wished to call the attention of the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies to the defective state of the regu- lations respecting the immigration of Africans into the West India colonies, and more particularly into Jamaica. By the existing regulations African immigrants could only be bound by contract to their employers for one year, whereas three years I were absolutely necessary. In the first year the immigrants were, to a certain extent, useless. They generally arrived in a sickly condition, often covered with sores, almost always unused to the business upon which they were employed, and intractable, and in consequence of their inability to labour, and the expense of medical attendance, he had often known, the employer out of pocket for the first year. If the contract were allowed to extend for three years, however, these disadvantages would I be overcome. He had always contended that the African labourers were by far the best adapted to the cultivation of the soil in the West Indies—decidedly preferable to the Coolies, against the introduction of whom he had always set his face. The state of the labouring population in Jamaica was deserving of the serious and paternal attention of the Government. He did not come there claiming protection, but he thought that as a West India proprietor he was entitled to ask the Government to I assist in regulating the supply of labour; and he feared that if the consideration of that question was delayed much longer, the most lamentable consequences would follow.

said, the statement of his hon. Friend, he was sure, was too true. The neglect and want of attention of the colonial authorities had brought on those evils. He was ready to state, on the part of the people of Trinidad, that they wanted no favour; they only wanted that the same laws which affected vagrants in this country should be carried out there. They wanted labour to be free; at the present moment it was restricted. He could not see why labourers should not he imported from the coast of Africa. They were slaves there, but the moment they got to our colonies they would be free, and if three years contracts were necessary, he thought they ought to be allowed. The labourers would be under the protection of magistrates paid by this country, and they would have all the rights of freemen. There was a prejudice against importing slaves from the coast of Africa, which he thought had just grounds when slavery existed in our colonies, but he could see no ground for it now. Unless something was done for the colonies, they would soon become like St. Domingo, of no value either to any one there or in the mother country. He had often said, why should they not be allowed to have labourers from the coast of Africa? The change would be decidedly beneficial to the labourers. They were slaves in Africa, but the moment they set their foot on our shores they would be free men, and would be placed under the protection of magistrates paid by this country. If the Government wished to preserve the colonies—if they wished the produce of the colonies to supply our markets, and our manufactures to be sent to the colonies, they should encourage the supply of labour.

