objected to the tax of one shilling upon all vessels passing Gibraltar being imposed. This country allowed 250,000l. for the support of light-houses, but the expense of the light-houses did not exceed 60,000l. or 70,000l. The remainder went into private hands. It was said it was applied in pensions to captains and seamen by the Trinity House. If it were necessary to apply such a sum in pensions, it ought to go under the proper head. The commerce of the country was already very much taxed. This clause was adding to the evil of giving to an irresponsible body like the Trinity House, additional power. He would ask the hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade on what principle it was that they proposed to extend the power of the Trinity House to Gibraltar? No Government ought to seek to give such powers to a self-elected body like the Trinity House. He should move the exclusion of the clause.

said, the Trinity House had come badly out of the inquiry on the subject of lighthouses. Why then was it to be selected for the purpose of superintending the Gibraltar lighthouse. The Ballast Board in Ireland and the Northern lighthouse commissioners went upon the regular and proper principle of apportioning their revenue to the actual cost of the lighthouses. Let one of these boards, then be chosen. He should support the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny.

put in a claim on behalf of the Irish Belfast Board (of which he was a member), for that board had conducted itself best of any. It had diminished the taxation on the public, and its members asked no remuneration for their services, thus standing in proud contrast to the Trinity House.

said, that was not the time to discuss the rival merits of their lighthouse Boards. The Trinity House, however, had been proved before the Lighthouse committee to have conducted itself with great propriety; and a bill had been passed last Session, giving it additional powers. He did not think the board deserved the censure which had been heaped upon it. Now, with respect to the clause in question, his hon. Friend had asked why put this lighthouse under the Trinity House? The reason for doing so was, because Parliament decided two years ago that lighthouses should be put under that body, and the proposal now made was merely following out the precedent laid down in the case of Heligoland. His hon. Friend then objected to the toll, and said there was a surplus revenue at Gibraltar. If so it was carried to the account of the public, and therefore paying this charge out of the surplus revenue would be nothing more than making a charge on the public of the sum necessary to keep up this light. His hon. Friend in this was contending for the principle of all lights being paid by the country, on which principle the House did not agree with the hon. Member. The hon. Member said this was a mere trifle. He was perfectly aware of that. The country had erected the lighthouse, and all that was required was a small sum for the annual expense of maintaining it. The shipping interest were willing to pay these dues, and he had introduced the Bill at their request and with their sanction. He hoped the House would agree to the charge in the manner suggested.

, as a member of the committee two years ago, begged to remind the hon. Gentleman that it was then understood that in case any new lighthouse was built they were not to follow the track of the Trinity House. He wished to know what was to become of the surplus income of Gibraltar; was it to go into the coffers of the Trinity House? It was monstrous to collect a revenue in the shape of lighthouse duty, under the name of charitable purposes.

said, that Gibraltar, since its capture, had been a free port, and the effect of the Bill would be to destroy that. He would put it to the House whether, for the sake of a paltry shilling, it would adopt such a clause. He wished to see the lighthouse erected, but he thought its erection should take place at the expense of the surplus revenue of Gibraltar, or the surplus revenue of the Trinity House.

wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, the president of the Board of Control, and he was much mistaken if the right hon. Gentleman would not willingly embrace the opportunity of affording information to the public on a point of considerable importance, particularly to the commercial interests of the country. It had been known to commercial men for some days, that an expedition composed of several armed vessels, and having on board a body of 500 or 600 men, commanded by Colonel Sherriff, had sailed from Bombay to the Persian Gulf. The only conceivable object of such an expedition must have reference to Bushire, the most important port belonging to Persia on the Persian Gulf, or to the island of Karak, in the neighbourhood of that place. As both belonged to Persia, it was obvious that an expedition sent with the view of taking possession of any of those places must involve us in hostilities with that power. It was therefore very important to those who were connected with the trade of the country to know if the expedition was directed to objects of a kind likely to be attended with that consequence.

