The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-27 00:00:00

Mr. HUME called the attention of the House to cir-
cumstances connected with the public expenditure on I
harbours of refuge. Some years ago a discus.ion took
place on the same subject, and it was then understood
that all Bills affecting the navigation of rivers should
be examined and approved of by the Board of Admiralty
before they were introduced into that House. Subse-
quently a Commission was appointed to inquire into the
state of harbours of refuge, when it was found that the
Board of Admiralty had been so overwhelmed with busi-
ness, that it could not attend to this branch of its duty,
and the consequence' had been that several Bills had
been passed which had proved highly injurious to some
of our harbours. The Commission recommended that a
separate department should be appointed to have the
cognizance of all works connected with tidal harbours,
but that recommendation had not been carried into effect.
Now what he wished to know was, who had thee. super-
intendence of these works, and what had been done to
protect the public interest in the expenditure of money
upon them? For the erection of harbours of refuge
there had been voted in 1845, 120,0001, in 1846, 30,0001.,
in 1847,140,0001., in 1848, 131,0001.. and in 1849, 141,5001.,
making the total sum expended iu five years 562,5001.
He wished also to know if there were any reports or any
other documents which could be laid on the table of the
House as to what progress had been made since those
sums had been voted ?
Admiral BO WLES said he had been on the Tidal
Commission, who made a report in 1846 which conveyed
a great deal of information ou the subject of harbours of
refuge, and that body also made a recommendation
that all the tidal harbours in the kingdom should be
placed in the bands of a board of conservancy under an
Act of Parliament. Lle thought it desirable that one of
the Lords of the Admiralty should be a member of that
board of conservancy with a view to prevent the undue
operation of local interests.
Sir F. BARING said he bad made no alteration in

the powers or business of the harbour department.
That department was of great public use and importance,
and operated as a very considerable check upon the ob-
structions thrown in the way of harbour improvement by
local interests. He had made no alteration in the harbour
department, with one exception, namely, that he had
thought the business could be efficiently managed by
two instead of three officers, as formerly, and he had,
therefore, reduced the number of superintendents
to two.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN said the Honourable Mem-
ber (Sir F. Baring) was the last person whom he
(Mr. Wilson Patten) would think of charging with a job
—(Hear, hear)—but he must call the attention of the
House to the circumstance that the private business of
the House, during the present session, had been seriously
obstructed by the delay which had taken place in sending
up the necessary reports from the Admiralty. He did
hope that in future sessions of Parliament arrangements
would be made at the Admiralty to prevent a recurrence
of that delay.

Captain BERKELEY charged bis Hon. Friend (Mr.
Hume) with making statements on this subject which
had little or no foundation in fact.

Mr. RICE, as a member of the Tidal Commission,
complained that the Hon. Member for Montrose had
mixed up two questions which were essentially different,
namely, the tidal harbours and the harbours of re-
fuge, which had no necessary connexion.
Mr. HENLEY thought it very herd that the Admi-
ralty should be censured for reducing their staff of
officers from a motive of economy.
After a few words from Mr. Henley, Sir 11. Willoughby,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and Sir J. Graham,
Lord J. RUSSELL intimated that the distribution of
the medals referred to must be guided by certain rules,
and held that the Duke of Wellington and the Admiralty
were the proper parties to distribute these rewards, the
title of which must not so much be judged by individual
cases as by general actions.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
CUSTOMS' BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
IRISH POOR LAW.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL intimated that he should take
this Bill to-morrow at twelve o'clock, together with the
Workhouse Loans (Ireland) Bill. The Lords had made
a number of amendments which were of the most im-
portant character. Some of them the Government in.
tended to assent to, but they intended to dissent from
others.

Sir J. GRAHAM hoped the Noble Lord would state
the nature of the amendments to which he intended to
object, and those to which he intended to agree.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he should have them pre-
pared and distributed in time for consideration to-
morrow.

TREASURY INSTRUMENTS BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
COMPOUND HOUSEHOLDERS BILL.

Sir W. CLAY moved the second reading of this Bill,
and briefly explained its object; which is this, to enable
parish officers to compound with tenants who pay their
rates as rent to their landlords, so that their
names may be placed on the register, and be thereby
entitled to vote. At present, as the law stood, a party
thus situated, who possessed a 40s. freehold, must claim
to be on the register, and attend four times a year, and
the result was that no one would take the trouble to do so.
The Bill which he held in his hand was framed with a
view to place the compounding householders' on the
same footing as the 40s. freeholders were placed by the
Reform Bill. He was sure that the House agreed with
him that the case of these men called for redress.
Mr. HENLEY did not think that the machinery of
the Bill was right. The effect of it would be that the
overseer would not know the names of half the persons
upon the register ; he would not even know whether
they lived in the parish or not. He was opposed to the
Bill on account of its machinery. As to the principle of
the Bill, if a way could be pointed out by which it
could be worked, he, for one, would not oppose it. He
should move that the Bill be read a second time this day
three months.

The SPEAKER then put the question.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that this was a question of
right, and not of title. If he voted for the second read-
ing of this Bill, it would merely be to signify that there
was a remedy required for an existing evil, and this Bill
furnished the remedy.
Mr. NE WDEGATE thought that the course which
the Noble Lord had laid down for himself was rather
absurd, in voting an abstract principle on a question of
machinery. He should vote for the amendment.

Mr. ROEBUCK thought that to press this Bill now
was certainly a waste of time.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM agreed with the Hon.
Member for Sheffield that this was a lamentable and in-
excusable waste of time. If he were driven to a divi-
Mon he should certainly vote against the Bill. He
entirely agreed with the Noble Lord opposite that the
case of,the compounding householders required a remedy,
and that this Bill was not the remedy; but he entirely
differed with him in the conclusion he had arrivd at, and
should vote against the Bill.
After a short discussion the Bill was withdrawn.
GENERAL BOARD OF HEALTH BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
INCLOSURE ACT (EXTENSION OF POWERS)