asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department Whether the Government intend to bring forward any measure for the relief of parishioners in cases where the incumbent of a living holds doctrines and adopts a ceremonial so closely approaching those of the Church of Rome that they do not oblige him to leave the Church of England, yet have the effect of preventing the great majority of his parishioners, on conscientious motives, from attending his ministration of the Services and Sacrament?

The question of the hon. Gentleman referred, he apprehended, to occurrences that have recently taken place in St. George's-in-the-East.

Not only there, but elsewhere.

No recent case had been brought under his notice except that, and he certainly understood that it was to that case the Question mainly referred. It would be unnecessary for him to state, therefore,—what he thought the hon. Gentleman desired to be informed of—namely, the steps that had been taken in regard to that case. Without, therefore, making particular allusion to that case, he would say he believed that in the great majority of such cases as had occurred—not recently only, but at previous times—the objection had not been so much to the doctrines taught as to the manner in which the rites and ceremonies of the Church had been performed; and cerainly in the case which he had particularly in view, so far as he was informed, the objection had been directed exclusively against the manner in which the Church service had been performed, and not to the doctrines preached from the pulpit. He was not aware that it would be possible to lay down by law any such definition as the hon. Gentleman pointed out in his Question, and the Government were not prepared to introduce any such measure as he had described. If, however, the hon. Gentleman himself should wish to propose a Bill upon the subject, he (Sir George Lewis) could only say that he should be extremely delighted to find that, in the exercise of his ingenuity, the hon. Gentleman was able to draw a line that would define what at present appeared to him to be very obscure. Until he saw clearly his way to that end he certainly should not ask the House to allow him to introduce such a Bill.

His Question certainly referred in part to St. George's-in-the-East; but that was one case only out of many.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can state when the Head Quarters for the Guards, in lieu of the Barracks in Portman Street, would be completed?

said, the site had been purchased and the land prepared for the building, but it would probably be two years before they were completed.

said, The Scotsman of the 19th instant contained the report of a meeting of the quarter sessions of the county of Midlothian, where a discussion arose with reference to volunteer rifle corps. At that meeting Lord Melville, the Commander-in-Chief of Her Majesty's Forces in Scotland, was reported to have thus expressed himself,—"Lord Melville said, he would much rather see the militia placed on a better and more efficient footing. You can never make efficient these, what I call, loose and useless rifle corps. They can never make an efficient force. The militia, if put on a proper footing, may become efficient, but the rifle corps can never be efficient in the field. They are perfectly useless, and no general officer would command them." The Question he (Lord Elcho) had to put to the Secretary for War was, whether he approved of a person, in the high position of Commander-in-Chief of Her Majesty's Forces in Scotland, holding language such as this in reference to volunteer rifle corps? He would further ask him, whether any official notice had been taken of this very remarkable speech?

I confess that I rather regret that my noble Friend should have put this Question. It is difficult to define the exact line beyond which a military man should not tread in speaking upon any question of the day. In this particular case Lord Melville, whom I may describe as being a very outspoken man, and as holding strong opinions which he sometimes expresses in equally strong language, but who at the same time is a first-rate soldier, certainly did attend that meeting, and did use the expressions which my noble Friend has quoted. The Commander-in-Chief wrote to him expressing his opinion upon the subject of his having taken such an opportunity of advancing the views which he held with regard to that force; and Lord Melville has written to the Commander-in-Chief, and frankly expressed his regret at the terms which he used. At the same time, though I certainly do not share in Lord Melville's opinion, it must be recollected that this was not a meeting convened to discuss the question of the volunteer movement, hut was a meeting which answers to our quarter sessions, and his observations were couched in reply to a proposal for giving some aid out of the country rates to the volunteer corps.