had to state, that it was undoubtedly true that a small expedition had by this time at least sailed from Bombay for the head of the Persian Gulf, consisting of a frigate, a brig, two steamers, and a Government transport, having on board about 500 sepoys, commanded by the gallant officer named by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had stated what would be the result, supposing certain orders to have been given. He could only inform the right hon. Gentleman that the expedition had been sent to that quarter in consequence of a despatch received from the Governor-general of India by the Governor of Bombay, in which was stated the reason why the Governor-general thought it advisable to send such an expedition. The right hon. Gentleman knew that the East India Company had a resident at Bushire; he knew also that they had a resident at Bagdad he knew also that an important experiment had lately been tried in order to ascertain whether the navigation of the Euphrates was practicable. The right hon. Gentleman was perhaps also aware that our commercial relations with that part of the world had become much more extensive than formerly. It was in consequence of the political state of Central Asia that the Governor-general had thought it requisite for the protection of British interests to send that expedition to the port indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. He believed the right hon. Gentleman would think him right in declining to say anything further than that the expedition had sailed on the 2d or 5th of June, in consequence of instructions from the Government at home and the Governor-general of India.

was satisfied with the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had answered his question, but he had one doubt remaining, which it was desirable to have removed. He did not think it was clear from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman whether the expedition was sent merely for general purposes, or with a specific object. Of course, if it ha no specific object, any apprehension wh h might be entertained of an immediate change in the character of our relations with Persia would vanish. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider himself at liberty to satisfy his doubts on this point.

feared that his duty would not permit him to give any other answer than that he had already given. He had admitted the facts mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, and he trusted when the proper time arrived that Parliament and the public would think the Governor-general of India perfectly justified in the course he had taken.

said, that before the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) took up the consideration of the amendments to the present bill he owed it to himself to make a few observations to the House on the subject. The House was no doubt aware that when amendments were made in any bill sent up to the House of Lords which were considered at all likely to be an in- fringement of the privileges of this House, it was customary to communicate with the Speaker on the subject. It so happened, therefore, that he had been applied to by a very distinguished person in reference to this bill. In reply to questions which were put to him, he then said, that if his opinion were called for on the subject of these amendments he felt bound to say, that he considered them as an infringement of the privileges of the Commons' House. But, at the same time, as the bill was one of a very peculiar character, affecting not only the proprietors of the land but the great mass of the people of Ireland, and as the principle of rating was necessarily incidental to such a measure, he considered that if the privileges of this House were strictly pressed in such a case, they would almost tend to prevent the House of Peers from taking such a measure into its consideration in a way that might be on all grounds advisable. On referring to precedents he found two instances, namely, those of the English Poor-law Bill, and the English Municipal Corporations Bill, in which amendments were made by the House of Lords which were not strictly in conformity with the privileges of the House of Commons. Referring to those precedents, it was for the House to consider whether, in reference to the present bill, they should throw out the bill as amended by the Lords, and then introduce another bill in which those amendments might be incorporated; or whether they should waive the infringement of their privilege, and proceed to the consideration of the Lords' amendments. As the authorised guardian of the privileges of the House, he had thought it right to explain his conduct on the present occasion, which he trusted would meet with the approval of the House; at the same time he must add, that he thought the privileges of this House would be best secured by being not too far pressed.

