begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of War if he intends to recommend the discontinuance of the deductions to which officers of the cavalry are subject in paying for the forage of their regimental charges, kept for the public service, whilst other mounted officers in the service receive an allowance for that purpose: also, if he has directed his attention to the justice and expediency of granting to officers in command of cavalry regiments the allowance called "command money," which the officers commanding infantry regiments receive; also, if the right hon. Gentleman has directed his attention, or intends to direct his attention, to the expediency of recommending to Her Majesty to grant to the sergeants of the Army a continuance of that "pay for good conduct" which they enjoyed as privates and corporals, but were compelled to resign upon promotion to the rank of sergeant; also, if he intends to recommend an increase of the allowance of 2,000l. per annum to sergeants of the Army as a gratuity for good conduct whilst serving; and also, if he intends to recommend an increase of the Vote of last year of 2,000l. per annum granted as a reward to deserving non-commissioned officers and privates of the Army on discharge?

said, that the questions that had been put by the hon. and gallant Member would perhaps have been better put on the discussion on the Army Estimates; but he would endeavour to answer them as briefly as possible. With regard to the first question which had been put to him by the hon. and gallant Member, he begged to say that, being but a short time in office, his attention had not as yet been directed to the matter to which it referred. With regard to the second question, he could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that it was his intention to direct his attention to all questions affecting the comforts and interest of the Army; and that in zeal for the service he hoped he should not be found inferior to any gallant officer who, in the double capacity of an officer in the Army and a representative of the people, felt bound to attend to the interests of the Army. As to questions in relation to different rates of pay in the two branches of the Army, it was almost impossible to enter into them without entering also into the details of the different regimental papers. The regulations to which the questions of the hon. and gallant Member had reference, were of ancient standing, and he could not take upon himself to alter, on his first entrance into office, a practice that had received the sanction of so many of his predecessors. With regard to the continuance of the good-conduct pay to individuals who were appointed sergeants, the hon. and gallant Member must know when a soldier attained the rank of sergeant it was considered to be a reward for good conduct, and therefore that from that period the good-conduct pay should cease. If the hon. and gallant Member could persuade the House that it was desirable to continue that pay to the sergeants, no person would be more willing to agree to it than he (Mr. V. Smith); but it would entail a great expense upon them, because almost every sergeant in the service would be entitled to the good-conduct pay. The hon. and gallant Member knew that the pay of a sergeant was higher than the ordinary pay received by him before his appointment, and that, therefore, as a sergeant, he received as much as he had previously received, including the good-conduct pay. This answer would also apply to the subsequent question of the hon. and gallant Member. There was a vote of 2,000l. taken for gratuities to the men. That had been done ever since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert) was Secretary at War, and he (Mr. V. Smith) was not prepared this year to alter or increase the amount. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman could induce the House to increase the sum, there were many instances in which it could be made available, and he thought there was no proposition in which the country would more perfectly agree.

Sir, to make intelligible the question I am about to put to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control, I must state the fact that a gentleman of great ability (Mr. Kay) has written a work on the war in Cabool, and in that work it is stated, in the strongest language, that the despatches of Sir Alexander Burnes were garbled and emasculated by the State anatomists—that the pith and marrow of the despatches were taken out of them—that lie upon lie was palmed upon the world, and that the characters of Dost Mahomed and Sir Alexander Burnes were lied away. He gives various extracts from the despatches of Sir Alexander Burnes, dated 26th January, 1838, which portions, if genuine, are not to be found in the despatches laid before Parliament on the 26th of March, 1839; and the question I have to ask of the right hon. Gentleman is, whether he will place on the table of the House copies of the entire despatches of Sir Alexander Burnes to William Henry Macnaghten, Esq., the secretary to the Governor General of India, from the 4th of October, 1837, to the 30th of April, 1838?

Sir, in reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman, I can only state that I have looked into the subject to which his notice refers; and I must remind him, in the first instance, that those papers which were presented to the House of Commons to which he alludes, never pretended to be the entire despatches to which he has referred. They were laid upon the table of the House as the extracts which, at that time, it appeared to my noble Friend then at the head of the Board of Control, would be sufficient to inform the House of Commons with reference to the policy pursued in regard to Cabool, without producing papers which then would have been inconvenient for the public service. The House will, perhaps, recollect that this question has been twice discussed with reference to those despatches. The last discussion that took place was a full one, in 1842, on which occasion my noble Friend (Lord Broughton) justified himself and the Government of the day for not producing any more of those despatches. In reply to the direct question of my hon. Friend, I may state that it is not my intention to lay those despatches now, in extenso, before the House. I do not see why, by doing so, we should bring under discussion again the policy and conduct of the Affghanistan war and its misfortunes—questions that have altogether become matters of history—and I hope the House will not ask me to do so.

I beg to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, whether the Government have in preparation the Bill for the extension of British Jurisdiction in South Africa to the Equator, which Earl Grey stated his intention to introduce this Session, in a despatch to Sir Harry Smith given in the papers, on the assumption of the Orange territory, presented to the House on the 19th of May last.

In the year 1836 an Act of Parliament was passed bringing British subjects in territories adjacent to the Colony of the Cape, and south of the 25th degree of south latitude, under the jurisdiction of criminal laws and courts of the colony of the Cape. The object of that Act was to protect the natives against the outrages and violence of any of the British subjects. That Act was, I believe, found to be of considerable service in checking outrages; but a difficulty arose with respect to assigning limitations, and fixing upon the exact latitude of the spot where a crime was committed; and a recommendation was made, with a view of removing that objection, to do away with the limitation of the degree, and, at all events, to extend the jurisdiction of the courts of the colony as far as the Equator; and Earl Grey did announce to Sir Harry Smith that it was his intention to bring in a Bill, and to act upon that recommendation. If matters had proceeded in conformity with that recommendation, a Bill would have been introduced last Session; but, seeing the state of affairs on the eastern frontier of the colony, it was not thought advisable to proceed with that measure; and as the war still continues on the eastern frontier of the Cape, no step has been taken for the preparation of such a measure as that to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

said, that in rising to propose the Resolution of which he had given notice, relative to the neglect of Her Majesty's Government in not introducing any measure for the regulation of Savings Banks, he felt that some apology was due to the House. It might be fairly said, that, considering the immense importance of the subject, and the interests it involved, it was one which should have been brought before the House by a more experienced Member than himself; but if the House would bear with him while he stated very shortly the position of this question as regarded the country and the House, he thought they would acquit him of any un- due presumption in bringing it under their consideration. In 1848, after every expedient for postponement and evasion that Parliamentary experience could suggest had been exhausted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he (Mr. H. Herbert) was fortunate enough to procure the nomination of a Committee to inquire into certain failures in local Savings Banks; but that Committee was so long delayed, that it was not until a late period of the Session that it could meet; and after sitting for a short time they made a Report, on the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, which concluded in these terms:—

"Your Committee have proceeded with the inquiry intrusted to them by the House; but, owing to the late period of the Session, they found themselves unable to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion, and they are of opinion that it is advisable that a further inquiry should take place either during the recess or in the next Session of Parliament into the existing system of savings hanks. They are of opinion, however, that it is expedient that a Bill should be introduced in the present Session of Parliament regulating the liability of trustees of savings banks."

A Bill was introduced on the 29th of August, and passed in a modified shape. In 1849 the hon. Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Reynolds) moved the reappointment of the Committee. That proposition was met by the Government with a direct and positive refusal; and, had it not been for the sense of justice inherent in the House which put the Government twice in the minority, the inquiry would not have been brought to a conclusion. Before 1850 events occurred which rendered it impossible for the Government to avoid taking some steps; and on the first night of the Session of 1850 the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer gave notice of his intention to move in the matter. In answer to a question from the hon. Member for Peeblesshire (Mr. F. Mackenzie), the noble Lord at the head of the Government represented the subject (which was fixed for a Tuesday) as being of such vital importance that he could not consent to one hour's delay. Owing to the indisposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the progress of the Bill was delayed till the 29th of April, when a discussion took place; but there was no objection to the Bill except on two points, and that related to the reduction of interest. From that day to this, notwithstanding the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding the Report of the Committee, then reappointed on his own nomination, the right hon. Gentleman had never brought forward any measure on the subject. The Committee of 1850 reported in these terms:—

"Your Committee have observed with much satisfaction that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced a Savings-bank Bill which is calculated to remedy several important defects in the existing law, and extends the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to the depositors, and they therefore abstain from all observations on this part of the subject, further than to state the conviction which this inquiry has forced upon them, of the urgent necessity for further legislation if these institutions (which have acquired of late years an extent and importance so little anticipated by the original founders of savings banks) are to preserve their hold on the confidence of the country, or produce the beneficial results expected from them, in encouraging and rewarding the industry and self-denial of the working classes."

To that Report the right hon. Gentleman had acceeded, but from that period no attempt had been made at legislation. He (Mr. H. Herbert), therefore, under these circumstances, thought he had made out a case for asking the House to concur in his Resolution. With the permission of the House he would advert to the actual position of the Savings Banks. If any one were to ask what was a savings bank; the answer would be, an institution for the benefit of the working classes, under an efficient Government control. Either that should be the answer, or that those institutions were private and charitable institutions, not controlled by the Government, but in which parties investing had such security that it was impossible to incur loss. How far did either description hold good? It was not much above fifty years since those institutions were introduced. The first of them were set on foot about the year 1799, he believed, at Wendover; others were founded at Tottenham and Bath. The whole responsibility then rested on the parties who established the banks. It was not till 1817 that legislative interference took place. At that time there were only seventy such banks in England, four in Wales, and four in Ireland; but in 1844 a complete change of system in those banks was introduced by one single clause of an Act of Parliament. Up to that time trustees had been liable for any loss that might accrue; but in 1844 a Bill was introduced which subsequently became law, and which contained a clause absolving trustees from all liability. The clause enacted that no trustees or managers of any savings bank should be liable to make good any deficiency that might thereafter occur, unless they had declared by writing under their hands, deposited with the Commissioners of the National Debt, that they were willing to be so answerable. Could it be believed that, although that Act contemplated at the same time that such trustees should take on themselves a limited liability, it was given in evidence in 1848 that in only two banks in the kingdom—Ashby-de-la-Zouch and Tunbridge—had the trustees complied with the Act of Parliament in that respect? He would ask how those trustees bad acted who had been absolved from all responsibility? There were, no doubt, many exceptions, and in many cases the trustees properly performed their duty; but he might cite the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer himself as a witness of the fact that it was exceedingly difficult to obtain regular attention on the part of the trustees to the business of the bank. On the 29th of April, 1850, the right hon. Gentleman stated that—

"With regard to all persons who had taken part in the management of the affairs of those institutions, that however active and energetic might have been the zeal of individuals in forming the establishment, it was exceedingly difficult to insure their regular attention to its concerns for any length of time. Without being disposed to attribute blame to individual trustees for the management of savings banks—for, if be were to do that, he believed he should himself come in for a fair share of it—he was afraid that, with some exceptions, the general practice was, that no very regular attendance was given, and that the affairs of the bank were left very much to the management of the secretary, treasurer, clerk, or by whatever other name the person left in charge was called, and that salutary cheek was not exercised by the trustees or the manager which was perfectly indispensable to the proper management of the establishment. Even in some establishments which had the reputation of being by no means ill managed, he had reason to believe that the trustees had been in the habit of signing blank forms, and even cheeks, to be filled up by the acting manager, at his sole discretion; and, in point of fact, the check exercised according to the existing practice was much more nominal than real." [3 Hansard, ex. 895.]

