangement, that he would not press that objection further, but if it went to a division he would certainly vote for the Government plan.

said, he did not consider the objections which had been urged to that part of the Bill which allowed the chief Commissioner to be a Member of that House had been met by any speaker. He could not help thinking that all the evils complained of, in regard to the present constitution of the office of Postmaster General would equally attach to that of the chief Commissioner, as established by this Bill. It had not in his opinion been shown, that by giving the chief Commissioner a seat in this House there would be more control exercised by this House over the general arrangements of the Post-office than there was at present. There was already an officer in that House, not he believed overwhelmed with business, the very nature of whose office closely connected as it was with the trade and commerce of the country, pointed him out as not an unfit person to answer questions relating to the Post-office, if responsibility to that House was essential to the just managemement of that department. He alluded, the House would readily imagine, to the right honorable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade: he thought also that the plan recommended by the Government would render the office of chief Commissioner a kind of stepping stone for young men desirous of advancement in the public service who would remain in it only so long as they were enabled to gain higher distinction, and who would, therefore, be quite unfit to discharge the duties attached to so important a situation. On the whole he should feel it his duty to oppose this clause.

observed, in reply to one of the remarks of the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, that he, for one, should be very unwilling to undertake, as President of the Board of Trade, the responsibility of an office over which he had no control whatever. Such an arrangement as the noble Lord had recommended would be irksome and unfair to the Gentleman who happened to fill the office he had the honour to occupy, and unsatisfactory to the public at large. The noble Lord had stated, that, in his opinion, there would be no great difference between the administration of the Post-office as it now existed, and the administration of it under the system to be established by this Bill. He (Mr. P. Thomson) would tell the noble Lord where the difference in his opinion lay. Instead of having at the head of this important branch of the national service a nobleman, generally with no great experience in business, the business of the office being consequently conducted by the Secretary,—an irresponsible officer, at all events irresponsible to the public:—instead of this, there would be at the head of that office, three persons all of whom would be responsible (are directly responsible, through seats in that House) to the public. Was there no difference between the administration of an office being conducted by practically entirely irresponsible persons, and its being conducted by a board, which would, through its head, be liable to be called to account in that House for every measure they might take? As to the objection of the noble Lord, of this office of chief Commissioner becoming a mere stepping stone to higher stations, any one acquainted with the nature of the business transacted there, and the duties required of persons at its head, would see at once that there was no likelihood of its ever being considered in that light. On the whole, he (Mr. P. Thomson) believed that the plan contained in this Bill would combine (as his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had said) the advantage of practical knowledge and experience with the advantage of responsibility to the public, and he hoped the House would adopt it.

said, I must divide against this clause.