said, that the House he was sure, would feel itself much indebted to the Speaker for the anxiety with which he had attended to the protection of their privileges. He agreed entirely with the right hon. Gentleman, that in cases of bills of this description, in which taxation was not the sole but rather an incidental object, any latitude consistent with the due observance of the privileges of this House should be allowed to the House of Lords in their legislative functions. On looking back at the English Poor-law Bill it would be found that there were amendments proposed in that bill by the House of Lords as fully connected with the subject of rating as any in the present bill. He hoped, therefore, that the House would enter upon the consideration of these amendments, which were, doubtless, framed with the view rather of forwarding the objects of the bill than otherwise. Perhaps there never was a bill of such vast public moment which was agreed to by the House of Commons in the absence of all party feeling, and by so large a majority, the third reading of it having been carried by a majority of 234 against 59. The bill had since received the mature consideration of the House of Lords, and, with the insertion of some amendments, had been agreed to. On the whole, considering the importance of the subject, and the vast number of provisions which were required for the purpose of carrying it into effect, and the diversity of interests and opinions which must necessarily be involved by it, even after the principle of the measure was sanctioned, he must say, that the amendments which the House of Lords had made in this measure were less in number and importance than might have been expected. Two or three of these amendments, however, were of considerable importance. One of the most important was that whereby an approach to the law of settlement was attempted. It was proposed by this amendment to divide the country into electoral districts, in order that, whenever a person was received into the workhouse of the union, the expense of his maintenance should be charged to the particular district to which he belonged. Whilst this was proposed, however, the question of residence was not to be raised, and there would be no exclusion of parties on account of their settlements, to whatever part of the kingdom they might properly belong. He considered, therefore, that this amendment was not liable to the great inconvenience which the law of settlement generally led to, namely, the prevention of the circulation of labour from one part of the country to another; and, therefore, although he felt much doubt as to the practical effect of this provision, which he was inclined to think would remain in a great measure inoperative, and though he certainly should not have proposed it himself, he should propose that the House should now agree to it. The principle of the amendment was clearly to create a feeling of responsibility and of interest in all parties to attend to the general concerns of their respective districts, which night have a wholesome tendency. He should recommend, therefore, that the House should agree to this amendment with some verbal alterations which he had to propose in it. There was another clause inserted for the punishment of desertion of the wife and child by the husband and father. There was, however, a very material amendment with respect to which it was very probable, that the Speaker might have to consider whether or not it came within the privileges of that House. It was, in the first place, an omission of a clause inserted in that House with regard to 5l. tenements; and, in the second place, a substitution of another clause with respect to the charge which might be taken by the owners on the payment by rates of such tenements. According to the bill as it went up from that House, the occupiers of tenements under the value of 5l. were not in the first instance to pay the rate, but that they should have the power of charging the whole rate on the landlords. They were, therefore, in limine, exempt altogether from the rate. Now, the House of Lords had determined that these persons should, in the generality of instances, pay the rate; at the same time they did not alter the total amount of rate, whatever it might be, which was settled by the board of guardians on application to the commissioners, and they proposed another clause by which an arrangement took place between the landlords and tenants with regard to the small holdings. What the House of Lords proposed was in substance, that the owner and the tenant should make an arrangement between themselves by which the owner might agree to a certain deduction not exceeding ten per cent. for the sum to which the small tenements were liable, and with the approbation of the guardians, and the sanction of the commissioners, that such payment by the owners should exempt the occupiers of tenements. He thought it would be a very vexatious and inexpedient proceeding if they were to insist on their privilege as a ground of objection to this alteration. He thought it one of those alterations which did not touch the general question of taxation. It was not with the view of exempting those persons as being a class which ought to be free from such a demand, that the clause was originally introduced. It was introduced with the view of the general working of the Poor-law: it was introduced with the view in the first place to the collection of the rates, and, in the next place, to the general formation of a body by which the charges should be collected, and not at all with reference to the class by whom the rates ought generally to be paid. In the same view, that was, looking to the general object of the bill, the relief the poor in Ireland, the House of Lords framed a different clause, and proposed that no holders of property should be exempt from the payment of rates. Now, it was a question of very considerable doubt in that Housef—indeed there was no point on which there existed, both on the one side and the other, so much diffidence as to the adoption of either alternative—whether the class which the Lords had included should be exempt from rating or not. His noble Friend the Member for Leitrim (Lord Clements), who took a great interest in this subject, and who had shown as well by his writings as what he delivered in that House, that he made himself fully master of the whole question, as it might affect the future condition of Ireland, was strongly and decidedly of opinion that there should not be a positive and absolute exemption of the occupiers, even of the smallest description of holdings from the payment of rates. The noble contended—and although he came to a different conclusion, he felt there was great weight in the argument—that it would be difficult to form a large body of rate-payers without admitting such small holdings, and that the payment of rate would make those subject to it take an interest in the well-working of the measure, and the good and frugal administration of the rates, which in poor districts could not be expected without such a distribution of the burden. The House of Lords had taken a view similar to that of his noble Friend, and considering that at the time the measure was discussed here, there were great doubts on this provision, he did not think it one upon which a difference of opinion should be raised between the two Houses, and he should agree accordingly to the amendments proposed by the House of Lords. There were some alteration made in the scale of rating to which he should call attention when he came to that part of the bill. An alteration, too, of considerable importance was made in the schedule of the bill, as that which had passed that House, was changed for one much more complicated, in which there were no less than thirteen or fourteen classes of rates, taxes, and public charges. On looking over the schedule, although he agreed that it might be desirable to have one containing more particulars and more headings than those of the original bill, yet he did not think it necessary to have so many as those proposed by the House of Lords, and he was of opinion that such a number would be attended with difficulty in the working of the measure. Therefore, not omitting any essential particulars of the schedule passed by the House of Lords, he should propose one more simple. Having now stated the general alterations made in the bill, he did not think that any of these alterations went to impugn the principles established by that House, nor that there was any thing in the act generally which should induce them to refuse to consider and accept the greater portion of the amendments. The Lords had not introduced either out-door relief, nor, on the other hand, confined the relief merely to persons who were lame, disabled, and old. In short, they adopted the principle laid down by that House in confining relief to the destitute generally, and limiting that relief altogether to that of in-door. They had likewise adopted the whole plan for the working of the measure under the came control of commissioners. They had made one alteration with respect to the office in Dublin, which, practically, he thought, would have no effect, inasmuch as they did not exclude a provision in the original bill for obliging a commissioner or assistant commissioner to be resident in Dublin. The noble Lord concluded by moving, that the amendment he had referred to, be greed to.