So that it would appear that the parties who had the management of the savings of the industrious depositors in savings banks were as uncontrolled in that management as if they were disposing of their own private money; so that a body of irresponsible men were intrusted with the deposits of the industrious classes of this country. How long would any Member leave his money in a private bank, of which it was not only stated that the proprietors of the bank never overlooked the business of it, but that a special Act of Parliament had been passed to absolve them from all responsibility? With regard to the administration of the law in reference to savings banks, his opinion was, until that administration was taken away from the irresponsible parties who now exercised it, a long time must elapse before any efficient change in the system would be effected. There was a gentleman who rejoiced in the name of Tidd Pratt; a gentleman of very great power. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that that gentleman was not a Government officer, but was appointed by Act of Parliament to be the Barrister for carrying out the provisions of that Act, and for settling disputes arising under the Act. And why was this gentleman not accounted a Government officer? Because, said the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was paid by fees, and not by salary. But Mr. Tidd Pratt, in his cross-examination before the Committee of 1848, admitted that he had an office in the National Debt Office; that he was consulted by the Government previous to any legislation on the subject taking place, and that without any extra pay; and that he was referred to on all occasions by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on matters connected with these savings banks. And when he was asked whether he had ever heard of any professional gentleman who gave advice and assistance free of any extra pay who did not consider himself regularly appointed by the Government, he stated that he did not know. Was that an answer with which the country would be satisfied? Was it not an unworthy quibble to say that a person in such a position was not a public officer, and responsible as such? How had Mr. Tidd Pratt acted on several occasions? Why, in a manner that had entailed not only great loss on the unfortunate depositors in savings banks, but also on the country. In 1831 a serious deficiency occurred in Cuffe-street Savings Bank, Dublin; the trustees were anxious to wind up the affairs of the bank, but Mr. Tidd Pratt, who went over to Dublin to investigate those affairs, advised them to keep it open. They did so, and for seventeen years after Mr. Tidd Pratt's visit to Dublin was the Cuffe-street Savings Bank continued, notwithstanding that the annual return of the trustees to the National Debt Office showed a progressive embarrassment. The result was, that eventually, in 1848, the bank failed, in consequence of a deficiency in its funds, to the amount of 64,689l. It would be in the recollection of the House that in the Session before last the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed a vote of public money to remunerate the depositors in that bank for the loss they had sustained, and which loss he (Mr. H. Herbert) contended was attributable to the advice given by a public officer to the trustees seventeen years previously, to keep open the bank; and thus granting money for the relief of persons into whose case he refused any inquiry. He would mention another case. In the county of Kerry a savings bank failed in 1848. Mr. Tidd Pratt came there to arrange the affairs of the bank, and he made an award against the trustees appointed previously to the year 1844 (when the Act exonerating trustees from all responsibility was passed) for all deposits made previous to that date. Many of the depositors, acting upon this award, sued the trustees; but on the trial the award was set aside as grossly illegal by the Judges. He mentioned this fact on a former occasion, when the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it fit to say that the trial took place before an Irish Judge and an Irish jury; and he also stated that the awards were set aside on mere technical and legal grounds, in consequence of some informality of the notices. He (Mr. H. Herbert), with all courtesy and respect, would give that assertion the most unqualified contradiction. Lord Chief Justice Blackburne, in giving the decision of the Court, said—

"This determination I should have regretted if I had found that in fact the arbitrator had gone through the due course of inquiry, by the result of which alone he could have been warranted in awarding that this defendant was indebted to the plaintiff and the other depositors in the whole amount of their deposits. But, as far as I can judge, this conclusion was arrived at as the consequence of a very large deficiency of the back funds, without inquiry into the causes of the deficiency, without ascertaining to whose misconduct it was attributable, and without taking the accounts necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff to be paid twenty shillings in the pound by the defendant as his personal debtor."

He (Mr. Herbert) believed that on numerous other occasions that gentleman had acted in such a way as to injure the persons depositing money in savings banks. It appeared to him that Mr. Tidd Pratt had been guilty of something very like a breach of privilege, if he might use such an expression, in reference to one of those banks. In 1848, shortly after the failure of the Rochdale Savings Bank, that of St. Helens also failed, and Mr. Tidd Pratt was called in on the 27th of April, 1850, to give his advice as to the course to be pursued by the trustees.

"Mr. Coupe asked the opinion of the learned Gentleman as to a new bank, for public confidence had gone in the old one. It would be a calamitous matter if there was not another savings bank, but established upon a safe principle, in which people could deposit their money without fee. Perhaps Mr. Tidd Pratt could give some information. Mr. Pratt said there was a new Bill now before Government, and it was only the business of the House of Commons that had prevented its being brought on. It was all ready, and he had no hesitation in saying that the provisions in it were such as would entirely prevent any occurrence of frauds of the kind perpetrated in St. Helens, or of any kind whatsoever, provided the depositor paid his money at the office, and during the office hours in which the bank was open; and, therefore, he hoped that until this Bill became law—and he apprehended the time would not be long before it was—the gentlemen of the neighbourhood would, among themselves, form an institution to go on until the new provisions came into force. And, as he said before, he hoped the Bill would be such that no fraud could occur under its provisions, or, if there did, no depositor could lose a halfpenny. Mr. Coupe: Do you expect passing this soon? Mr. Pratt: Not a doubt about it; the Bill is not only written, but it is printed, and all the provisions are such as will prevent any fraud of this kind."

He would ask the House whether, if upon this advice a bank had been formed, money had been deposited, and a failure had taken place, the depositors would not have had a strong moral claim upon the Government for compensation? The Chancellor of the Exchequer denied his responsibility for the acts of Mr. Tidd Pratt; but was such an individual to go about the country speaking with the authority of a Government officer, and inducing persons to deposit their money in these savings banks, and then for the Government to say that neither Mr. Tidd Pratt nor the Government was responsible? There had been failures in savings banks in many places—in Rochdale, Brighton, Hull, Scarborough, Aylesbury, St. Helens, Dublin, Tralee, and in some of those cases the loss had been made good by the trustees, but in others ruinous loss to the depositors had occurred. He (Mr. H. Herbert) had been an eye-witness to the disastrous consequences resulting in many instances from those losses. He had for four years waited patiently for the Government to take some step in the matter; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer not having given his attention to it, he (Mr. H. Herbert) felt it no longer consistent with his duty to remain silent. If none of the statements he had made could be contradicted, he thought he had made out a case to justify the House to interfere by giving expression to an opinion on the subject, with a view to induce the right hon. Gentleman to discharge those duties which, he was sorry to say, the right hon. Gentleman had not hitherto performed.

said, his hon. Friend had introduced into his speech a number of topics not very closely connected with the Motion which stood in his name on the notice paper. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would, however, attempt very shortly to dispose of one or two of those extraneous matters. First of all, with regard to his remarks on the personal character and responsibility of Mr. Tidd Pratt. Mr. Tidd Pratt was not a Government officer, because he was appointed under an Act of Parliament; nor was he under the control of the Government. He was named as the person whom depositors or trustees of savings banks might call in if they thought fit; but unless they called him in, he had no right whatever to interfere in their affairs; and it was not in his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) power to send Mr. Tidd Pratt to make any inquiry into the state of savings banks, unless that gentleman was requested by the trustees or depositors so to do, or to arbitrate with respect to any dispute between them. Therefore, when his hon. Friend said Mr. Tidd Pratt was a Government officer, he must have known, from his experience in the Committee which sat on savings banks, that such was not the; case. With regard to the Dublin case, he would go no further into that question at present than to state that when Mr. Tidd Pratt was sent over in 1831 to inquire into the state of the hank, he was utterly deceived by those whose duty it was to give him information on the subject. He gave certain advice on a certain representation of facts made to him by the trustees; and if that advice had been followed, much of the mischief which afterwards occurred would have been prevented. But that advice not having been followed, he confessed he did not think Mr. Tidd Pratt could be justly charged with the result of the proceedings which afterwards occurred, and which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) as sincerely regretted as the hon. Member himself; in proof of which he had felt it his duty to repair, in some measure, the distress which had ensued, by a vote of money. His hon. Friend had in a courteous manner contradicted a statement made by him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) a year ago. He hoped his hon. Friend would acquit him of any want of courtesy in repeating the statement which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) formerly made, namely, that the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland was upon a point of form, and that the extract which his hon. Friend had read from the judgment of Chief Justice Blackburne formed no part of the judgment of the case, but was merely an opinion given by the Judge in the course of his judgment. When he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) first made that statement, he was not in possession of the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice; but he would undertake to say, if the hon. Gentleman would submit the decision to any legal friend on his own side of the House, that friend would confirm the statement he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) now made, namely, that that decision turned simply on a point of form—the notices not having been affixed at the proper time and in the proper places. He, however, considered the case of Mr. Tidd Pratt to be altogether irrelevant to the question which was really before the House. The real question was as to the remedy to be applied with regard to savings banks. He did not see how he could have acted more speedily on the Report of the Committee of 1848, which was laid on the table of the House on the 24th of August, than by introducing a Bill founded on the Report on the 25th of August, the day following. The Bill in its original state was applicable to the United Kingdom; but in consequence of the opposition with which it was mot in that House, its operation was limited to Ireland. It did not propose to place the entire control of the savings banks in the hands of the Government. All that the Government could do in such a matter was to provide that when the money was paid into the hands of the Government Commissioners by the trustees, under the provisions of the Act, the Government would be responsible for it; though there was a notion, which prevailed to a considerable extent, that the Government was responsible for all the sums invested, which the hon. Gentleman very well knew they could not be. The great question of responsibility was raised at the time when he had proposed to appoint a treasurer, and what was asked seemed to be this—that the uncontrolled appointment of all officers of savings banks should be left to the trustees and managers, and that all the responsibility of loss should be left to the Government. Now, he was willing to accept Government responsibility so far as Government were allowed to appoint officers; but he had been told, that if he persisted in asking for the appointment of such officers, the trustees and guardians would resign, and that the country would lose the benefit of savings banks. With such a threat he did not venture to press such a provision upon the House, as by so doing he should not have promoted the interest of those classes of the population for whose benefit these establishments were instituted. He had introduced a Bill in 1850, but was prevented from going on with it by the great press of other public business. He was perfectly ready with a Bill in 1851; but he had not thought fit to bring it on when there was no chance of carrying it, as the management of savings banks formed a subject on which the House should not attempt to legislate, unless they had a fair chance of passing the Bill; and hon. Gentlemen would remember how many measures Government were obliged to give up last Session in consequence of the pressure of business at the close. Hon. Members must not suppose, however, he had been negligent of the question in the interval; on the contrary, he had devoted much time and pains to the subject. A new Comptroller of the National Debt Office had been appointed, who had also devoted himself with great diligence to the examining the state of the savings banks, and a great number of additional facts and a large amount of useful information had been obtained by inquiries addressed to local managers, trustees, and gentlemen connected with savings banks, which would have an important bearing upon any measure that might be introduced on the subject. He might, certainly, have given notice of his intention to bring in a Bill at the beginning of the Session; but he thought it desirable to have an opportunity of consulting with many hon. Members who were familiar with the savings-bank question and the state of local banks; and since the meeting of Parliament he had communicated to a considerable extent with them, and had made alterations in the Bill which he proposed to introduce in the present Session of Parliament. It was not very easy to do this, when Gentlemen were all scattered in the country. Considering how necessary those inquiries had been, he did not think much time had been lost in bringing the matter to a practical conclusion. His firm conviction was, that the delay had tended not only to improve the Bill, but to diminish the chances of opposition to it when introduced. He was fully prepared to admit that the present law was in an unsatisfactory state, and that it was desirable it should be amended. At the same time he thought that great harm would have been done if the subject had been brought forward for discussion at a time when there would have been no possibility of coming to any definite or satisfactory conclusion. During the last three years the greatest pains had been taken to frame such a measure as should effectually remove the evils complained of; and he believed, also, that the chance of opposition had been diminished by the communications with different parties which had taken place. It should be borne in mind, that had the trustees of the various savings banks properly performed their duty, very little of the evils now complained of would have been felt. No legislation could compel such parties to perform their duty. He believed that the great body of the trustees and managers throughout the country were now more sensible of their duties, and, he might add, more ready to perform them. No legislation could enforce the voluntary and unpaid attendance of these parties at the meetings of the bank, and such attendance could only be left to their good feeling towards their poorer neighbours. With respect to the Motion of his hon. Friend, he did not know in what light to look upon it, except as a censure upon his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) conduct in not bringing forward the Bill at an earlier date. He did not consider that he was deserving of such censure. He had examined the subject very closely during the last few years, and hoped to be able at a very early day to introduce a measure on the subject.