hoped his gallant Friend would not persist with his Motion. There was no desire whatever to conceal any of the facts; but to procure some of these returns would involve considerable expense to the public, and even then he did not think they would effect the object his gallant Friend had in view. With regard to the number of men who had entered under the bounty proclamation, and of the number who had since deserted, the total was not difficult to furnish; but to distinguish those who had entered under the bounty and those who did not would involve the sending out to all the different stations, to China, the Pacific, &c., for the purpose of examining the several ships' books. As to the number of men who had deserted during the year immediately preceding the time of the proclamation, that there would be no difficulty in giving. As to the number of men who had enrolled themselves in the Royal Naval Reserve Corps, that he understood his gallant Friend was ready to defer. As to the number of men now serving who have completed ten and fifteen years' service, distinguishing each, that too would involve the sending out to foreign stations; but with regard to the number of men not serving, who receive the short service pension, that he should be happy to furnish his gallant Friend. The last return asked for was the number of men not serving who are entitled to the short service pension, but have not claimed it. Now, it was impossible to state that, because there was no record whatever. Nothing was known about these men. They had left the service and could not claim the pension. He would take that opportunity of stating that he was sure the object of his gallant Friend was the public good; but he could have little notion of the expense to which he put the country by these returns. In June, 1858, the gallant Admiral's returns in reference to deserters caused the employment of no less than six clerks for six months, at a cost to the country of £500.

said, that every ship on a foreign station sent home two monthly books, which would give the information he sought. Unless the House knew how many men had deserted after receiving the bounty how would they be in a position to ascertain how the navy was to be manned? He wanted to know whether the Admiralty had used proper means to apprehend and punish these deserters. In his opinion no punishment, not even flogging, was too severe for men who accepted the Queen's bounty of £10 and a suit of clothes for the purpose of deserting. He doubted whether the Admiralty had taken proper steps to bring these men to condign punishment. He had no objection to give up a portion of the returns.

said, he would not only offer no opposition to the introduction of this measure, but would consider that the hon. and learned Member was doing a very useful service in bringing it forward. He understood that it was proposed to retain the existing system with regard to Petitions of Right, but to simplify and cheapen the mode of procedure; and if the measure accomplished that end, it should have his cordial support.

reported HER MAJESTY'S Answer to the Address, as follows:—

said, the Motion he was about to propose, if adopted, would have the effect of abolishing the custom of moving every Friday "that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday next," Saturday being thus made, except in unusual cases, a dies non. As there were many Members who had not yet had practical experience in the forms of the House, he would take the liberty of explaining how it came about that, in order to avoid the inconvenience of sitting on a Saturday, an express Motion for an adjournment to Monday was necessary. The rules of the House did not admit of an Amendment to the ordinary Motion for adjournment, nor did they permit any day to be fixed for the next meeting on that Motion; it must necessarily be in the form "That this House do now adjourn." The, Motion must be decided "Yes" or "No," and if it were carried, the House stood adjourned at once till the next sitting-day, of which Saturday was technically one. In the early period of our history, Saturday was a sitting-day the same as other week days, and the practice of adjourning from Friday to Monday did not arise, according to Mr. Speaker Onslow, till the time of Sir Robert Walpole, who, being a great hunter as well as a great statesman, was anxious, whenever it was possible, to get the House to adjourn over Saturday, in order to give him a day's hunting in each week. At first the proposal met with much opposition, but by degrees it grew into a regular practice, which had continued to the present day. So long as the Motion for adjournment was a mere formal matter, and so long as it was passed sub silentio, it was not worth while to make any special provision with regard to not sitting on Saturday. But a novel practice had grown up, within his recollection, which he thought had arrived at such a height as in the judgment of many Members amounted to almost an intolerable nuisance. The Motion for adjournment to Monday was made a handle to introduce discussion upon almost every conceivable subject which the imagination of any Member might deem worthy of submitting. If the custom had existed from time immemorial and acquired that halo of antiquity which was involved in a constitutional practice, he should perhaps treat it with respect, as no one less wished than he did to trench upon the privileges of Members of the House. But they must bear in mind that the practice he complained of was an entire novelty; that it had virtually grown up within the last ten years, and that it had gone on increasing until it had arisen to such a pitch, that he trusted the bulk of the House would lend him aid to put a stop to it. The objections were obvious and palpable. It was a most unbusiness-like proceeding. The amount of business which the House had to transact was enormous. No representative assembly ever had anything like the same amount. For the transaction of that business the time was limited. Yet once a week, practically one, two, or three hours were occupied in the discussion of questions upon which they could possibly arrive at no conclusion whatever. He maintained that the true function of that House, as the representative of the nation, was to transact the business of the nation, and to decide, after discussion and debate, the various important matters submitted to it. All financial and legislative, and a great many administrative, matters were submitted to them, upon all of which the practice was to come to a decision after discussion, and pronounce a deliverance; whereas the topics discussed on the Motion of adjournment were topics on which they could come to no decision. With regard to them they were merely a debating society, discussing things upon which they could pronounce no deliverance; and he thought it had a serious tendency to degrade the House in the eyes of the public, and to lower their character as a legislative assembly. Besides, it was most unfair to the Government—he did not mean the present Government; but those gentlemen who for the time being were intrusted with the conduct of the affairs of the country. The Executive Administration were necessarily charged with the greater part of the business of the House. By the constitution they had to initiate all measures of finance, and practically, if not by the constitution, all measures involving intricacy or details. They had the means of knowledge; they had the power of common counsel, which independent Members had not; and it was very well known that no measure of importance could be carried except by Her Majesty's Government. The House allowed the Government two out of five sitting days—Monday and Friday—and kept for themselves Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. After thus giving up two-fifths only of the time, private Members by this novelty of speaking on the question of adjournment contrived to lessen even that amount, and then at the end of the Session the Government was taxed with the responsibility of not having passed measures which they had not had the means or time to carry. It was calling upon the Ministers of the day to make bricks without straw. It was not fair to the public, whose representative the Government were, and who expected the Government properly to carry on the business of the country. It was also not fair to those hon. Members who were content to take the chance of the ballot for precedence on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and who, having respect for the forms of the House, were unwilling to abuse those forms merely to deliver a speech, of which they were big, in a full House at five o'clock on a Friday. Here was a specimen of the extent to which the practice had grown. On April 8, 1859, the following were the Notices on the Motion for adjournment till Monday:—