should be exceedingly sorry if the House imagined that the Colonial Office was indisposed to attend to the observations either of the hon. Member for Rochester or the hon. Member for Montrose on this subject. Both of them had paid great attention to it, and the hon. Member for Rochester had considerable experience and an intimate knowledge of the state of our colonies. He fully admitted the distress which prevailed in the West Indies, and he greatly deplored it. He thought the proprietors entitled to every sympathy which the Legislature could extend to them, consistently with the principles of commercial policy which he believed were now firmly established in this country. The observations of the hon. Member for Rochester had been almost entirely confined to the nature of the contract which ought to be sanctioned between the employer of labour and the labourer. The observations of the hon. Member for Montrose related to a totally different subject, namely, the general supply of labour. He proposed, in the few observations which he intended to address to the House, to keep these two subjects quite distinct. The hon. Member for Rochester said, he was convinced that a contract of three years was absolutely necessary. His noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office—and he (Mr. Hawes) shared the feeling with him—did not rely with any confidence upon long contracts of that kind, because it was quite in the power of the labourer, if he was unwilling to work, to make the contract a burden instead of a benefit; and there was nothing they could do to enforce the contract without resorting to means which would be justly objected to by a large portion of the people of this country. He was aware that there was a prevailing opinion among the planters and others in- terested in property in the West Indies, that unless labour were obtained under longer contracts, it would not be found beneficial to the employer. Under these circumstances his noble Friend had sanctioned contracts for a term of three years in British Guiana. But in Jamaica at this moment the law limited the contract to one year; and if anything was to be done to extend the term, as respected that island, it must be done by the local legislature, and not by the Secretary of State in this country. His noble Friend, however, having sanctioned three years in British Guiana, would of course be quite prepared to sanction it also in Jamaica. The same thing had been done in Trinidad. His hon. Friend the Member for Rochester had said that the only species of immigrants that would he useful in the West Indies were African labourers. But there was this difficulty with respect to that class of immigrants, that by existing treaties the Africans were considered as free subjects, and it would be contrary to those treaties if liberated Africans, upon being landed in our colonies, were compelled to enter into a three years' engagement. But they might be employed for a period of one year, and if after that they chose to enter into a three years' engagement no objection could he made to it; but it must be a free contract, and not compulsory upon their landing in the colonies. His hon. Friend had also said, that the importation of Coolies would not be useful in Jamaica; but he (Mr. Hawes) must remind him that that was not a universal impression in Jamaica. With respect to the observations of the hon. Member for Montrose upon the supply of labour generally, he begged to say that there was nothing to prevent the importation of free immigrants into the West India colonies. What his hon. Friend wanted was that merchants should be permitted to go to the coast of Africa and buy them from the hands of slave-dealers, and to take them to the colonies, where, upon their landing, they would be declared free. But his hon. Friend seemed to have forgotten the internal state of Africa; that those labourers to whom he referred were brought down to the coast as slaves; that they had been either taken in war, or had been stolen for the purpose. To suppose that the people of this country would sanction the supply of labour to any part of the British empire by slavedealers, was out of the question. They would never sanction such an iniquitous proceed- ing. But the Colonial Office had given every possible facility to the planters to get free labourers from the coast of Africa. A Government vessel had been fitted out for the purpose of conveying them to the colonies, and that House had voted a considerable sum towards the scheme; but the experiment had failed. What greater possible assistance could the Government have given? Many representations had been made to the Government in favour of the renewal of Coolie immigration. He was happy to say that arrangements were being made to comply with that request. He might state that arrangements were also being made for the introduction of Chinese immigrants into Trinidad. When Dr. Gutzlaff was in this country, he (Mr. Hawes) had had communications with him on that subject, and also with a gentleman connected with Trinidad, and the result was that arrangements were in progress for the importation of free Chinese immigrants into Trinidad.

repeated his complaint of want of free labour in our West India colonies. He had always contended that they never could put down slavery in Brazil and Cuba until they could make free labour cheaper than slave labour. If, therefore, they refused to assist our colonies to procure free labour, so as to enable them to reduce the cost of their produce, and undersell the Brazilians and the Cubans, they must be considered a party to the perpetuation of slavery. Was it not better to buy a slave on the coast of Africa and make him a free man in our colonies, than to allow the Brazilians and Cubans to buy him and continue him in a condition of slavery? It was said that Exeter Hall would not permit such a thing. Pooh, pooh, for Exeter Hall! Exeter Hall had done too much evil already, and he hoped the time was come when less attention would be paid to the ignorance and prejudice which emanated from that quarter.

wished to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to another Bill. Some time ago the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown declared that it was not his intention to proceed with the Landlord and Tenant Bill which the Government had introduced. On the faith of that statement a great number of Irish Members on the Ministerial side of the House had gone to Ireland to attend to other duties. In their absence a Bill on the same subject, containing the obnoxious clauses of the Government Bill, with all the clauses which might be considered remedial struck out, had passed the other House, and had been introduced into the Commons by the hon. Member for the University of Dublin. He thought they had a certain claim upon the good faith of the Government, that since they were not to legislate generally on the subject this Session, they would not connive at partial legislation. He wished to know what course the Government meant to pursue with respect to that Bill?