said, that in agreeing with the Motion of the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. H. Herbert), he thought he had a right to express disappointment at the conduct of Government; but he derived some satisfaction from the pledge of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he would introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to savings banks in the present Session. Recollecting what had occurred in the Committee of 1848, he could not reconcile the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that Mr. Tidd Pratt was not an officer of the Government, with the proof that had been given of his conduct. Mr. Tidd Pratt had acted to all intents and purposes as a Government officer, interfering and advising, and in many instances giving most improper and pernicious advice; and now they were told Government were not responsible for his acts. Who, then, were responsible to the unfortunate creatures who had lost upwards of 64,000l. in the Cuffe-street savings bank? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, Mr. Tidd Pratt gave advice in 1831 which would have saved the bank from its calamities; but, if so, why had the right hon. Gentleman given 10s. in the pound to the sufferers? It was because the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt knew, as had been proved before the Committee, that for seventeen years before the bank failed, it was insolvent, and yet they had allowed it to go on. He quite agreed if Government were to be responsible, they ought to have the appointment of all the officers; but he contended that the poor, thrifty, and deserving people who thought they were getting Government security for their savings, should not be subjected to loss. He certainly was not aware that any proposal had ever been made, similar to that mentioned by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with respect to the appointment of officers and the responsibility of the Government. He could not conceive how the right hon. Gentleman could reconcile it with his conscience to sit for four years on the Treasury bench, and not bring in some measure on the subject. In any Bill that he might introduce, he (Mr. Reynolds) trusted that the Government would consider it as a permanent one, and one calculated to apply a thorough and complete remedy for the evils complained of. Let the Government take the sole and entire control of the deposits; let them appoint a manager, clerks, and as many inspectors as were necessary; let them inquire into the character of the men whom they employed; let them take ample security for the trust reposed in those persons; and, that being done, there could be no risk to the Government. He (Mr. Reynolds) did not mean that local trustees should be dispensed with; he would have the Government take care that in every locality the clergy of all denominations, and the gentry, merchants, and traders of the highest character, should be asked to give their voluntary and unpaid assistance in managing the affairs of the bank, yet that not they, but the officers who were behind the counter, should be responsible. The report of the inspectors ought to be forwarded by every post to the chief officer in London, and this would be a guarantee for the proper regulation of the funds. He might be told that such a measure would be a very expensive one; but he believed the difference between the 2l. 15s. paid to investors and the 3¼ per cent received by the Government from the Bank of England upon the 30,000,000l. invested there, would be amply sufficient to defray all the expenses of such an establishment as that the main features of which he had sketched out. If, however, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kerry (Mr. H. Herbert) had understood the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer as he (Mr. Reynolds) had done, the Government were prepared to bring in a Bill in the present Session with a view to remedy the evil complained of, and he would therefore advise the hon. Member to be satisfied with that promise, and not divide the House upon his Motion.

said, there was no question of more real importance to the community of this country than the subject of savings banks, and it was most desirable that they should be put upon a sound foundation. After the pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman, he trusted the Government would facilitate the measure, so that the House would not at the end of the Session have to complain of any breach of the promise now made.

said, that the constituency which he represented had been large sufferers from the present state of the law, and he felt deeply the neglect of the Government in not providing better security. For the last four years the Ministry had been promising an improvement in the system; but their promises had been violated, and the conse- quence was, that the working classes felt they had been sacrificed by the Legislature. There never could be a safe measure brought in on the subject of savings banks as long as there was a divided responsibility; either the Government or the trustees must be made legally responsible. He, however, had no great confidence in the pledge now given by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and should support the Motion of his hon. Friend.

hoped the Government would turn their attention to that which he considered to be one of the chief points requiring legislation—he alluded to the establishment of some real controlling body over these banks. He spoke with feelings of the greatest respect for the National Debt Commissioners; but they had not time to attend to the accounts of 600 banks, and the control ought to be placed under one head. He was glad to hear, from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Mr. Tidd Pratt was without authority, because he had heard that that Gentleman had declared he had a Bill ready cut and dried, and it was impossible to calculate the mischief done by an unauthorised meddler going from one bank to another with a statement of that description. He hoped Mr. Tidd Pratt would be prevented from putting forth observations as though he was an authorised officer, qualified to speak on this subject.

said, he had very little confidence in any resolutions unless a Bill were introduced to deal with the subject. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unable to deal with it, let him transfer it to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Reynolds), who, though he might not bring the same amount of ability to the task as the right hon. Gentleman could, would bring great earnestness to the consideration of the question.

begged to thank the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this Motion, for having introduced it to the notice of the House, and which he had done in such a way as thoroughly to engage its attention. He thought it should also be well understood that the subject brought before the consideration of hon. Members referred really to the whole question of savings banks throughout the kingdom, and not merely to those in Ireland, or to a few others; so that the importance of the question could not well be exaggerated. When, too, the House remembered that there was no question in which the welfare of the working classes was really more mixed up, he was sure it would be felt that the hon. Member had only done his duty in bringing it before the House, and that in that course he would meet with general approbation. At the same time the hon. Gentleman must feel that in bringing forward a Resolution of this kind, though it was apparently entirely justified by circumstances, it could not really be supposed that the House would vote for it after having received from Her Majesty's Government a very frank assurance of their intention not only to legislate upon the subject, but to do so early in the present Session. Under these circumstances, he thought it would hardly be becoming of the hon. Member to call on the House to divide on this occasion. He understood to-night that Her Majesty's Government, notwithstanding the difficulty of this question—which he would not affect to deny, though he thought it the paramount duty of the Legislature to grapple with it—he understood that the Ministry were prepared to come forward early in the Session with a measure which would meet the entire question of savings banks throughout the whole of the United Kingdom; and the hon. Gentleman having elicited that pledge, could hardly feel it necessary for the House to divide.

said, that after the pledge which had been given by the Government, it was not his intention to divide the House.