"Mr. Salisbury,—To call the attention of the House to remarks said to have been made by Mr. Baron Bramwell at Bala and other assize towns in the North Wales Circuit; and to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any explanation to offer to the House on the conduct of the learned Judge.

"Captain Vivian,—To ask the Secretary of State for War a question relating to the appointment of Mr. Cunningham to an Ensigncy in the 13th regiment of Light Infantry.

"Mr. Hopwood,—To ask the Secretary to the Treasury for an explanation of the recent dismissal of a gentleman who had been employed for two years and a half in the Emigration Office, and had subsequently passed a satisfactory examination before the Civil Service Commissioners.

"Sir A. Agnew,—To put a question to the Secretary of State for India respecting the late disturbances in Travancore.

"Mr. G. Clive,—To call the attention of the House to the recent appointment of magistrates for the city of Hereford; and to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what information, and at whose suggestion, such appointments were made; also, whether he will object to the production of any correspondence which may have taken place on the subject."

[Hear! hear.] He heard hon. Members say "Hear, hear," as if these were impor- tant questions to ask. He did not for a moment wish to convey that all these very miscellaneous matters were not such as might very properly be brought under the notice of the House; but he said they ought to he brought under its notice in a regular and proper manner. They might all be divided into two classes—Questions for information, or subjects on which the opinion of the House might be taken. Questions, that merely sought information, could be put on any evening without a speech. If they involved discussion, proper notice should be given, and the Motion made on a Tuesday or Thursday. He had not read half the list, and this was only for one day.

"Viscount Castlerosse,—To ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the late trial at Tralee, of Daniel O'Sullivan, convicted of being a member of the Phœnix Society, the eleven Roman Catholic jurors (including a gentleman lately appointed a magistrate for the county) who were called and answered to their names, were directed to 'stand by,' by the Crown; and, if so, whether such a course was adopted with the approval of the Government.

"Sir Erskine Perry,—To ask the Secretary of State for India what steps have been taken for removing the political establishment of the India-office to the neighbourhood of the other public offices of Government.

"Mr. Kinnaird,—To ask the Chief Commissioner of Works whether the Government will have made up their minds by the meeting of the New Parliament (seeing that Berkeley-house is now pulled down) as to making a carriage road by the side of Berkeley-house, from Cockspur-street and Charing-cross, into St. James's Park.

"Mr. Monckton Milnes,—To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in what mode, and to what extent, the Government intend to act upon the recommendations of the Consular Committee of last Session.

"Viscount Palmerston,—To make some observations on the state of affairs on the Continent, and to ask Her Majesty's Government for information as to the position held by the British Government in the negotiations now going on.