said, that the fact of Government finding themselves unable to proceed with a Bill on the general subject, would by no means justify them in resisting a salutary improvement of the law limited to a particular case. He confessed, however, that he could not have supported the Bill as it came down to them from the Lords; and, even with the alterations which had since been introduced into it—though it had thereby been rendered very different from the Bill which had come down to them from the Lords—he felt that it would be impossible to agree to it. It had been alleged, that the practice of clandestinely carrying away crops by night was a great evil, and involved a much more serious penalty than the parties would be liable to in this country. The Bill had been committed pro formâ; and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, who had charge of it, had abandoned some of its most obnoxious provisions; and it was now a very different measure from the Bill which had come from the Lords. Still it was one which he thought it impossible for the House to agree to even in its amended form. Notice had been given by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire of an Amendment in Committee, applying to Ireland the law in England against parties clandestinely carrying away property under the value of 50l. If they were to legislate at all on the subject, that would be the safest mode in which they could legislate; and that would involve a very serious alteration. If the Bill went into Committee, he should support the Amendment which took away altogether any penalty for merely cutting crops on Sundays, or early in the morning, or late at night, on account of the uncertainty of proving the intent. The Amendment also did away with the punishment as a misdemeanour, and simply rendered the parties liable to be sued. That would make a material alteration in the Bill; and at that period of the Session, he doubted the propriety of dealing with Bills in that way. He rather hoped the hon. Promoter of the Bill would not press it further.

said, his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin was not in his place; and he thought he had some reason to complain if notice had not been given of this question. He believed it was the hon. Gentleman's intention to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, for assimilating the law to that of England. He knew not what course he would pursue after the declaration now made by the right hon. Baronet.

said, he wished to give notice of his question, but he had not had opportunity.

said, he had every reason to believe that the promoter of the Bill would adopt his Amendments.

said, he should take this opportunity of reiterating his opposition to this Bill. The first clause of the Act, now in force, gave power to the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim any district, and to increase the constabulary, which was, in effect, a standing army. He was also empowered to levy taxes to defray the cost—to prohibit the carrying of arms—to search houses for arms—and other extraordinary powers. No one could doubt that those powers, however necessary at one time, were unconstitutional. There were two modes of governing a country: one by enacting just laws, and calling on the people to preserve the peace for themselves; the other by enforcing or continuing unequal laws; and this system had prevailed in Ireland ever since it was a part of the united kingdom. A policy of coercion and extermination was in force under the Earl of Clarendon at that moment. The noble Earl had given facilities for eviction, and had called for no law to mitigate the misery which flowed from these proceedings. On these grounds he (Mr. S. Crawford) felt it his duty to protest most strongly against this Bill. It was a delusion to sup- pose that measures like this would secure the tranquillity of Ireland. Nothing but just and equal legislation would do this. While the coercive policy was continued, large standing armies must be maintained there, involving the expenditure of a large amount of taxes. On this ground, Englishmen, as well as Irishmen, ought to protest against this Bill. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

had no fear that the provisions of the Bill would be abused by the Earl of Clarendon; but he feared that if the present Government were succeeded in office by their opponents, a Lord Lieutenant might be appointed who would be less worthy of being entrusted with them.

hoped the Government would at least make some attempt to show that this was not an unconstitutional Bill. By giving extraordinary prerogatives to the Crown, either the constitution was suspended or destroyed. It could not be denied that the powers in this Bill were most extraordinary. Hon. Members had been placed in a false position by the Bill being imperfectly described, and not sufficiently explained, on its introduction. Were such a measure proposed for either the manufacturing or agricultural districts of this country, the attempt to pass it would be absurd; it would be thrown out at once. If this measure was necessary, why was it not accompanied with remedial measures, or rather, why did not such measures precede those of a penal character? All the liberal Irish Members were opposed to this coercive policy: nevertheless the Government showed a determination to persist in it. It was true the Earl of Clarendon had exercised these extraordinary powers in a manner which could not be complained of; but the fact that his Lordship succeeded in preserving the peace of the country during a very critical period, without any such extraordinary powers, was a proof that they were unnecessary. They only served to familiarise the Irish with slavery; they were at most but a pis aller; and no case whatever had been made out for their continuance. The prerogative alone was sufficient to arm the Government with all power necessary for suppressing disturbance; and on afterwards asking indemnity from that House, there was no doubt it would be conceded. He objected to give a premium to severe measures by passing a Bill of Indemnity beforehand. Under this Bill the Lord Lieutenant might make himself a perfect tyrant, and there would be no means of reaching him, or those who acted under him. The Member did not deserve the name of a representative of a people who would not oppose a measure like this. In supporting the opposition to the measure, he wished not to prolong the labour of the Session; but he felt bound to vote against it on every stage. It was a proof that there was no disposition on the part of Government to abandon the coercive policy they had so long pursued. He would never support penal measures for Ireland, which were not fit for the meridian of this country. There was a talk of assimilating the laws of the two countries; but all that was meant was to extend to Ireland those English laws which were all but intolerable, and which must speedily be repealed. An assimilation of this nature could only produce greater oppression in Ireland.