observed, that he had rather an important alteration to propose with regard to this clause. A very proper insertion had been made by the House of Lords, for the purpose of giving any one commissioner the power of acting for the board and making general rules; for there might be cases, as there had already been cases in this country, in which it would be very useful if the commissioners had the power of delegating their powers. It sometimes happened that one of the commissioners was obliged to go to a distance, and great delay was caused by the necessity of forwarding him papers, and obtaining his assent to some step which required to be promptly taken. The House of Lords had limited this power of acting for the body, to the commissioner resident in Ireland, but he should propose to leave it to any one of the commissioners, without reference to his residence; and in order that there should not be too great a relaxation of their authority in acting separately, he intended that they should not be allowed to do so without the approbation of one of her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State.

moved the third reading of the Registration of Electors Bill. Bill read a third time. The hon. and learned Gentleman then said, he had framed a clause, with respect to the admeasurement of distances, which he had communicated to the hon. Member for Aylesbury, who thought it was one in which both sides of the House would concur. Lord Ellenborough and the Court of King's Bench had decided, that the distance should be measured by the nearest road, and this House had done the same. There were three legislative enactments and two judicial decisions recognizing the propriety of the mode of admeasurement by the nearest road, by land or water. There were many difficulties and inconveniences attending the mode of admeasurement by a mathematical line or crow's flight, all of which would be obviated by the addition of the clause which he proposed to introduce, It would also remove all doubt and uncertainty about the state of the law, and put an end to conflicting decisions. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the addition of a clause to the effect, that in all cases in which it shall be necessary to compute the distance of seven miles from the borough to the voter's residence, such computation, shall be made by the nearest road, by land or water.

opposed the clause. The mode of admeasurement by the crow's flight or mathematical line was preferable, and was that which should be adopted, and such was the decision of the present Baron Foster, of the Irish bench, and also the opinion of Mr. Thesiger, which he considered quite equal to that of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, or of any other Member of the profession. He would move the insertion of a clause in accordance with this view.