begged to move for a Standing Committee, or unpaid Commission, to suggest measures to remove the obstacles which impede the investments of the humbler classes. The object which he had in view was not to abolish any existing law, but the introduction of such measures as would remove the legal obstacles which impeded the investment of the savings and the capital of the middle and humbler classes of the people, leaving them to display their own care and forethought in the disposal of their money. The proper direction given to investments and labour was a subject of the utmost possible importance to the welfare of the country. It was second to no other, and he therefore asked the attention of the House while he endeavoured to place before them his views upon the subject. In looking back to antiquity they would find the direction of the labour of the people was evidenced by the erection of useless monuments in commemoration of the power of their rulers. In the middle ages it was exhibited in the erection of fortresses or palaces for the selfish gratification of their governors; or subsequently, when their manners were softened and refined by the arts, in building picture galleries, or opening public gardens, where all classes might seek some recreation from their toils. In ministering to the pomp and splendour of the rich and powerful, the labour of the people but little benefited themselves. Upon this part of the subject he would not further dilate, merely observing that subsequently a light broke in upon them, when freedom bestowed the power of combining upon those questions which related to the advantage of the country. During the last century, owing in a great measure to the spirit, patriotism, ability, and intelligence of one nobleman—the Duke of Bridgewater—the English people were first permitted to engage in large partnership undertakings. No humble man should look with an envious eye upon the palace which the successor of that great and good man built, for he directed his time and intelligence to their benefit, and turned his great wealth into the formation of those canals which were of so much use to this country, and which contributed so largely to its internal prosperity. This was the first investment for their capital in which the middle classes were permitted to join, in which they were allowed to unite for one great and common purpose for the general advantage of all. After that they saw a wonderful invention—he meant railroads. This, again, formed for a great length of time an investment for the capital of large bodies of the people. During the last twenty or thirty years 300,000,000l. had been invested in this particular direction. At present, however, this channel was almost exhausted; nearly all the great roads of the kingdom possessed railways, and we saw in this country no means of enlarging this kind of investment. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary that we should relieve from legal obstacles any other form for the employment of their savings that might be open to the middle and humbler classes. During the war there had been a form of investment in the shape of public loans, which took up 20,000,000l. a year for twenty years, and which served, therefore, as a mode for the people to dispose of their savings; but he should be sorry to anticipate a war which would reopen such a method for the investment of capital. They had then about 75,000,000l. of money per annum seeking for investment on every side. It was therefore necessary, for the sake of encouraging the industry of the country, to afford facilities for the disposal of this large sum. There were three difficulties which stood in the way of persons seeking to invest their capital. The main difficulty which applied to the investment of the richer and middle classes arose from the law of partnership. The difficulty was, that no parties could join together to carry out any plan, no matter how beneficial to the public, without making themselves liable to the penalty of the loss of their whole fortunes should any misfortune occur. Again, supposing that any difference should occur amongst the partners, the only remedy was a suit in Chancery. Those who heard the eloquent Mover of the Address (Sir R. Bulkeley), knew what his opinion upon that court was. Why, it was an absolute denial of justice to compel a man to go before that tribunal. What was the first step taken? The partnership was dissolved. But when it was imprudent for the rich man, and exceedingly dangerous for the middle man, must it not be absolute ruin for the poor man, to go into the Court of Chancery? He therefore said, with regard to the rich and middle classes, that the law of unlimited liability was such as to prevent investments of the greatest value. It prevented prudent and careful men from using their capital—just that very class of men who it was expedient should guide enterprises of public utility. This subject had been referred to a Commission, and the late Lord Ashburton gave valuable evidence before that Commission in favour of a limited law of partnership. But this very law, for which he contended, was the law of almost every other country in the world. America, Holland, France, and Spain, possessing the advantages conferred by this law. The second difficulty or impediment to the investment of capital arose from the expenditure which it was requisite to make in order to obtain a charter of limited liability. Parliament enabled the Queen in Council to give a charter of limited liability. But as he had already observed, this boon was almost rendered nugatory by the clogs which impeded its action. It had been proved in evidence before the Committee of 1850 that it was the desire of several benevolent persons to erect lodging-houses for the use of the labouring classes, and it was intended that there should be some very moderate per centage returned upon the outlay. The same thing was intended with regard to washhouses, and it was found that those Gentlemen had no security, in case of any misfortune, that they would not be liable to the whole extent of their fortunes. The intention was abandoned; but in cases where the charter was desired, it was only secured at an expenditure of from 1,200l. to 1,300l. It was proved that there were twenty large towns in the country where benevolent people had subscribed money for similar objects; and they would have joined to carry out sanitary and moral improvements, did not the operation of the present laws of partnership impede them, and were not the expense of obtaining a charter so excessively great. The Committee of which he had the honour to be chairman recommended that these charters granted by the Queen should be obtained at a much more moderate rate, when men joined together to carry out local improvements. There was also added another difficulty to that which he had already pointed out. Then, as to local enterprises of public good, such as gas companies, water companies, bridges, roads, and other objects of local benefit, which might be carried out by the capital of the middle classes themselves, it was absolutely necessary to have some power that could only be given by the Act of Parliament. If there were fifty plans of improvement, fifty Acts of Parliament would be necessary, although one, to all intents and purposes, would be sufficient. For a long time they themselves laboured under a difficulty not very unlike the one of which he complained. They were obliged to obtain a separate Act of Parliament for every bit of common or field it became necessary to enclose, until the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) introduced one single Act of Parliament, by which these matters were now regulated, and which greatly reduced the expenses—indeed, diminished them fiftyfold. Where there were investments open to the great mass of the people, they ought to remove those forms which were found so useless and prejudicial. There had arisen lately in this country a number of benevolent persons who were desirous of improving the condition of their fellow-subjecst, and their desire was shown in the establishment of co-operative societies. He had just received intelligence of one established some years ago at Leeds; it was called the People's Mill, and it was prospering exceedingly, producing much benefit and spreading much contentment. Could anything be more fair than that these humble persons should have fair play in endeavouring with their own money and their own industry to benefit themselves and others? But if a benevolent person lent them 100l., he risked the whole of his fortune; and the humble partners in such a concern, in the event of a dispute in the partnership, had no remedy but to go into the Court of Chancery, which was nothing less than ruin to the poor man. These persons asked to be permitted to have a cheap, simple, and expeditious tribunal for the settlement of their disputes, such as were given to provident societies, and to be enabled, like them, to go before a magistrate to decide their differences. It might happen that one out of 200 or 300 of the parties in such a society might be dishonest, and might take some of the partnership property away. He could not, however, be proceeded against, because he was a partner; and could anything be more unjust than a system of laws which bore thus unequally upon the humbler classes of the community? His third point was, that they should have either a Commission or a Committee appointed, who should have the power of investigating this great subject, and who should report from time to time to Parliament upon what measures should be introduced. It was not his intention to seek for a repeal of the present partnership laws. All he required was that the law of limited liability should be permissive, and should run side by side with the present laws. He desired that parties should be permitted to lend any given sums for a period of not less than twelve months, taking a share in the profits; and that any claims of a partner should be postponed to those of all the other creditors, the partner being only liable for the amount of his capital invested. If this proposal were carried out, he thought it would be going a great way to remedy the evils of which, he complained; and he trusted that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would give the House an assurance that the charters to which he referred would be issued at a much more moderate rate than heretofore. There was a great and increasing desire upon the part of the mass of the people to obtain this boon, and that they should be permitted to display their own intelligence in the disposition of their capital. Mr. Porter, Mr. John Stuart Mill, and several other intelligent persons, had declared their assent to the proposition which he submitted to them, as well as several other individuals eminent for their talents and their benevolence. As an instance of the salutary effect of giving the workpeople an interest in order, he would repeat an anecdote related to him by a most intelligent gentleman, the Secretary of the American Legation. In the city of New York, upon the occasion of a riot, it was feared that some of the common people who had joined together would unite to put out the gas lights. "I have got no fear of that," said a resident of the city. "There is not a man possessed of 10l. who has not a share in the company. These will perform the duties of most efficient constables." And he was right; no violence of the kind was attempted. He would give another example of the salutary working of these co-operative societies:—In the town of Bilston, which he visited as a Commissioner of the Board of Health, some persons established a gas company, and they had the good sense to place the shares at so low a figure as 5l. The consequence was that almost all the intelligent workmen in the town had a share, which paid seven per cent upon their capital. It was necessary, however, in the first instance, to have an Act of Parliament, and a hundred other places might do the same thing but for the expense of a separate Act. He believed there was nothing of greater importance than removing the legal obstacles which stood in the way of the investments of the humbler and middle classes, and he therefore trusted his Motion would be agreed to.

seconded the Motion.

could assure his hon. Friend that he was not disposed to undervalue the importance of the subject, or withhold the tribute of sincere respect which the great time and attention he had bestowed upon the subject richly merited. He quite agreed with him that nothing could be more important than that habits of industry and economy should be encouraged amongst the humbler and working classes, by removing any obstacles which impeded the investment of capital. But he might differ from his hon. Friend in believing that it ought to be the object of the Government to encourage the humbler classes in undertakings of a speculative character, that promised great gains, but which, on that account, were more or less insecure. It was most important that, as far as advice and direction could be given to the working classes, they should be exhorted, in laying by their savings, to look to the security of their investments, and not to those large returns which were by a natural law always connected with some degree of insecurity. It was therefore that he ventured to express a doubt of the soundness of the opinions advanced by his hon. Friend. The discussion in which they were now engaged most materially affected the other question previously under the consideration of the House. He held, that no more important subject could occupy the attention of Government and the Parliament than that of the savings banks; and he confidently expected that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to introduce a sound, just, and secure system, which he trusted would receive the assent of Parliament. When he (Mr. Labouchere) talked of the encouragement or the advice given to the humbler classes, he held that this class of the community should be as free as any other, and that the most entire freedom was best for all parties. He desired that there should be no restrictions in law upon the investments of either the humbler or the richer classes, further than those which experience showed were necessary to guard against fraud. With regard to the Motion of his hon. Friend, he could not assent to the expediency of having a Commission or a Committee to make suggestions, neither could he recollect any precedent for such a course being adopted. It was the intention of the Government to issue a Commission carefully to consider the whole law of partnership. He was of opinion, considering the enormous amount of capital existing in this country, and the great changes which had of late years taken place in the commercial relations of the whole world, that the law of partnership ought to be carefully considered and revised, with a view to make any improve- ments in the present state of the law of which it was susceptible. At the same time, with regard to the great question, whether this country should abandon the principle of unlimited liability which it had always observed, and adopt that system which he admitted more generally prevailed among the countries of the world, of a limited liability, by which persons might give their names to undertakings though liable only to a small portion of their fortunes, his own private opinion always had been and still remained averse to any such great fundamental change in the practice of the country. His hon. Friend had complained that there were three great causes which acted as obstacles to the investments of the working classes. The first was that very law of partnership to which he had alluded. His hon. Friend said truly that it was found to work against many of those associations and schemes which had lately been devised, especially those undertakings in which the working classes united together for the supplying of capital as well as labour. His own opinion was, that men should be allowed to judge for themselves with regard to these working associations and co-operative societies. He was not unobserving of what was taking place in this country, and he was quite aware there existed, and was spreading, a system of establishing societies of that description. He did not entertain any sanguine expectation of the success of such associations, in a commercial point of view; but, believing that the working men thought differently from himself—that they could unite the profits of capital with the gains of labour—he should be sorry to leave them with any just grounds of complaint that anything in the law prevented their making the attempt. He had looked lately very carefully into the law on that subject, and he found that the Joint-Stock Companies Act did interpose an obstacle; and, as he believed, an obstacle which was never intended by its framers, to the working of societies of that description. If it had been enough to have repealed that portion of the Joint Stock Companies Act, he should have felt it his duty to have proposed such a measure to the House. But he found also that it was necessary to go further, and not merely to repeal obstacles, but to alter the general principles of the law of partnership. He was not there to pronounce whether that ought to be done or not; all he said was, he thought it a very grave step, and a very serious thing for Parliament to give such encouragement as must be implied from their sanction of that alteration. The Government was anxious, however, that this question should he carefully considered by the Commission which it was their intention to propose, and he trusted the recommendations which would be offered would allow of sound improvements, and, in case relief should be denied, present the reasons for such denial, after a deliberate and searching inquiry. The other complaint made by his hon. Friend was, of the expense of the charters of limited liability, given by the Board of Trade. He (Mr. Labouchere) must admit those expenses were greater than he wished. He took advantage of the Bill of last Session considerably to reduce them—he thought by one-fourth—but he was in hopes that diminution would have been greater, and he should very gladly avail himself of any opportunity which might offer, further to reduce those expenses. The case instanced by his hon. Friend of a charter having cost 1,200l., was not likely to recur again; it was a peculiar one; the provisions were very cumbrous, and therefore the fees were more than ordinarily heavy. With regard to the other modes of investment of the savings of the working classes, he need not advert to them at any length. There was one mode which he believed was as natural to the human heart in the humblest as in the most exalted rank; he meant the acquisition of land. He believed the Statutes of last Session had very considerably facilitated the acquisition of land, and whoever had lived in those parts of the country where small parcels of land were sold, well knew the great desire which existed amongst the humbler classes to become possessed of however small a portion. He was of opinion that feeling ought to be encouraged. He believed it added to the means, the happiness, and the self-respect of those possessed of a portion of the soil of the country, without being merely the means of profitable investment; and he should, therefore, rejoice at any further facilities being given to the acquisition of land among the humbler classes. Having already stated to the House that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to issue a Commission to consider the whole law of partnership, he supposed he need not go further into that question. He thought the Joint Stock Companies Act required some alteration; it had effected great good, but was most cumbrous in its structure, and might be simplified with advantage. He confidently expected some useful improvements would result from the labours of the Commissioners, At the same time his own opinion led him to hope that the result of those labours would not overturn those fundamental principles on which the law of partnership rested, suited, as he considered them to be, to the circumstances and habits of the country. The Government, believing that the time was come when inquiry ought to be made, would issue a Commission for the purpose, as being more suitable than a Committee of the House; and, therefore, he trusted his hon. Friend would not persist in his Motion, but feel satisfied with the assurance now given.

said, that the satisfaction he had felt at the announcement of a Commission on the law of partnership had been considerably qualified by the fact, as he had understood the right hon. Gentleman, that the gravest and most serious principle involved in it, namely, unlimited liability, would not be approached.

could assure the hon. Gentleman that the instructions to the Commission would be of the most unrestricted nature. He had only been endeavouring to explain his own sentiments upon the subject.

was glad to hear this avowal; because it seemed to him that the whole weight of evidence taken before the Committee last year was very much in favour of limited liability as it at present existed in most parts of the United States, Holland, France, and some of the commercial States of Germany.

congratulated the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Resolution, that there was a good hope of the favourable termination of his exertions. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) had been quite fair in attributing to the hon. Gentleman a desire to encourage the investments of the savings of the humbler classes in schemes of a speculative character. The hon. Gentleman's object was, to put it in the power of poor persons to obtain capital on better terms, with which to carry on their business. In 1847, he (Mr. Headlam) had moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the formation of joint-stock companies on the principle of limited partnership; and he was still of opinion that that principle would be much more advantageously applied to such companies than the present. He was perfectly satisfied that the existing law of partnership did not act well upon a wealthy body, either as regarded the parties themselves or their creditors. There was no tribunal to decide between partners except the Court of Chancery; and even that did not decide for the disputes of a continuing partnership, so that there was really no power by which shareholders could call their directors to account, or settle their disputes amongst themselves; and, even if they submitted to a dissolution, the appeal to the Court of Chancery would involve a ruinous expense. Nor did he think that the principle of unlimited liability was so embedded in our law as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think. The railway companies, the companies which had charters, and the Bank of England, were all founded on the opposite principle; and it was acted upon in nearly all foreign countries, without causing any of those evils which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to anticipate from its adoption at home.