said, that his not rising immediately after the mover and seconder of the Amendment did not proceed from any disrespect towards the opponents of the Bill; but hon. Gentlemen would remember that two discussions had already taken place on this subject, and that on the first occasion his noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, and his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland, both stated the grounds which had led the Government to ask for the continuance of the Act for a limited time. He understood, besides, that the hon. Gentleman who now opposed the second reading of the Bill, did not wish to raise another debate on the question, but merely to enter his protest against the measure. He was not aware that he could add anything to what had already been said by his noble and right hon. Friends. The object of the Bill was not oppression, but the security of life. When first proposed, outrages of a shocking character had occurred. He rejoiced to say that the Act had been instrumental in checking such occurrences, though recent experience had shown that they had not ceased altogether. He admitted that the Bill was of an exceptional character, and he should be happy to find that its further extension was unnecessary. At the same time he fully concurred with what had already been stated on the part of the Government, that at present the Government, acting on its own responsibility, did not think it expedient to allow the Bill to expire.

said, as he had heard no good answer to the arguments that had been urged against his Bill, he should vote against the second reading. This Bill of three clauses renewed the Coercion Act of 1847, which contained 23 clauses, and which was not fit for any civilised country; but only for men in their savage and uneducated state. On that ground he opposed its application to Ireland. This Bill was proposed on the ground that the Earl of Clarendon had not abused the provisions of the Act. That might be very true, but the Earl of Clarendon had under him officials, for whose proper conduct he could not be responsible. As an instance of that he would mention that permission to carry arms had been refused to a most respectable gentleman in Dublin—he alluded to Mr. J. H. Thomas, of Ranelagh. He had that day received a letter of a similar kind from an individual who stated that he had been refused a licence to carry arms by a shopkeeper who was a magistrate, which refusal he attributed to political hostility. If this measure was to be applied to Ireland, why was it not also applied to England and Scotland on the principle that "what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander?" But in addition to what he had stated there was no guarantee that the Earl of Clarendon would remain in Ireland. There were 30,000 troops of various kinds in Ireland, and were they not enough to keep the peace without this Algerine Act? He knew nothing more likely to irritate the people of Ireland than such a measure, and he would do everything in his power to strangle it, because he looked upon it as a wanton outrage on the people of that country. He would divide the House on every stage of the Bill, and he begged to return his thanks to the hon. Member for Rochdale, for the manly stand he took upon this and on all other occasions, when the rights of his country was concerned.

wished to know whether, before the next stage of the Bill, the Government would be prepared with a return of the districts in Ireland in which the Act had been put into operation, together with the charge to the counties in Ireland and to the public, on account of additional constables required in consequence of its passing. He understood that the Irish Members had come to an arrangement to give up any further opposition to the Bill. He deprecated such a course. For himself, he was prepared to continue his opposition to the Bill in every stage. He had 26 years ago declared his opinion that peace would never be restored to Ireland whilst the Protestant Church was maintained in its present proportion, and as long as one party were possessed of the idea of superiority on account of religion. He hoped that this subject would be taken up by the Government next Session. The present state of Ireland was discreditable and disgraceful to the nation that kept it under, for they were now kept under by coercion. He should have thought that they had tried coercion long enough. He blamed the Tories for following a policy of coercion, and though he was then joined by the Gentlemen who formed the present Government, he was sorry to say that they had as yet made no attempts at conciliation. He now urged them to bring forward, for the peace of Ireland, and the character of England, such measures as would abolish the evils under which Ireland laboured.