"Mr. Chichester Fortescue,—To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he will lay on the table the correspondence between the Colonial-office, the Hudson's Bay Company, and the Government of Canada.

"Mr. Liddell,—To ask the Secretary of State for India whether in consequence of the appointment of Mr. Peacock to the Chief Justiceship of Bengal, it is the intention of the Government to recommend that the vacancy thereby created in the Council of Calcutta should be filled up by a person competent, from experience and skill, to superintend and remodel the finances of India.

"Mr. Beamish,—To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether Sir Samuel Cunard having offered, through a deputation who waited on the Admiralty and Treasury Departments on Monday last, to convey the mails weekly between an Irish port and America for the sum of £500 the voyage out and home, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to persevere in completing a contract for £300 for this service (fortnightly) between Galway and America."

Many of these were perfectly proper questions to be put for the sake of information, but he repeated that they were not put on a proper occasion, or in a proper way. It was very hard upon the different Members of the Government, because they had very little notice of the Questions to be put, and were often prevented from replying by having already answered a previous Question. He had on more than one occasion seen it degenerate into a complete farce—one Member of the Government rising after another to give answers to Questions which were not within their province, prompted by other Members of the Government who were really cognizant of the matters in question, but who could not speak themselves, because they had already addressed the House on the Question before it of adjournment. As an instance of the extent to which the practice had increased he would refer to the Notices for to-morrow. There was no great amount of business on the paper to-morrow, but already hon. Members had given notice that they would make speeches on the Motion for adjournment. Mr. Monckton Milnes was going to ask the Government—

"What measures have been adopted with regard to the Address presented to Her Majesty on the 2nd of August, 1859, by this House, praying Her Majesty to enter into negotiations with the United States of America for the purpose of preventing the assaults and cruelties committed on merchant seamen in American vessels; and to call the attention of the House to some recent occurrences of that nature."

No doubt, the question was one which ought to be brought before the House, but why did the hon. Gentleman bring it forward on the Motion for Adjournment? Why did he not put his name down and take his chance of the ballot like others? No doubt, he was enceinte with a speech of which he wished to be delivered, but why did he choose an evening, and an occasion when his egg must be addled, unless it was that, the Question of Adjournment coming on early in the evening, he would be more likely to have a full House to listen to him? Then Mr. Darby Griffith was to ask the Government—

"Whether it is true, as stated in a French paper, that 30,000 French troops are expected at Leghorn, and whether the French Government has any intention of taking any such steps, for the purpose of preventing the annexation of the pro- vinces of Central Italy to Sardinia, which their Constitutional representatives have voted as their final determination."

And Mr. Edwin James had given notice of his intention—

"To draw the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the case of Thomas Smethurst, convicted of the crime of murder on the 15th day of August last, and recently pardoned by Her Majesty; and to ask him whether the Government contemplate the introduction of any measure to give the right of appeal to persons convicted of capital and other crimes."

If hon. Gentlemen thought it was a legitimate thing that there should be such an opportunity as this for making a deliverance of such matter, let arrangements be made for the purpose, so as to get rid of the hardship imposed on those Members who, coming down to advance public business, were compelled to sit and listen for four or five hours to discussions on every variety of subject, which never led to any practical result. The worst of it was, that not merely were questions asked and answered, but every Member who had not already spoken on the Question of adjournment had a right to speak on any particular question; so that very often little debates were got up. He could not conceive what objection would be urged against his proposition. There were a certain number of Gentlemen who seemed to think it the principal function of a Member of Parliament to throw every obstacle in the way of public business; but he hoped that was not the opinion of the great majority. Some would say that it was advisable to have a safety-valve through which hon. Gentlemen could let off their steam; but if the valve were pretty nearly as big as the boiler, and no proper weight put on it, very little work indeed would be got out of the engine. Whether he succeeded in carrying his Motion or not, he had no doubt he should have the support of many Members on both sides, who were anxious to see a stop put to this modern abuse—which was most unfair not merely to the Government, but to the other independent Members, who did not condescend to avail themselves of it. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving,—

"That, whenever this House meets for business upon Friday, it shall at its rising adjourn to the following Monday, unless the House shall otherwise order."