said, the great question with the working classes was not generally so much the amount of the yearly interest they obtained upon their savings, as the certainty that they could recover them whenever they pleased. He thought that encouragement to the associations which had been spoken of would do much injury by fostering habits of speculation or of improvidence, which would be sure to result when the working people found that the savings which they had hoarded with such care were wasted by imprudent investments. He did not think, however, that there would be any great or important difficulty in giving persons desirous to associate together with a small capital the means of settling their disputes inter se, the want of which he believed formed a much more serious obstacle in such associations than the question of limited or unlimited liability. He begged therefore most earnestly to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and of the Government to this point. If the House would read the evidence given before the Committee last year, they would find that all the witnesses considered this their chief grievance; and it was in fact a grievance which had created more discontent amongst the working classes than any other whatever. In conclusion, he felt sure that the importance of the general question would secure for it a prompt and close attention, intimately connected as it was with the prosperity of the country and its future progress amongst the nations.

said, he had been appointed on the Committee last year, but as he was also then a Member of two other Committees he was prevented from giving more than a partial attention to the subject; but as the whole question was to be referred to a Commission, and as the subject was one which had occupied considerable attention in the commercial world, he should like to say one or two words upon it. He did not intend to refer to the legal settlement of partnerships, for there was one branch of the question which was a total legal one. No doubt there was a great grievance in the want of some more summary mode of settling disputes between partners. That was a matter, however, which he left to the legal Gentlemen; but the question of limited liability was one upon which commercial men ought to be consulted. Now, the remarks of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. A. Smith), whose opinion was certainly entitled to great weight upon commercial subjects, were adverse to those entertained by the majority of commercial men, and the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) seemed to go in the same direction; but neither he nor the commercial men whom he had been able to consult, could see any valid reason why this country should be an exception to the rest of the commercial world with regard to the question of limited or unlimited liability. The question divided itself into two propositions, namely, as it regarded joint-stock companies and private partnerships; but he could never see why any given number of gentlemen, because they had capital, power, and influence enough in that House to carry their Bill, should obtain a privilege which they denied to humbler individuals who had not more than 5,000l. or10,000l. with which to caary on their business. It was surely only justice to give the same facilities to small undertakings as were enjoyed by large ones. He said this not with the view of tempting the working men to enter largely into those speculations which the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Slaney) had alluded to. He thought that working men in this country laboured under a very great delusion in supposing that they should derive a greater amount of benefit from the investment of capital by being themselves capitalists, than they did now by being labourers paid by wages. Take a large manufacturing concern, where the capitalist had 1,000 people in his employment, and it would be generally found that, at first sight, there was a feeling of grievance on the part of the great multitude of working men that they should be receiving wages, while the capitalist was deriving profit from his capital. But, on analysis, it would be found that these working men got a great deal more of the profits in the shape of wages, while the concern was managed by one responsible capitalist, than they would do if they were joint-stock partners, who elected their own manager, and share the profits of the stock. He was decidedly of opinion that the working classes had nothing to gain by upsetting the present system of society, in which the profits and stock went to one, and the labour and wages to another. But, while holding this opinion, he was for giving to the working classes the fullest opportunity of trying experiments for themselves. And so long as they were prevented, or deprived of facilities for entering into joint-stock associations—so long as obstacles were put in the way of this by the enormous trouble and cost of obtaining Acts of Parliament or charters—so long the sense of grievance would be left on their minds, and they could not be persuaded that they would not enjoy greater advantages provided they were allowed to carry on their business on the co-operative system alluded to. With regard to the other branch of the question, private partnerships, he was an advocate for the system of limited liability. There would be very great advantage in allowing an individual possessing capital to place at the disposal of a partner who had not capital, but who had skill, a certain amount, on which he should receive a share of the profits of the business. According to the present English law, a man putting any portion of his capital into any concern, and receiving a share of the profits, was liable to the whole amount of his fortune, as Lord Eldon said, to his last shilling, and the last acre he might possess. On the Continent, and in great part of America, the system of limited liability prevailed. Its advantage was this, that men of ingenuity, men of character, inventors, those who had the skill and the conduct necessary for successfully carrying on a business, had the opportunity of profiting by an advance of capital, of limited amount, from a capitalist, who would be willing to advance a limited sum, with a limited risk, on condition of sharing fairly in the profits of the business, which he would not do under the present law, knowing that the whole amount of his capital would be at risk, and responsible for the conduct of the business carried on by the acting partners. It was said, that by a system of limited responsibility the commercial world would be deceived, and the people would be induced to trust a concern carried on under this system, because they knew a certain rich man had a share in the business, and would thereby incur a loss, owing to their undue confidence. What did this argument amount to? It proclaimed that the commercial world, the great bankers, the capitalists of this country, were not competent to take care of themselves, and to judge whether people were trustworthy or not. On the Continent, and in America, he believed, it was customary to advertise the names of the partners who advanced capital to a concern, and the amount they advanced. Thus the whole commercial world knew what they were trusting. They trusted perhaps two or three young men, who were the gérants, as they were called, in carrying on the business; they trusted to the character and skill of those, and also to the 10,000l. or 20,000l. that might be known to be advanced by a partner who was not actively engaged in the business, and not actually responsible beyond the amount of his advance. They knew that these young men were liable to the whole extent of their fortune; they knew what security they possessed; and if, knowing all this, they choose to give credit unduly, it was their own fault, and they must take the consequences. That House had no need to legislate to protect the very intelligent people on the other side of Temple-bar from losing their property by giving too easy credit. That was a matter which might fairly be left to themselves. He argued in favour of this system, because he thought it would diffuse capital in this country. It would tend to attract capital from the wealthy into the hands of the deserving and meritorious persons who could give profitable employment to that capital. It was said there was always plenty of capital to be had by anybody in this Country. There was, no doubt, plenty of capital in few hands; but there was a great want of diffusion of capital; and there was a greater inequality of fortune in this country than in any country in the world. He would not pass any law to forcibly diffuse capital, but he would remove every obstacle which prevented it diffusing itself. The complaint of the present law was, that it stood in the way of transactions between man and man; it prevented the marriage of skill and capital by means of limited liability; it forbade the banns between them in this matter. Let skilful and industrious men who wanted capital be left to make their own arrangements; and so long as they made public their bargains, there could be no complaint on the part of those who trusted them. A most intelligent witness, Mr. Commissioner Fane, of the Court of Bankruptcy, who was examined before the Committee last year, went still further, and thought he had impregnable ground for the position he took up. He argued in favour of limited liability, even when there was no publication of the banns of marriage between the parties; he said that if parties liked to make a private contract, if people knew that they were trusting A, B, and C, they had no right to complain that D, who was behind the scenes, had made a private bargain to share in the profits. But, without insisting on this view of the subject, he contended that in the other species of partnership, where full publicity was given to the terms, and where the public knew whom they were trusting, they would have no reason whatever to complain if they lost their money by undue confidence. What we wanted in this country was greater facility for the employment of capital—greater facilities for those possessing capital to employ it. He knew that in some parts of the City there was a strong feeling against this system. One day when be was absent from the Committee last year, Mr. Cotton, of the Bank of England, and others, had expressed a hostile feeling towards the system of limited liability; but there was a total absence of argument on the part of these gentlemen when their reasons were brought to the test. They gave their opinion; that opinion might have been a prejudice, or it might have been something derived from other people. But let hon. Gentlemen weigh the evidence, and they would find on the side of those who argued for limited liability, reasons, facts, arguments, and strong principles; and on the other side something very like arbitrary opinions, the dicta of men accustomed to decide the course of the market by their will and word, and not accustomed to give reasons for what they did. He thought the great capitalists of the City took a wrong view of this matter. It would be more profitable to them to have the opportunity of investing capital in the concerns which would certainly be opened by an alteration of the laws of partnership, than to have their money lying at 1 or 1½ per cent. At present capital was dammed up, and instead of gradually diffusing itself in fertilising streams, it occasionally devastated its banks, and produced ruin and misery through the whole field of commercial enterprise, instead of advantage. Let them offer every facility they could for the investment of capital, or, at least, remove every obstacle that stood in the way of its fair investment; and he had no doubt whatever the great capitalists of the country would derive quite as much advantage from the alteration of the law as any other class of the community. He hoped the hon. Member for Shrewsbury would not press his Motion to a division. He thought the proposal of the right hon. President of the Board of Trade to refer the subject to a Commission, was the best course that could be taken. The whole question was contained in that of the law of partnership and limited liability; and the hon. Mover would not serve his purpose by pushing his question into any more vague field of inquiry. A full investigation was the great object in view; and, notwithstanding the many difficulties he had had to contend with, the hon. Gentleman might console himself with having already conferred great advantages upon the commercial world.

feared that the humbler classes, for whom the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Slaney) had appealed to the House, would after the Commission be as far from their object as they were at the present moment. He quite agreed that unlimited liability deterred the risking capital in concerns; but in that question those parties were not at all interested. The real grievance with them was not the risk of their small capital, but the absence of some means of adjusting disputes among themselves, and to the laws for regulating friendly societies they must look for the means of affording a remedy. He believed that co-operative societies would do well in looking to the enactments contained in the Friendly Societies Acts for assistance in the settlement of disputes. With regard to the law of partnership, he must repeat the opinion which he had expressed before the Committee, that the best way of giving the go-by to partnerships in the nature of co-operative societies was by encouraging persons who had small capitals to advance them to partnerships by way of loan, and to pass an enactment authorising interest to be paid thereon in proportion to the amount of the profit realised. What his hon. Friend aimed at would be best carried out by these means.

hoped that there was a mistake in supposing that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade intended to limit the inquiry to the law of partnership. He was anxious, however, to express his opinion that the question of limited or unlimited liability was not interesting merely to a particular class of society, but was a principle of general application. Capital was constantly struggling to break the bonds which beset it, and they said that railway companies and other undertaking were based upon the system of limited liability. Therefore, the law of limited liability in partnerships was not so alien to the practice of this country as had been represented. In America and other countries parties looked to the amount of capital subscribed, and not to the names of the proprietors. Why should not they do the same here? He rejoiced to see the probability of some practical result being now attained from the discussions which had taken place on this subject.