said, that he would make inquiries respecting the return which the hon. Member alluded to.

said that, as far as he was concerned, he entered into no compromise with regard to this Bill, which he considered most obnoxious and disgraceful. But it was difficult to continue a debate where all the speaking and arguments were on one side.

, seeing the hon. Member for the University of Dublin in his place, begged to ask him whether, after what had been stated in the course of the preceding debate, with regard to the inexpediency of proceeding with his Bill, it was his intention to go further with it?

said, he was not in this House when the observations referred to had been made, but he had been informed of their tenor. If the House would indulge him for a few minutes, he would state the position in which he felt himself placed in consequence of the intimation which the right hon. Secretary had just given. In the first place, as he understood the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the stringency of the clauses for preventing the fraudulent cutting of crops at night to evade distress, he (Mr. Hamilton) felt it necessary to say that the clauses had been taken verbatim from a Bill introduced by Her Majesty's Government early in the Session; and, therefore, if that were a matter of complaint, he submitted that the blame should rest, not with him, but with those by whom the clauses had been originally framed. He had taken up the Bill because he believed it a necessary Bill, both to protect the just rights of the landlord, and for the interests of the tenants also. [Derisive cheers.] He would repeat it, for he could not believe that the fraudulent cutting and carrying away of crops at night, could be otherwise than injurious to the tenant class. But it was obviously impossible for a private Member, at so advanced a period of the Session, to carry a Bill of this kind, unless actively supported by Government; but he would tell the House what he believed would be the consequences of its rejection. The practice of fraudulently carrying away of crops at night would increase; collisions and ill-will between landlord and tenant would be the consequence; landlords, at November, would serve their tenants-at-will with notice to quit, in order to have them in their power next year. Many landlords, he was aware, had processed their tenants in the civil-bill courts, and obtained executions, under which they had the power of seizing their growing crops. This would be a disastrous state of things, and it would be prevented by the passing of the Bill. If, however, it was the intention of the Government to oppose it, or not to support it, as they had done for so far, it was useless for him to proceed further. He would only say that upon Government, and upon them alone, must the responsibility of the consequences rest.

asked, whether the hon. Member would consent to withdraw the Bill?

would be no party to withdrawing a Bill which he continued to think necessary; but if any one else chose to move that the Order be discharged, he would not resist it.

then moved that the Order of the Day for going into Committee be read, for the purpose of being discharged; which was agreed to without opposition.

opposed the adoption of the clause.

objected to the insertion of the words without due notice being given to all persons whose interests would be affected, and to whom considerable inconvenience would be occasioned; but he would not object to consider the question of an improved system of Customs accounts in another Session.

said, that this Bill had come down from the House of Lords, and it contained much matter that would constitute extremely valuable improvements in the administration of criminal justice. At the same time there were some clauses, particularly the first and second, which required more consideration than the House could bestow upon them at this period of the Session, and in the absence from town of the Judges. He proposed, therefore, to postpone the Bill for the present Session; but he wished at the same time to state that his hon. Friends, the Solicitor General and the President of the Poor Law Board, who had formerly paid much attention to this subject, had undertaken to attend to this Bill during the recess, in concert with the Judges; and in the course of next Session he would present the Bill again, with such improvements as might then be deemed necessary. In the meantime, he would move that the order for going into Committee on this Bill be discharged.

expressed his entire concurrence in the course adopted by the Government.

also declared his opinion that the Government had taken the wisest course with reference to this measure.

said, he thought the sum fixed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was too low a sum. He thought it should be fixed at 200l.