said, he could hardly think that his right hon. Friend had fully considered the bearings of that question; and he hoped that his right hon. Friend, who had not himself been very nice in his language, would forgive him if he stated that his speech was somewhat tinged with official pedantry. His right hon. Friend, when he described the practice of speaking on the Motion for adjournment as an innovation, ought to have remembered that it had grown up solely in consequence of the abolition of the old constitutional custom of speaking on Petitions, a custom which was still adhered to by the other House of Parliament, and which, he believed, existed in every other legislative assembly in the world. After it had been thought right to suspend that power it was only natural that the practice should have grown up of taking advantage of the Motion for the Friday adjournment in order to bring forward incidental matters which could not otherwise be submitted to the consideration of the House. The House was an excellent guardian of its own order, and he could remember but very few instances in which the privilege had been abused; and it appeared to him that the practice carried with it great and palpable advantages. It enabled hon. Members to bring subjects under the notice of the House at the right moment; whereas if the usual form of giving notice of a Motion were adopted, many questions which called for immediate consideration could not be submitted to the attention of the House until the lapse of perhaps two or three months, when no advantage could any longer arise from their discussion. His right hon. Friend had asked why he (Mr. Milnes) had not given notice of his Motion, and stood his chance of the ballot for the day on which it was to be brought forward; and his answer was that he had not done so because the subject with which he had to deal was one of pressing importance and would not bear delay. That was, he thought, a sufficient reason why he should take the earliest possible opportunity of bringing it under the consideration of the House. He believed that those incidental discussions seldom or never occupied more than two or three hours, a period of time which noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury bench and on the front Opposition bench did not scruple to spend in the delivery of a single speech. Now, if Ministers and ex-Ministers would be a little more concise in their addresses, and a little more relevant in the matter of those addresses, he believed the business of that House would be conducted very successfully, and there would be no necessity for interfering with the privileges of the few independent Members who took any active part in their discussions. He was sure that if the House were to give its sanction to that Motion one of these two consequences would follow—either the public would feel great discontent at finding that hon. Members could not bring forward incidentally important questions, or else Motions for the adjournment of the House would be made, not only on the Fridays, but on the other evenings on which they sat, for the purpose of justifying the introduction of such topics. His right hon. Friend said that hon. Members ought either to put a direct question, or else to raise a debate on any matter in which the public felt interested; but he (Mr. Milnes) said that there were a great number of occasions on which it was not desirable to pursue either the one or the other of those courses, and on which Members wished to preface their Questions with some explanations, although they did not think it advisable that they should conclude their observations with any formal Motion. If it were really desired to save time, let the right hon. Gentleman direct his attention to the Motions on going into Committee of Supply, which really were inconvenient when the Government were pressed for time to carry on public business. He trusted that the House would not consent thus to restrict the right of interpellation possessed by every Member of Parliament.

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned his name, he should not have ventured, being so young a Member of the House, to have addressed them on this subject. But as the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to him by name, and as he had not been very strict in his language, but had made use of some rather hard terms, such as "abuse" and "fraud," and as, moreover, he had indulged in a variety of metaphors, he (Mr. Edwin James) thought it right to offer a few remarks. Firstly, he thought the reproach of indulging in flights of imagination came very oddly from the right hon. Gentleman who had himself talked in a most effervescing style, and had dressed out his speech with all sorts of rhetorical metaphors, flying from obstetrical to engineering in the most fanciful way. His Motion having reference to the case of Smethurst was one which deserved consideration; but he had not given notice of it with any idea, as was supposed by the right hon. Gentleman, of bringing it forward in a full House. It was one of those Motions in which, though they did not entail any express decision, the public, the Bar, and, he would add, the criminal jurisprudence of the country, were deeply interested. These would all rest satisfied with the inquiry and discussion which the subject would receive when brought forward upon the Question of Adjournment; and it consequently seemed to him a very proper time for bringing it under the notice of the House. Much inconvenience would arise if every Member, when putting a Question, was compelled to move an Adjournment. He therefore hoped the House would negative this Motion; and he felt sure that the good sense, discretion, and right feeling of the Members, with the desire which they all felt to conduct their sittings with decorum and propriety, would operate as a sufficient safeguard, without the dictation involved in the proposition of the right hon. Member.