would not have trespassed upon the House, but for the observations of the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden). The hon. Gentleman said, limited liability in the case of the poor would be, if not productive of injury, at least of very doubtful advantage; but then he urged that the House should at once decide in favour of limited liability for commercial purposes, and for trading concerns. Why, the very object of the Commission to be appointed was to make inquiry, and to take the opinion of the commercial classes upon the subject; but the hon. Gentleman prejudged the question, and contended that all the arguments were in favour of the scheme. He (Mr. T. Baring) admitted that it was a difficult question to decide—there was something to look at on both sides. But the hon. Member said, that on looking at the evidence taken before the Committee, he found that the gentlemen on the other side of Temple-bar urged their opinion without one word of argument; that there was nothing but the simple wish of men accustomed to the arbitrary dictation of the employment of capital. He should have thought the hon. Gentleman was treading on rather tender ground when he alluded to the arbitrary dictation of the employment of capital. He must have forgotten that he himself had, on more than one occasion, been a party to prescribing the manner in which there should be an employment of capital for particular purposes. And then the hon. Gentleman was for perfect freedom of capital. He would tell the hon. Gentleman, who said no argument had been brought forward on that side, that limited liability might be defended in one country, and in one state of the circulation of capital, and might not be wanted in another. They might have France, where there was plenty of capital, but a limited spirit of enterprise, and where people would not embark their capital in business without limited liability; or they might have America, where there was unlimited enterprise, but limited capital; and then came the want of the union of capital contributed from a variety of quarters for purposes of commerce; and there partnerships with limited liability might prove useful. But in this country they surely had enough of capital, and no want of enterprise; and if he were to say why we did not require limited liability, he would ask whether the competition in every branch of trade and commerce was not so great as to have reduced profits to the lowest scale; and whether they could have any better proof that there was no want of the diffusion of capital than the very small profits that existed? The hon. Gentleman said, "Marry capital with enterprise; take some fat easy man, with plenty of money, and join him with one or more active men of business who has plenty of enterprise." He was afraid, however, the fruits of that legitimate union would not be so favourable to trade as the hon. Gentleman supposed. He rather believed that when a man with no money united in this way with a rich man, the poor partner having only skill and enterprise, and no capital to lose, the rich man having money but no responsibility in the business, and no character to lose, the result would be that in cases of failure the man whose character was at stake lost no money, and the man whose money was at stake had still an unblemished character. What was necessary for credit in this country was, that the man with the money should be responsible for the character of the business; and they ought never to do away with that which fixed in the right quarter that amount of censure which to a certain degree attached to the man that failed in business. He did not mean to have said anything on this question, but could not allow the hon. Gentleman to taunt those who held these views with going before the Committee, and not having a shadow of ground for the opinion they entertained. He was ready to admit it was a difficult subject—that it was an open question, and if the result of this Commission was the introduction of a Bill, he very much doubted whether it would be possible to guard against frauds. It was very doubtful indeed, whether, in the present state of trade in this country, any fresh stimulus to enterprise was required. Another point to be considered was, that they might have great commercial companies established with limited liability, and that there was great danger of these large companies underselling and crushing all the small traders.

said, he had read the blue book on the subject, and was of opinion that it was one which ought to be approached with great caution. There was, however, an instance in which the principle of limited liability was in actual operation to a great extent. In Cornwall, under what was called the cost-book principle, thousands of shares in mines were held without any liability beyond their amount, and were transferred with facility. This system had been at work in that part of England for years, was generally well understood, and was not found to have occasioned any evil. His opinion was, that, if a Commission were appointed, it ought also to inquire into the banking laws, because the subject, as limited by the terms of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury's Motion, was apt to lead the working classes to form expectations of millennial happiness which could never be realised. There was, at the present time, too much already of this spirit abroad; and it was owing, he believed, in a great degree, to the manner in which certain subjects were debated in that House. Protectionism, for instance, was a sort of socialism in disguise, founded on the doctrine that it was necessary to foster one trade because it was better than other trades—an idea analogous to that of socialist co-operation—as much so as the doctrines of Louis Blanc or Cabet. The House fostered socialist views too much, and then wondered at the fruits that they produced. The present strike of the engineers had arisen from the support given by the noble Lord at the head of the Government to the Factory Bill. He believed that those two cir- cumstances were as much cause and effect as any two facts which bore that relation to each other. He warned the labouring classes not to compete with capitalists, under the delusive idea of realising a millennial happiness.

, in reply, thanked the House for the kind notice which had been taken of his own humble exertions in the matter, and he wished to say that his Motion was not confined to the working classes, but had for its object the removal of obstacles to investment which pressed upon all classes. He was glad the Government had conceded an inquiry; and, although he knew that men of the greatest abilities entertained different opinions on the subject, he had great hopes of a satisfactory result. He should therefore depend upon the promise of the Government to issue a Commission for that purpose, and would beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

, in moving, pursuant to notice, for leave to bring in a Bill to modify the duty on Carriages, said that he proposed that there should be in future only three classes or rates of payment, instead of the thirteen or fourteen now enforced. His proposition was for a duty of 3l. for four-wheeled carriages drawn by, two horses, 2l. for four-wheeled carriages drawn by one horse, and 1l. for two-wheeled carriages. That was the proposition which he had the honour to submit to the House, though not as a volunteer, for the fact was that the whole of the coachmakers throughout the kingdom complained that their trade was deeply depressed, as the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was well aware, from the numerous petitions on the subject that had reached him. He (Sir De L. Evans) had, however, only been selected as the organ of their complaints, because the greater number of the coachmakers carried on business in the city which he had the good fortune to represent. At this period of the evening, and in the present state of the House, it would ill become him to speak at any length on the subject, and therefore he would refer but to one point to show the unsatisfactory nature of this tax, and that was the duty on four-wheeled carriages let to hire. In the whole kingdom there were a thousand coachmakers, and yet, owing to the nature of the tax which was imposed, only 507 carriages last year, and 461 carriages this year, were let to hire throughout the country. The duty from this source amounted last year to 3,041l., and this year only to 2,760l., which, deducting the expense of collection, would probably not bring in more than 1,500l. to the Exchequer. Now, what was the reason that the tax fell off so from year to year? The tax was 6l. a year; but as that tax was payable if the carriage were hired but for a single day, and the average time of letting was not more than three months in the year, in point of fact the coachmaker paid at the rate of 25l. yearly. The party hiring the carriage—the consumer, if he might use the expression—had of course to pay the tax ultimately, and he believed that this was the only thing manufactured in this country, except hair powder, which paid an annual tax. If there were no other grievance than this of which the coachmakers had to complain, it would be one for the favourable consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. For thirteen years successively this tax had fallen from 10,000l. till it reached its present amount. With the increase of population and the general increase of prosperity, this item of taxation exhibited a decrease year after year. That would serve to show that there must be something wrong in the tax itself. The present rates of duty on carriages varied from about 9l. to 1l. and some shillings; and there were a variety of exemptions, which led to all sorts of frauds and evasions, or at any rate to a deviation from the spirit of the Act. There were four Acts of Parliament by which the duties on carriages were imposed; and as the clauses contained a great variety of exemptions, there were, consequently, all sorts of evasions and frauds practised. For instance, four-wheeled carriages, with wheels of less than 30 inches in diameter, drawn by mules or ponies of less than 12 hands in height, were exempt from duty. This was intended for the relief of persons in humble cireumstances; but the advertisements respecting "brilliant pony equipages under tax," which were so plentifully inserted in the newspapers, showed that these were not the persons who profited by the exemption. Then there was the dogcart exemption, which flourished most extensively, many noblemen, and even, as he was told, members of the episcopal bench, availing themselves of it. It was only necessary to show a receipt from the builder for 21l. to the surveyor, and to have the name of the owner painted on the cart, and the thing was done. But it so happened that a dog-cart, with springs, could not be built for 21l.; and thousands on thousands of cases occurred in which parties exerted, and successfully exerted, their ingenuity to evade the annual payment of 3l. 5s. Sometimes a dog-cart, which could not be made under 40l., was sold for 21l., but then 19l. was given for a whip. Sometimes the gentleman who ordered the drag would not pay more than the legal price himself, but his wife would take care that the tradesman did not suffer. The House was about to deprive the electors of St. Albans of their franchise for septennial corruption; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchechequer was unwittingly causing corruption annually a hundredfold greater than was committed in that unfortunate borough, He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would take this matter into his consideration, and allow him to introduce this Bill. He believed that the rates of duty which he proposed, would yield as much revenue as was now produced from this source, while at the same time thirty-eight different classes of skilled artificers would obtain greatly increased employment.

seconded the Motion.

said, he was afraid that he could not at present agree to the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend. At the same time he must do him the justice to say that he had very fairly stated his case; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should not speak the truth if he did not admit that that there was a good deal in the operation of the tax which was not at all satisfactory. He also must say that of all the various persons who had done him the honour to wait on him to ask for a revision or reduction of taxation, no persons had made a fairer statement than those who had asked for the reduction of the carriage duty, He did not think, however, that the calculations which his hon. and gallant Friend had made as to the amount which would be received if the proposed rates were substituted, were quite justified by the information which he had obtained. He hardly remembered any proposed reduction of taxation, on making which he had not been told that he knew nothing about the matter, and that in the end the tax would produce a much larger amount than before. In his opinion, one of the most unjust of the direct taxes—taxes which were beginning to be unpopular with hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, though some time ago they directed their principal energies against indirect taxation—one of the most unjust of the direct taxes, was the duty on stamps upon conveyances. He had, therefore, made a proposal to effect some reduction in that particular; but the House thought proper to carry that reduction a good deal further than he had himself proposed, and he was told that the estimated loss of 500,000l. under this head was grossly exaggerated, and that the revenue would not suffer a loss of half that amount. Now, the loss on the first complete year of the reduced duty was 497,000l. Calculations so very accurate as this could not always be expected; but the result served to show that the officers of the tax department were more correct in their estimates than hon. Gentlemen in that House, He quite agreed that it was desirable in many respects to alter the mode in which the carriage tax was imposed; but that could not be done without resorting to one of two alternatives—either by submitting to a considerable loss of revenue, or by bringing under taxation a large class of carriages which at present did not pay any duty. The least sum which would be lost to the revenue, if the rates proposed by his hon. Friend were adopted, would be 200,000l., assuming that only the carriages now taxed would be liable. What amount would be received if other carriages not now paying duty were charged, would be matter for speculation. Among those who were now exempted were a large number of persons who had market carts—a class of carriages which had increased to an enormous extent, but which would be taxed if his hon. and gallant Friend's proposal were adopted by the House. At the same time he was satisfied that the opposition to the modification of the tax which his hon. and learned Friend proposed, would be greater than he anticipated; because he had seen several deputations on the subject, and he knew that the feeling in the south of England was by no means so favourable to the modification and extension of the tax as it was in the north. He could not, therefore, agree to a plan which he believed would entail a considerable loss to the revenue; and certainly, in the present state of the financial prospects of the year, with the unascertained duration of the war that was going on in South Africa, he very much doubted whether he should be able to afford any money for the reduction of taxation. He thought it would, under such circumstances, be extremely premature to sacrifice revenue to the extent of 200,000l., as he should be obliged to do if he agreed to the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend. The proposition of his hon. and gallant Friend was not the only one for the reduction of taxation that stood upon the paper this evening. The hon. member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Headlam) had a proposal to get rid of the duty on stamp receipts, which would be a loss to the revenue of 130,000l.; and the proposition of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir De L. Evans) would be a sacrifice of revenue to the extent of 200,000l. at least, so that the two schemes would not cost less than between 300,000l. and 400,000l.; he hoped, therefore, the House would concur with him in giving his negative to the Motion. He agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend, that if the state of the revenue would allow of it, some modification of this tax might form a fair subject of consideration; but it would not be safe to vote away taxes in this manner which might produce a deficiency at the end of the year, or at any rate might fritter away a surplus that might be better employed. He trusted, therefore, that the House would reject this proposition, and wait till the financial statement of the year was laid before them before they proceeded to dispose of the surplus revenue.