said, these societies were for the benefit of the lower class of people, and 100l. was as large a sum as a person of that class would insure his life for. To go farther, would be to confer a benefit, at the expense of the public, on a class different from those for whom the Bill was intended, and therefore he must oppose the suggestion.

supported the proposition for 200l.

considered that fixing it at 100l. was a great concession. The public was already much taxed for the advantage of these societies.

said, not one of these societies had put the public to one shilling of expense, but they contributed to the revenue by paying stamps on their policies. The Provident Clerks' Association, with which he was connected, had paid in this way 1,700l. for stamps.

observed, that if they did agree to 200l., it ought to be limited to those societies that were certified under the Friendly Societies Act.

said, he was willing to accede to that.

said, he allowed existing insurances to remain as they were, but that the Act would apply to future assurances.

asked whether it was intended to subject friendly societies to all the clauses and provisions of the Acts relating to savings banks? and whether Government would guarantee the continuance of the rate of interest proposed to be given under this Bill—3l. 0s. 10d. per cent.

said, that it was not intended to subject the moneys invested on behalf of friendly societies to the regulations of the Savings Banks Acts. With regard to the hon. Baronet's second question, he begged to state that there was a certain number of friendly societies to which, by law, an interest at the rate of 4l. 11s. was insured, and there were other societies to which an interest of 3l. 16s. was insured. In these cases the rates of interest which had been guaranteed would be continued; but it was proposed in future cases to give a reduced amount of interest. The result of the arrangements he had mentioned was a considerable annual loss to the country, the loss last year upon the interest paid to friendly societies having been 20,700l. He thought it extremely desirable that the rate fixed to he hereafter paid should be permanent, and he had therefore proposed a rate of interest a little below that which he might otherwise have been disposed to suggest. He had proposed a rate of 3l. 0s. 10d. per cent as a sum upon which the parties, so far as he could give any assurance, might permanently calculate.

objected to the clause, on the ground that it was inconsistent with the second clause; and he suggested the omission of the words, "according to the rules of the said society."

said, that in some societies the member had by the rules the power of having the sum paid to his widow; if these words were struck out, he would not have that which was perhaps his reason for belonging to that society.

thought it would be advisable to omit the words. It did not appear desirable that there should be various systems or rules prevailing; it would be better that there should be one rule, the rule of law, as to the distribution of an intestate's effects; and if a person wished his property otherwise distributed, he could make a will.

apprehended that it was not the habit of the class of persons in question to make a will.

said, that it was never contemplated that there was to be such a nominee system as had grown up, enabling people to evade to such an extent the stamp and probate and legacy duty, and, if so minded, to cheat their creditors. He believed there was a person of high rank in this country whose life was insured for no less than 5,000l. in this way.

wished to know why the Bill was introduced at so late a period of the Session.

, in reply, stated that it had been found necessary to introduce it in consequence of the recent Act for the advance of certain further sums for the improvement of land, containing one word which the law officers in Ireland were of opinion would have the effect of preventing a proprietor, who had taken a loan for one portion of his estate, transferring it to another portion. The Bill was intended to authorise such transfers.

said, he thought it very extraordinary that Government should introduce a measure to compensate persons for an unfortunate speculation. The House should certainly have some explanation.

, in reply, said, that the Lough Corrib Company had undertaken certain works which they were unable to proceed with, and that an Act had been passed in consequence to enable the Board of Works to carry out not only the object of the company, but to effect certain works of great value to that part of Ireland. The company had executed a certain quantity of works near Galway, and had improved the navigation; and it appeared that they had, on the whole, made improvements to the extent of 5,000l., which the Bill proposed should be paid to them in consideration of their labours; competent engineers having been consulted on the subject, thought that that was a fair sum.

wanted to know what was the value that the country got for this sum of 5,000l.

said, that the advantage obtained would be, that a certain portion of the channel of the river was excavated by the company, and the public would get the benefit of that improvement.

wished to be told what good it was when done?