opposed the motion, because he thought it inconvenient to discuss a bill effecting a great change in one of the public establishments at so late a period of the Session, and because he suspected that the Government brought forward the measure, which created new appointments, not from considerations of public advantage, but for the purpose of giving themselves the dispensation of patronage. Three new commissionerships were to be created by the bill, and they were to be patent offices; so that, however badly the duties might be performed, the holders of them could not be removed. This change, which would throw an additional burden of 1,900l. on the country, was proposed without any good reason, and he should therefore move, by way of amendment, that the bill be taken into consideration that day six months.

thought the change proposed by the bill called for some statement from the Government to justify it. If it were intended to appoint the commissioners for life, he should certainly object to such a proposition.

said, the Government could not fairly be accused of introducing this bill from a desire of patronage, for their object was to make a change the necessity for which had been long felt. So long ago as in 1797, under Mr. Pitt's Government, the change now proposed had been recommended, and the consolidation of the Scotch and Irish post-offices with the English Post-office since that period made the change more requisite. Under Lord Liverpool's Government, too, a report in favour of this change was presented by the commission of which Lord Wallace was the head. He quite concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that the head commissioner should not be a permanent officer, the great object being to obtain Parliamentary responsibility. But the other two commissioners should be permanent, in the same manner as the subordinate commissioners of the Woods and Forests, or the official under secretaries of state for the various departments. A more effective system of post-office administration was absolutely necessary. As an authority on this subject he might quote the Duke of Richmond. If ever there was an individual qualified to give perfect satisfaction as Postmaster-General, it was the Duke of Richmond; and yet, notwithstanding the great energy of mind and assiduity of application which ho brought to the office, his administration was far from giving satisfaction, owing entirely to the fundamentally defective system which prevailed in that department. Fie hoped the bill would be allowed to go into Committee, especially as it had passed the House last Parliament, while its principle had been sanctioned by at least five successive commissions.

was not content to rest this question entirely upon authority. The Duke of Richmond had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman as a high authority—the man of all others best fitted to administer the Post-office department; and yet what course had the noble Duke taken with respect to this very bill? When it reached the House of Lords last year, he gave it his most decided opposition. Then the right hon. Gentleman cited the commission of 1797, which reported in favour of the principle of this bill; but if Mr. Pitt approved of it, why did he not adopt it? Why had the successive Governments since that time not carried the principle into effect? The right hon. Gentleman's reference to authority upon this matter had not the slightest weight or applicability. If it was thought necessary to have a Parliamentary officer with a seat in that House, instead of the Postmaster-General, why was the same principle not to be applied to the other revenue boards of Customs and Excise? At present the Post-office was administered by a political officer—the Postmaster-General, with a salary of 2,500l. per annum, and a secretary; now it was proposed to have three Commissioners, the first having 2,000l., and the other two 1,200l. each, with, he presumed, a secretary besides. He objected to the increase of expense from 2,500l. to 4,400l., and he very much doubted whether the advantage of having the head Commissioner, a Member of that House, subject to change with different Administrations, would be anything like an equivalent. He thought the bill very clumsily drawn; the superfluous phrases with which it abounded, were quite amusing. He should oppose the committal of the bill.

said, the present system of administering the Post-office, was a most vicious one, and had been condemned by every man who had paid any attention to the subject. The best system for the management of the Post-office, in his view, would be to place it under the charge of a Commissioner, who should devote his whole time and energies to the duties of his office, and have a seat in that House, in order that he might be immediately responsible to it. He was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Baronet lay so much stress on the difference between the salary of the Postmaster-general, and those of the proposed Commissioners. When the management of a revenue of 1,500,000l. and the whole correspondence of the country, was to be considered, he thought it the most miserable impolicy to regard the difference of 1,000l. The right hon. Baronet had talked of the good old system under which the affairs of the Post-office were formerly managed. He would only remind the House that in those days, the late Secretary for the Post-office had an income of 5,000l. or 6,000l. a-year, which was more than was now sought for the salaries of all the proposed Commissioners. There were also two Postmasters-general with 2,500l. a-year, two more for Ireland, and one for Scotland. He did not think that this department could be compared to the Customs or Excise. Besides the other important functions fulfilled by it, it was often engaged in negotiations with foreign Governments, to which there was nothing analogous in the business of the other Revenue boards. As to the objection that the office of the Chief Commissioner was to be of a political nature, he did not think it would be right or fair to any Government to debar them from placing at the head of such a department as the Post-office, some political friend in whom they might have confidence. Whether or not the proposed change were adopted, of this he was quite sure, that no system could be worse than that which now existed, and if they wished to place it on a better footing, they should begin by reforming the office of the Postmaster-general.