said, he was greatly disappointed with what had fallen from the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had again advised hon. Members not to commit themselves till he brought in the Budget. So he used to tell them with regard to the window duties; but the House persevered, and they smashed the window duties, and he had no doubt that ere long they would do the same with the carriage duties. Let them look at the question in a moral and economical point of view. In the library of the House were numerous blue books, giving an account of the appeals against this tax that had been made from time to time; and it would be seen that all sorts of evasions were continually had recourse to in order to avoid the tax. And then let the House consider the expense of all the trials and appeals that were continually taking place. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exche- quer talked of the loss of revenue that he would sustain; but if he balanced that loss by the saving that would be effected in getting rid of appeals, and of the numerous staff of surveyors that were now employed to watch evasion of the law, he would see that the loss on the one side was balanced by the saving on the other.

regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt in assertion rather than in argument. The right hon. Gentleman had asserted that the revenue would lose 200,000l. if this measure were passed, but he had not stated to the House how he arrived at that conclusion. All that the right hon. Gentleman had to do was to look at the question in a pounds, shillings, and pence point of view; but the House of Commons had a right to consider the morality of it. At present, the law on this subject was so vague and mixed up with so many legal terms, that scarcely any person could understand what his rights were under it; and, to avoid the difficulties and frauds that occurred in consequence, he thought this Bill ought to be allowed to be brought in, unless it could be clearly proved that it would occasion a diminution of the revenue. Now, he (Mr. Aglionby) believed that by the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member (Sir De L. Evans), the revenue would be greatly increased. He believed that if a 1l. tax was levied on all spring carts alike, the farmers would gladly pay it, and the revenue would be greatly benefited. [Sir DE L. EVANS: But I don't propose to tax the farmers.] He certainly understood that his hon. and gallant Friend exempted nobody—that there was to be one uniform tax on all. That, at all events, was his proposition; and he believed that farmers using spring carts to go to market would not object to pay the tax; the complaint was that those who were able to pay did not pay.

explained that he proposed in this measure to continue the exemption of all bonâ fide spring carts used by farmers and town traders.

said, the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that the present state of the law was unsatisfactory, and his only objection to the Motion was, that the revenue would suffer. Now, the coachmakers had issued a pamphlet to show that instead of suffering, the revenue would gain by this modification. Neither did his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir De L. Evans), as he (Mr. W. Williams) understood him) wish for a reduc- tion of this tax. His hon. and gallant Friend maintained, on the contrary, that by a just equalisation of the tax, the revenue would gain. What he (Mr. W. Williams) would propose, therefore, was to allow the Bill to be brought in, and then let a Committee be appointed to inquire into the subject, and give the coachmakers an opportunity to prove their statement, that by the adoption of this measure there would be no loss to the revenue. He was aware that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had made some nice calculations upon the subject; but he must say that he had no faith in them, for they had been so often proved to be wrong that they appeared to be adopted very much at haphazard. But let them be tested by a Committee, and that was all he wanted.

said, he was glad to hear the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer admit that the claim of the coachmakers ought to be taken into consideration so soon as the state of the revenue would allow of it. He did not know whether his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir De L. Evans) ought to be satisfied with this declaration; but if he did proceed with the Bill, and get it into a Committee, he was afraid he would make very little progress in that way, because the Committee would feel themselves bound by the calculations of the Government, and the result would not be what he wished for. He certainly thought that this duty should be remitted, as it tended to deception and immorality. He wished that the right hon. Gentleman would agree in the maxim of his hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby), that all taxes that tended to immorality should be remitted, as he thought that in that case the country would get rid of that most odious of all taxes—the Income tax. But, as all taxes were liable to the same imputation, inasmuch as some of the public would endeavour to evade them, he was afraid the maxim of his hon. Friend could not in reality be acted upon. Therefore, seeing the difficulty there was of remitting any taxes, and that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was as willing as any Member of the House to remit taxes whenever he could, he thought his hon. and gallant Friend would do best not to press his Motion for the present. He was satisfied that the proposition of the hon. Member for Cockermouth to lay a tax of 1l. upon all spring carts, would bem ost unpopular. His hon. Friend said that the farmers would be willing to pay for the spring carts with which they were in the habit of driving to market. Now he doubted very much whether they would be willing to pay any such tax, and he thought it would be most impolitic to impose it; for he could assure the House that a great change had taken place in the habits of the people since the exemption of those carts from taxation. Formerly all the farmers used to ride to market on horseback, or go in common carts, and he remembered when it was quite usual for a farmer to take his wife to market on a pillion behind him. But now all that was given up, the adoption of spring carts had become universal, and in the present state of agriculture it would be most unwise to subject these carts to taxation.

thought the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken a correct view of the present question: first, he had no surplus to dispose of; and, second, if he had there was no good reason for removing a tax on the fact that fraudulent evasions were made to avoid it. When there should be a surplus he thought the right hon. Gentleman would find it better to take off the taxes from those who walked than from those who rode.

rose to deny that the people would be willing to have their spring carts retaxed. He believed it would be impossible to do it, and to retax the farmers, of all people. With regard to the main question, he agreed with the hon. Member for Bolton (Sir J. Walmsley), that it would be better to relieve the people at large than those who could afford carriages.

could not vote with the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, not only for the reason stated by the hon. Member for Bolton (Sir J. Walmsley), but because he thought it was a question that ought to be taken up in connexion with another on which several meetings had already been held throughout the country, the duty levied on post horses. An hon. Member had already given notice of a Motion on that subject, and he hoped, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would postpone his Motion till the whole question could be brought under the consideration of the House.

, in reply, said, he did not wish to impose any new tax, but to make that which at present existed fair and equal. As the only means of ob- taining an expression of opinion on the subject, he would divide the House.

said, that the Motion of which he had given notice was for the Abolition of Stamps imposed upon Receipts. He had hoped that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer would have remitted this tax long since, in consequence of the representations that had been made to him, more especially as the reduction of other stamp duties had given great relief to the public. The chief argument which, in his opinion, was in favour of the abolition of this tax, was its systematic evasion on the part of the public. This was the greatest evil to which a tax could be exposed. The late Sir Robert Peel was so strongly of this opinion that he remitted the auction duty, although the remission at that time was neither demanded nor expected. There were few taxes which in principle were more objectionable than this, for it was a tax which almost more than any other was liable to that great moral and practical evil, the being open to continual evasion, and with impunity, on the part of all classes of society. The systematic evasion of the law with respect to receipt stamps was best shown by reference to the decrease in the duty received by the Government from this source. Notwithstanding the greatly increased number of payments which were now made, the revenue from receipt stamps was falling off every year. In the year 1848 the amount derived from receipt stamps was 162,750l.; in 1849,185,707l.; and in 1850,153,768l.; whilst in 1823, when the population was much smaller, the tax produced 185,000l. Another great objection to the tax was that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue were, under its operation, made the tools of unprincipled informers, who applied them to the purposes of the most flagitious extortion. The tax was altogether inoperative for good, since the practice had become so general of paying and receiving amounts from the smallest to the greatest, without any stamped formalities, that even to offer, much less to receive, a stamped receipt was now considered a commercial imputation, a personal insult. The opinion of the commercial world, as well as of the general public, was altogether opposed to this tax. He would, with the permission of the House, read a letter which had been sent to one of his constituents by a common informer:—

"London, April 24th, 1850.

"Sir—I have not the least doubt but you will be surprised at receiving this from me, but necessity makes men desperate. I have, in the whole, six of your unstamped bills, which if they should by chance fall into the hands of the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes, you are aware of what will be the result. Now, the best way to obviate such a chance will be for you to remit me a Post Office order for whatever trifle you can spare in cash, just to cover my present necessity. You shall have, whatever sum it is, returned within three months, as I expect to realise a little money within that time; and I will send you, by return of post, all your unstamped bills. If you feel inclined to favour me, let me have an answer by return of post; if not, I shall not deem it necessary to take any means to prevent the said bills from falling into the Commissioners' hands, which it is very possible they may do, unless care is taken to prevent it. You will please to direct to me, 10, Wilson-court, Wilson-street, Gray's-inn-road, London. You are aware, perhaps, that I have had the misfortune to let the Stamp Office get hold of one or two lots of bills, which I hope you will endeavour to prevent in your case, by complying with my suggestion. You can make an order payable at Mr. Ogg, Money Order Office, Gray's-inn-road, for what sum you may think proper, and by return of post, as I am in great need at present, and you will much oblige me, and also prevent any ill effects arising from the aforementioned circumstances, as I am afraid the Stamp Office will ultimately get hold of all the unstamped bills which I have in my possession, which will be entirely obviated by your complying with my request, as I shall then have it in my power to remit them to you, and you can perhaps take better care of them than if they are left in my hands.

"P.S.—An answer, as I said, by return of post, will much oblige, as delays are dangerous, and I have enclosed one of your bills, that you may know all is right.

"To Mr. Daniel Oliver, Wholesale Grocer."

He held in his hand a memorial from the Chamber of Commerce of Liverpool, recommending the abolition of this tax, and stating as a reason for the abolition, that it was a sound guiding principle in legislation, that duties to which the country had continued to show repugnance, and which the Government had not enforced, should be abolished. He held in his hand a document which had been laid before the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1828, where he found the same statements were made concerning the malignancy of the persons who gave information as to the evasion of this tax. It was there said, that "they always originated in malice." He had moved for a return with respect to the threepenny stamp, that being the smallest amount of the tax. He found that the sum that had been received in respect of that stamp duty in 1847–8 was 22,075l., and there had been that year 102 prosecutions, and in 1848–9 there was a sum of only 19,846l. received, while there were 119 prosecutions. They had seen the manner in which these prosecutions had been got up; and he appealed to the House whether there was any instance where so small a sum was produced by so much annoyance and litigation. He believed that by a small modification of the duty, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might, raise, at least, as large an amount of revenue as that which he now derived from it. He would mention one mode in which that might be done. They were all acquainted with the system of paying bills by means of crossed cheques. There had been great doubt thrown on the legality of that proceeding by a judgment that had recently been pronounced by Mr. Baron Parke. That judgment had only direct reference to the case of a cheque crossed with the name of a particular banker; but the reasoning whereon it was founded, applied to cheques crossed in blank. In proof of that he read the following sentence from the judgment:—

"The crossing a cheque with the name of a banker cannot he meant to operate as an endorsement to that banker; for it is not meant to transfer the property in it to him, and it wants the essential ingredient in endorsements, which is delivery. It cannot be supposed to be something equivalent to a direction to the drawer not to pay to the bearer, but to a particular person only, for it would then come under the operation of the stamp law, 55 Geo. III., which excepts cheques payable to hearer."