replied, it would have the effect of lowering the level of Lough Corrib, and much land near its shores would thereby be gained by the owners of the adjoining estates; but those persons would be taxed to repay the expenditure so operating for their benefit.

said, that, in doing anything with regard to inland navigation, it appeared to him that the report of the Select Committee on the Irish Fisheries might advantageously be consulted.

would be glad to know what was to be done with any profit arising from those works—was it to be handed over to the Treasury?

said, that estimates for 3,500l. and 1,800l. had been given in with reference to these works, and he wished to know if those estimates had been in any manner authenticated. He hoped at the proper time, probably when the Bill was in Committee, that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give the House some information on the subject.

was glad this Bill was introduced; because it would only do a small and very tardy act of justice to a body that had spent large sums of money for the improvement of Ireland. The 5,000l. would only be about 2s. in the pound of the money that the company had sunk for the benefit of Ireland.

thought it very unfair for the Government to bring forward Bills at the end of the Session in this way, when it was impossible to pass them if the ordinary forms of the House had been complied with. He would move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

said, he felt himself under some embarrassment with respect to the clause proposed; for although he did not object to the principle of the clause, it proposed to displace one which had the approval of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin. The effect of the clause would be to give increased power to the local boards. He should not object to the clause if he might not be thought, perhaps, guilty of a breach of faith to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin, by whom Clause 8 had been supported, and who was not then present.

supported the clause proposed to be substituted for Clause 8, which he thought a much better one than that. It was agreed to strike out Clause 8, and substitute the amended clause instead.

said, he hoped the hon. Member would draw up a clause instead of Clause 13, in accordance with that one which he had just introduced. He (Sir W. Somerville) had undertaken to draw up a clause in accordance with Clause 8, but he could not now promise to do so.

put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as the House had now arrived, at so late a period of the Session, and considering the vast number of petitions presented against the Bill, it would not be desirable to postpone the consideration of the subject until next Session, so as to allow of a consolidation of all the statutes relative to the savings banks, and an inquiry into the whole subject? The right hon. Gentleman, he admitted, had done all in his power to bring the question forward; but he hoped he would concur with him, that at the present hour (10 o'clock) it was impossible to go into a discussion of the Bill.

said, it was certainly with very great regret he had come to the conclusion that he must postpone even the discussion upon this Bill until next Session. He had wished such a discussion to take place, because he believed that considerable misunderstanding existed relative to the provisions of the Bill. He had been anxious, in the first place, to pass the Bill if he could; and, when he found it impossible to do that, he was very desirous to have a discussion upon it. But, looking at the present state of the House, and the time of night, he was most unwillingly and unavoidably compelled to comply with the wish of the hon. Member, and to withdraw the Bill for the present Session.

felt glad that the right hon. Gentleman had adopted the course suggested to him. The measure was one of great importance; and he therefore hoped it would be the very first thing entertained next Session. It was full time that these banks should be put on a footing different from heretofore; and as certain resolutions, the results of reports, were in his (Mr. Hume's) possession, he would lay them on the table to-morrow, with a view to their being printed, when hon. Gentlemen would have full time during the recess to read them over, and thus make themselves minutely acquainted with the subject before coming to legislate on it in the next Session.

trusted no alarm would be created amongst the depositors in savings banks; and that, if trustees did not do their duty, the Government would act as they had done in the case of the Cuffe-street savings bank.

agreed in the necessity for postponing the Bill, but expressed a hope that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer would bring forward such a measure next Session as would give ample security to depositors.

said, that the Savings Banks Bill had been promised on the first night of the Session, and yet the Government were unable to get even a discussion upon it. The sooner the right hon. Gentleman brought in a Bill next Session to place these institutions upon a firm and satisfactory footing, the better.

said, that, though he admitted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no alternative but to withdraw the Bill, he deeply regretted the necessity for taking that course. The Bill was an improvement on the present law; but he would recommend to the right hon. Gentleman the propriety of making the responsibility of the State with respect to the savings of the poor as complete as possible.