defended the memory of the late Secretary of the Post-office from the aspersion cast upon it by the right hon. Gentleman. He thought that respect to his memory would have been sufficient to ward off their attacks, and he regretted that more good feelings had not been evinced than to make them. There was no department of the public service better managed than the Post-office under Sir F. Freeling, and the public had never a better servant.

explained: He had said nothing in diparagement of Sir F. Freeling, he had not even mentioned his name, and any observations he had made were directed against the system and not against those individuals who may have had the management of it.

said, that the sum of 5,000l. or 6,000l. a-year enjoyed by Sir F. Freeling, was a great part of it, in lieu of perquisites appertaining to his office, which he had conditionally relinquished. He had held that most onerous and responsible situation for a period of fifty years, and a better servant the public never had. It was too bad, therefore, that he should now be disparaged, and the feelings of his family hurt by the observations of the hon. Member.

again denied, that he had said anything disparaging of Sir F. Freeling, and asserted, that in anything he had said, he had not the slightest intention of reflecting for a moment on his memory. He did not make the remotest charge against him, and he believed, that the Post-office and the public had derived benefit from his services.

thought it would be a great improvement to issue a temporary commission for two or three years, to superintend the great changes now taking place in our internal system of communication, and to prevent the Post-office from becoming exclusively a revenue department, instead of a great public engine for facilitating and increasing the intercourse between various parts of the country. No Administration could hold place which resisted the demands of the public for a speedier and cheaper system of conveying letters.

did not think it would be for the advantage of the Post-office that the Chief Commissioner should have a seat in that House, and could not see, if that principle were recognized, why the members of the Board of Customs or Excise, should not also have seats. With regard to putting this office under a commission, he believed that it was absolutely necessary; he believed that the time had come when a great change must take place, and really working men be put into that department. They must no longer have the absurdity which ran through the whole establishment of the Post-office. He should most cordially support the proposition for a commission, however much he might object to some of the details.

said, he saw no reason why the aggregate salaries of the Commissioners should exceed the sum paid at present to the Postmaster-general, and he had resolved to move accordingly, and take the sense of the House upon it.

thought the salary of the Secretary might be added, but if the question came to a division, he should certainly vote with the hon. Member for Lincoln.

was ready to take the sense of the House as to whether there should be any commissioners; but if there were to be commissioners, he would maintain that they ought to be sufficiently remunerated; he therefore could not support the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln, because, though perfectly ready to determine that the conduct in chief of the Post-office should be vested in an individual, he was unwilling to seek the attainment of that object indirectly. If the House resolved that there should be commissioners, he thought their remuneration ought to equal that of other commissioners placed at the head of public departments; he should therefore recommend that the Chief Commissioner have 2,000l. a-year, and each of the other commissioners 1,200l., of course still adhering to his original opinion that it would be much better to have one efficient chief officer.

said, that when the Bill was originally introduced, he strongly pressed his objection to this clause. He did not see the utility, much less the necessity of it, feeling as he did, that the time of the commissioner would be much better occupied if directly devoted to the affairs and arrangements of the Post-office, than in answering questions in that House. He should therefore move, that this clause be struck out.

said, according to the proposed plan, there was a necessity to have a Member in that House to represent the office.

agreed with the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that there was no necessity of having a gentleman sitting at the elbow of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a representative of a public office, merely to answer questions, to which, judging from past experience, as regarded Her Majesty's present Ministers, they would in all probability get very unsatisfactory answers.

thought that the reasons, upon the whole, preponderated in favour of the head-commissioner being a Member of the House of Commons.

hoped, that the House would agree to this clause, which he thought was the most essential part of the bill.