He was aware that Mr. Baron Parke had thrown out some extra-judicial opinions, from which it might be inferred that I crossing a cheque in blank was valid: I but the judgment itself proceeded on a different principle, and no reliance could now be placed on the practice of crossing cheques. Now, crossed cheques were a great convenience to society; and what would be easier than to give validity to crossed cheques by the payment of a stamp duty of only one penny, which, he believed, would raise a considerable revenue. There was another mode in which an evasion of the present law might be avoided. If a cheque were drawn on a banker in London within a certain distance from London, a 50l. penalty was incurred; but cheques of that description were constantly being drawn. Let permission be given for this to be done upon payment of a duty of twopence. There were various other modes by which validity might be given to instruments upon payment of a small duty, by which means a great benefit would be done to the public. It was not for him to propose substitutes for the duties sought to be repealed; but he had suggested two, and there was no doubt that many others far less objectionable than the present might be devised. When therefore the House had to consider on the one hand the serious objections to the tax, and the facility with which the same revenue might otherwise be raised, he thought it was their duty to accede to his Resolution.

said, he was very much afraid that if he were to assent to the repeal of this tax on the grounds which had been stated by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, he would soon have but few taxes left. They had long heard that certain taxes pressed hard on particular interests, interfered with some process of manufacture, or diminished consumption; but almost the sole ground on which his hon. Friend had proposed the repeal of this tax was, that people did not like to pay it. The House had very recently negatived the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans) with respect to the duty on carriages; and that Motion was based, like the present one, on the frequent practice of evasion. His hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir G. Strickland) had stated some time ago that if they repealed all the taxes which were evaded, there would soon be no direct, and very few indirect, taxes left. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Headlam) had said that so long ago as 1828, the giving of a stamped receipt was a reflection upon the integrity of the man who paid the money; but he could not see how that could be the case. He did not understand how the enforcing a receipt could be a reflection on the integrity of the man who paid the money. Looking over the list of taxes, he did not think this was one of those which had the first claim to repeal; and the tendency of such demands as the present one was to compel the Government to have recourse to indirect taxation. He confessed he did not much pity persons who incurred hardships by the evasion of the law; they had it in their power to protect themselves. He did not think much of a grievance which could be got rid of so cheaply; all that they had to do was to comply with the law, and then they might set all the informers in the world at defiance. Those, however, were the only grounds on which the hon. Gentleman had moved for the reduction of the tax. He hardly thought the complaints made against it were universal, for almost the only complaints which had come under his notice proceeded from the immediate neighbourhood of the borough represented by the hon. Gentleman, and from the Society of Friends. Looking at the working of this tax, and at the general scope of taxation, he thought that 120,000l. or 150,000l. a year might be much better applied to the remission or abolition of other taxes than the tax on receipt stamps. The hon. Gentleman had suggested the imposition of a small stamp duty on crossed cheques, and had expressed the opinion that a large revenue might be derived from that source. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not agree with the hon. Gentleman. He could not see how a revenue could be derived from the stamps to be imposed on crossed cheques, when the public, as the hon. Gentleman said, evaded the payment of the stamp on receipts. The tax on the crossed cheques could be evaded just as easily as the other. He had not yet heard any suggestion likely to act on the consciences of the public, and induce them to stamp any documents; and he was afraid if he gave up the revenue derived from the stamps on receipts, and relied on that to be derived from the small stamp on crossed cheques now proposed, he should find the public just as unwilling to pay it; and hon. Gentlemen in that House therefore, like the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, on the present occasion, moving for its reduction or abolition. He must therefore oppose the Motion, and he trusted that the House, as it had done once before in the course of the evening, would negative the proposition.

would support the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Headlam) not to remit, but to alter, this mode of taxation; and he trusted that the hon. Gentleman would go to a division upon the question, that the public might see who were, and who were not, in favour of this proposal. The majority would not be given to the right hon. Chanoellor of the Exchequer because of his arguments, but for another reason, which so often gave a majority to those benches. It might be true enough, that on a remission of taxation there were taxes to be selected in preference to this; but what right had the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that this Motion was for remission of taxation? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Have you read the notice paper?] Yes; those might be the particular terms of the Motion; but the hon. Member did not desire a remission of taxation, but contemplated rather an increase of revenue. It was not put on the ground that people did not like to pay the tax, but that they did not pay it. How often did the right hon. Gentleman evade the tax himself? What Member present gave stamped receipts in his daily transactions? It was not done once in a hundred times. But nobody would object to a uniform penny stamp, just as nobody minded paying for the postage stamp. Tradesmen would be in the habit of making out a bill upon a sheet with a penny stamp upon it; whereas now, if you asked a tradesman for a stamp receipt, he stared at you in astonishment for doubting him. The evasions were really terrific in extent.

apprehended that the Motion was to abolish receipt stamps. [Mr. AGLIONBY: The present receipt stamps.] He could not give his consent to that; but it was evident that the revenue from this source under the present system of levying it was decreasing, and he thought a uniform penny stamp would be far more productive. The amount being so trifling, a regular system would prevail, and people would carry these stamps in their pockets. There was a growing feeling in the country in favour of that plan. The present duty fell hard upon those who, like the Society of Friends, had a conscientious feeling about the matter, and who contributed more than their fair proportion to this revenue.

would say, in answer to the appeal to Members of the House, whether they were not in the habit of declining to give or take receipt stamps, that he never did such a thing in his life. It was against his interest to decline a stamp, for he put himself in the power of another to the extent of the money paid. He never knew any one refuse to give a receipt stamp if asked. There was a feeling of honour about it. Take the case of landlord and tenant, for instance; it would not be handsome to refuse. Tradesmen, in general, did not feel any objection to give a receipt stamp, which they thought a fair demand on the part of one who paid a debt—a thing that was more than everybody was in the habit of doing.

expressed his hope that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer would direct his attention to the suggestion of a uniform receipt stamp. The introduction of such a measure would be just to all parties, and would give general satisfaction.

moved for copies of the contract which were entered into with Mr. Walton for the carriage of the mails to Australia, and to the West Indies and the Brazils. He found, on inquiry, that the contract with Mr. Walton had not been completed, and that only a provisional contract had been entered into, and that no security had yet been taken by the Board of Admiralty. He believed the route by the Cape was the only one by which emigrants from Europe could reach Australia; and this was the moment chosen by the Admiralty to limit their mails to every alternate month. The Admiralty had the means of carrying out the communication through established companies, whose capital was paid up, and whose vessels were ready to perform the voyage. They had received offers from one company at least to carry the mails to Australia by the Cape, and he believed they would carry them at a small rate monthly; but notwithstanding this offer, they had entered into an arrangement to carry the mails at a lower rate and at an impossible speed, with a gentleman whose company was not yet formed; and if the statements in circulation were correct, that the performance of the contract would entail a loss of 6,000l. per voyage, he thought it would be impossible for such company to be established. He wished to know if the Admiralty had ascertained whether the gentleman in question would be able to procure sufficient resources to enable him to get beyond the Cape. It was incumbent on the House to see that such contracts were likely to be carried out. In some cases of contracts large penalties had been incurred, but no steps had been taken to enforce them; and he believed that before the expiration of such contracts fresh ones had been entered into at most favourable rates; and if the returns for which he moved should be granted, he should be able to show that 200,000l. a year had unnecessarily been given to that company for twenty years, causing an expenditure to the country of 4,000,000l. He understood that a copy of the contract entered into with the West India Company for the conveyance of mails to the West Indies and the Brazils had already been laid before the House, and also that a tender had been made by the Screw Company for the carriage of mails to the Brazils for 80,000l. a year, whilst; the old contract was not less than 270,000l. a year. If such an offer was in existence, he did not suppose there would be any objection to its production; and if not, he trusted a direct negative would be given to the statement, that a fresh contract had been entered into at the rate of 270,000l. a year.

was glad the hon. Gentleman had moved for papers on the subjects to which he had adverted; for it was only in the absence of any correct information that the hon. Gentleman could have made his statement. He spoke of a certain conditional or provisional contract which be supposed to have been made with Mr. Walton. The fact was, that the tender having been some time ago received, it was necessary to prepare a formal document, called "articles of agreement," which were of considerable length, and which had not yet been signed. It was useless for the hon. Member to move for the contract, because, not being signed, it was not legally in existence. As soon as it was signed, the Admiralty would be happy to produce it. He was surprised the hon. Member should bring so many accusations against the company. He said that they had no vessels. [Mr. F. FRENCH: That they are no company.] On the contrary, he (Mr. Cowper) was told that they were a company; that they had applied to the President of the Board of Trade for a charter of incorporation; that the Board of Trade had no objection, and had signified their intention to grant the charter. He could not say whether all the legal preliminaries had been gone through; but he expected before long that every formality would be complied with. He was also informed that the company had got two screw vessels of great speed capable of performing the services with efficiency. He believed there was not the slightest foundation for the accusations brought against the company by the hon. Gentleman. With respect to the statement that an offer had been made to perform for 80,000l. that service in the West Indies which was now performed for 270.000l., he knew not where the hon. Gentleman had heard of such a proposition. Any document referring to it which the hon. Gentleman could point out, would be new to him. The statements of the hon. Gentlemen were founded on mistake and misapprehension. With respect to the contract for mails to Australia, the Admiralty had taken the simple course of calling for tenders, accepting the lowest, and giving the persons who had accepted every facility they required for the execution of their contract. Under these circumstances the Admiralty could not have acted otherwise than they had.

"Copies ordered, 'of the Provisional Contract entered into with Mr. Walton for the carriage of the Mails to Australia; and the tender made by the said Company for the conveyance of the Mails to the West Indies and the Brazils,'"

moved an Address for sundry returns in connexion with the proposed alteration of the Parliamentary franchise.

said, there was no objection to give the information required by his noble Friend, but he hoped he would not press his Motion in its present shape. A portion of the information would be given in returns moved for by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and another portion in the plan promised by his noble Friend at the head of the Government to the hon. Member for Manchester, both of which would be ready in a few days. With regard to giving the precise number of 5l. houses, it was obvious that it could not be stated until Commissioners were sent down to report on the boundaries. He hoped his noble Friend would not move for what would only be duplicate returns.

said, that the return moved for by the hon. Member for Manchester was for a map setting forth the boundaries of the proposed new boroughs, and the existing boroughs; but what his noble Friend and Colleague asked for was a return of the population of the proposed new boroughs—that was, the number of 5l. householders in each of these aggregation of boroughs. He was looking through the return the other day of the number of 10l. houses in some of the old boroughs which formed part of Schedule A in the first Reform Bill, and which, strange to say, were now to be resuscitated in Schedule B, and he found that one of those boroughs had only fourteen 10l. houses in it. That place was to form a part of a new borough by being added to one of the boroughs which now returned Members to Parliament. Before the House went into Committee on the new Reform Bill, the Government ought to inform them what was the number of 5l. householders in those miserable and contemptible boroughs put together in Schedule B. The Government said that those boroughs in themselves were not fit to return Members to serve in Parliament; therefore, in order to make them fit, they proposed to join them to other places which already returned Members. The object of his noble Friend was to learn how fit those places would be after having been put together. Calne was unfit, Abingdon was unfit, and so on for sixty-seven boroughs. The question was, how were these places by the addition of other equally unfit boroughs to be rendered fit? Previous to the passing of the first Reform Bill, all this information was given, and it was equally necessary that similar information should be afforded now.

said, his hon. Friend was under a complete misapprehension as to the information about to be laid before the House by the Government. Not only would the information asked for by the hon. Member for Manchester be furnished, but the whole of the information which the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) wished to obtain would be afforded, so far as the Government could give it. But it was impossible to give the number of 5l. householders of those boroughs, the boundaries of which had not been accurately fixed. If his noble Friend would wait a few days, he thought the return that was about to be made would give him all the information that the Government could at present obtain.

said, that after the appeal of his right hon. Friend, he could not refuse to wait a few days; but if the information he required should not then be supplied, his right hon. Friend must excuse him if he should repeat his present Motion.