said, if the right hon. Gentleman pressed this Motion to a division, he should certainly vote with him. He had no wish to repress freedom of speech on the part of any Member, upon whatever subject he might think fit and proper to take up—such a course would be the very last that he would think of; but an improvement might, in his opinion, be effected if the House were to make such arrangements as would admit of those topics being brought forward in a regular manner, and not at a time when they interrupted the business which was intended to be transacted. The only argument which he had heard from the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Monckton Milnes) was that which related to the pressing nature of some of the Motions; but looking to the custom which now prevailed, he thought the difficulties attending it were much greater than would be involved in any alteration. He desired to see the practice amended in the way which was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman; and if in due course of time it could be shown that any real inconvenience had thereby arisen, the system now existing might be revived, but with some restrictions, which would enable their discussions to be conducted in a more satisfactory manner. He had no wish to use any word which might be considered objectionable, but he had heard it said hundreds of times that the mode in which Questions were brought forward on the Motion of Adjournment amounted to an abuse of the privilege.

said, that while it was his intention to oppose the Motion, in case it went to a division, he thought his right hon. Friend appeared to have been rather hardly dealt with by two of the Gentlemen who had spoken; for there was nothing in his observations calculated to give offence—and he had certainly not intended to do so. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman seemed to him very much to under-estimate the exertions of independent Members, when he broadly stated that nine-tenths of the business of the House was transacted by gentlemen holding official situations. His own experience might not be as great, but he believed that if the legislation of recent years was dispassionately considered, it would be found that a vast number of useful and valuable measures had emanated from those Members, whose independent action he should be sorry to give any vote to limit or restrict. From the historical sketch which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman, he had fancied that he was about to make a proposal for restoring to them the Saturday of which they had been deprived. But that proposal had not been made; and he wished to point out a consequence which must ensue from this Motion if carried, which was that it would be impossible to continue the practice which of late years had so much tended to the advancement of public business, that of relinquishing Thursdays to the Government towards the close of the Session, Maintaining the metaphor which had been already employed, the House might depend upon it that if the use of the safety valve were abridged the steam would burst up somewhere, and much more frequent recurrence would therefore be made to a practice which he looked on as tenfold more objectionable than the one to which their attention had now been called. He alluded to the custom which the Speaker had endeavoured to check, but which it had not been in his power altogether to abolish, by which, when a Member was otherwise unable to make some observations, which he was desirous of offering, he got some friend to move the adjournment of the House. Friday particularly suggested itself as an occasion suitable for asking questions on matters of importance, as the House was then about to suspend its sittings for two days; and on that very account some latitude ought to be given. On these grounds—for he would not delay the House by stating others—he should strongly urge his right hon. Friend not to press the Motion to a division.

said, he would take the liberty of adding a few words to the arguments which had been already urged in opposition to the Motion of his right hon. Friend; and he earnestly entreated him not to press this question to a division, as in that event he, for one, should feel it right to vote against it. He believed that he had occupied a seat in that House for about the same number of years as his right hon. Friend, and, like him, he had witnessed the gradual growth of this custom, which, however, had left upon his mind an impression exactly opposite to that which it appeared to have produced on his right hon. Friend. And when he spoke of this as a novel custom, adding that if it were old and venerable he might be induced to treat it with greater leniency, this view apparently led to a conclusion exactly opposed to what his right hon. Friend intended; for he apprehended that this practice had grown up simply from a sense which existed in the minds of hon. Members of its necessity and convenience. Several customs existed in that House which theoretically, perhaps, were not capable of being defended, but which were yet felt to be matters of great practical convenience. The debate on Wednesday bad often proved most useful in putting an end to disagreeable and inconvenient questions which could not else be disposed of; and similarly, that on Friday evening gave opportunities for clearing off old scores and getting rid of all the Parliamentary gossip of the week. He believed that the liberty of speech on that particular evening had a very salutary effect in shortening discussions, which would otherwise extend over a great portion of the ensuing week.

