wished to propose a clause to empower the Friendly Societies to invest their funds in any manner they pleased, with the consent of three-fourths of the members. These Societies were of great national importance; and, therefore, the House ought to be cautious that they did not so legislate as to excite the suspicion of the Societies. If the Bill were left in its present shape, without the Amendment which he proposed, he feared there would be this tendency.

admitted, that the Friendly Societies were generally desirous of some such clause as that now proposed; but he feared, that the power would be any thing but useful to the Societies; that it would often expose them to bankruptcy and ruin. He regretted, that the Bill had been much, and, he feared, designedly misrepresented by interested parties. It did not seek to interfere with the investments of any Societies now existing; only those which sought enrolment under it. If the clause now proposed were adopted, the effect would be, that Societies, except those in the metropolis, might be tempted to engage in agricultural speculations. They would constitute so many little farming companies, and he apprehended they would become the victims of designing parties, if they were allowed to speculate with their funds. There were between 400 and 500 benefit Societies in the metropolis, and they had nearly a million invested in the Savings Banks, and where such extensive interests were concerned, it was not without the maturest consideration that he had undertaken in any way to interfere with them. He was anxious, that this Bill should be passed this Session, which he was afraid, if this clause were added, would be prevented. He hoped the hon. Member, therefore, would not press his clause, but would be satisfied with the opinion of the House that had been collected on the principle on a former occasion.

also feared, that the tendency of this clause would be most mischievous. It would lead these Societies to embark in gambling and speculative transactions, to prevent which had heretofore been the object of legislation. If that were allowed, and if one failure resulted from these speculations, let them remember how extensive would be the panic through all the Societies. In such case, the mischief would be irretrievable.

also was of opinion, that if this clause were carried, the Societies would become the victims of designing characters. The principle of the clause had been protested against by the Societies. The House had formerly considered the proposition now made, and had negatived it; he, therefore, hoped that this clause would not be pressed now; and if it were pressed, he was quite sure, that it could not be carried.

would resist the proposition. These institutions were in a different situation from that of private individuals; they might do as they pleased with their own; but the like liberty ought not to be extended to the institutions belonging to the invalid sick, the poor, widows, and orphans.

said, he would be no party to continuing the delusions circulated by this Bill, as to the security of the Funds. An intelligent Member, in 1819, brought in a celebrated Bill, using the language now adopted, respecting jobbers, speculators, &c.; and yet that measure had put 372 millions of sovereigns into the pockets of the fundholders, and had robbed the landowners of 550 millions of sovereigns. And now they had this little scheme to put the small savings on board a sinking boat. That boat, by which he meant the National Debt, must sink, or the nation must sink. He repeated, he would be no party to delusion on this subject.

said, there was no person in that House more desirous to abolish sinecures than himself, but instead of this being a Bill to do away with sinecures, its object was, to diminish the salaries of the effective officers of the House. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman in the chair whether his office was any sinecure, and yet the Bill proposed to reduce the salary from 6,000l. per annum to 5,000l. The salary of the Speaker had been fixed by the House at a period when there was not one half the present business to be got through; it was not objected to then; but when the business had increased to an unprecedented extent it was thought to be too much. He would refer to the sittings of the last three nights in proof of his assertion. The House had sat till three o'clock in the morning on each occasion. The same remark held good with regard to the salaries of the clerks at the Table; and if the House were desirous to secure the services of able and effective officers, and uphold the dignity of the House, it would reject the Bill without suffering it to go into Committee. He therefore opposed the Motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair.

said, the Bill had been founded on the report of two different Committees, and must not be considered as his individual proposition. He hoped, if the House would permit the Bill to go into Committee, to prove that the salaries of the different officers mentioned in the Bill ought to be reduced. The Bill did not seek to affect the salaries of the present possessors of those offices which were proposed to be reduced, and he thought, when it was considered that the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer received only 5,000l. per annum each, that they were occupied in the discharge of their duties during the whole year, while the Speaker received 6,000l., and was called upon to perform the duties of his office during the Session of Parliament only, the House would not be disposed to prevent the Bill going into Committee, after it had sanctioned the general principle of the measure on the second reading.

did not think any ground had been shown to suffer this Bill to proceed a single step. He should therefore give his decided opposition to its going into Committee. With regard to the salary now given to the Speaker, the House would observe, that it was fixed at 6,000l. upon mature deliberation, forty-four years ago, and that since that period the business of the House had increased fourfold. Surely, if it were expedient to grant such a sum at that time, it would be improper and unjust to make any alteration now. He spoke without any reserve on this question, as it was one in which the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair was in no way concerned. It was well known, that the sum of 6,000l. did not defray the expenses of the office, and that the late Speaker, Lord Colchester, was permitted to hold a sinecure of 1,500l. a-year on that very account. Nothing was ever saved from the office, and the result must necessarily be, if this Bill passed, that the dignity and splendour of the office must be considerably diminished.