Sir, my experience in this House has taught me that in the conduct of business we must trust more to the good sense of the Members them selves than to any of our rules and regulations; though no one can for a moment deny the efficiency of those rules, to a certain extent, and the necessity of maintaining those regulations by which our general order is established. I have on more than one occasion opposed Motions similar to that now brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman, but I must say that in the exercise of the privilege to which his Motion refers I have occasionally observed practices of which I cannot approve, and which I must say I have sometimes very much deplored. I remember an instance, I think in the course of last Session, where the clock had reached the hour of ten before the business of the evening commenced. But although that is what I believe may be called, without offence to any one, an abuse of the privilege, I am disposed still to trust to the good sense and to that quality called tact, rather than to a Resolution such as is proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time I do think that if we retain this custom there ought to be a general, and I would say an honourable understanding on both sides of the House that Questions should not be brought forward on these Motions of Adjournment, unless they are of a pressing and general interest. I certainly think that such an understanding was not observed on either side during the last, or, indeed, during the last two or three Sessions; but, if hereafter it should be arrived at, I feel persuaded that the exercise of the privilege, which, under certain circumstances, might be a very great advantage indeed, need not be viewed in the manner in which it has to-night been represented. The House has lost the privilege which it possessed of speaking upon the presentation of Petitions; and the opportunities of debate have, as regards independent Members, been curtailed by other means. I should therefore hesitate very much before consenting to a proposal such as is involved in the present Motion; but I admit that if, after the experience of next Session, we cannot come to that practical understanding which I have already intimated, I shall consider myself perfectly free from any engagement which I had previously taken, and if any hon. Member should then propose a Motion similar to that which is now under consideration, I should perhaps view it in a different spirit from that which I do at present.

said, he quite concurred that this was a question to be determined by the circumstances of the time, and that on observation of the manner in which the rules of the House worked from Session to Session a Member might change his opinion without inconsistency. The question was one to be decided according to the general sense of convenience and the prevailing view of the Members of the House. He thought it a mistake to suppose that there was any conflict of interest, or any wish on the part of the members of the Government for the time being to interfere with the rights of private Members of the House. The only question is, what is the most convenient mode of disposing of the business of the House. Judging from his own feelings — and he might appeal to the feelings of hon. Gentlemen opposite when in office—nothing could be less agreeable to members of the Government than to increase the number of nights devoted to Government business. On those nights the principal labour of official Members was discharged; and those hon. Members were quite in error who supposed that there could be any wish on the part of the Government to increase the time necessarily devoted to the Government business. If ever they wished that increase, it could only be from a sense of public duty, and not for their own personal gratification. Before he sat down he wished to call attention to the way in which their present rules with regard to Government business operated in the interval between the commencement of the Session and Easter. Two nights of the week were devoted to Government business—Mondays and Fridays. The other three nights were entirely devoted to questions brought forward by independent members—Tuesdays and Thursdays to Notices, and Wednesdays to Orders of the Day. On those days no Government Notice or Order was allowed to have precedence; they must be put at the bottom of the paper, if they were brought forward. But on every night of the week Questions were put by independent Members; and every one who had been long in the House knew that the number and importance of the Questions put at half-past four had very much increased; and the time devoted to those subjects had increased accordingly. Every night, therefore, independent Members had the power of putting Questions, and the whole of Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays was given up to them. Before Easter, on Mondays and Fridays it generally happened that there were Committees of Supply. On the Motion for going into those Committees, independent Members had the liberty of making two, three, or four Motions, if no division was taken; so that Members who came down to take part in the discussions on Supply, found that the House did not go into Committee until seven, eight, or nine o'clock. In addition to that diminution of the time given to Government business, there were the discussions raised on Friday night on the Question of Adjournment, Taking away Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the portion of each night occupied by Questions, that occupied by Motions on going into Committee of Supply, and the portion of Friday devoted to discussions on the Motion for Adjournment, there was a considerable subtraction from the number of hours allotted to the public business in the beginning of the Session. It was customary for the Government to bring in Bills for the consideration of the House at the beginning of the Session; they might lie on the table; but it was almost impossible for any Government Bill, if opposed, to receive any consideration before Easter. The only nights devoted to the Government business were occupied by Committees of Supply; and on the other three days they had no opportunity of being heard. The consequence was that a large number of Government Bills were postponed to a late period of the Session. Everybody knew, when the morning sittings commenced in June, how great was the pressure on the time and exertions of Members, as a great portion of the latter part of the Session was occupied with pressing business; and, after all, many Bills had to be postponed; much altercation arose as to their postponement, and the order in which they should be brought on; and, altogether, considerable confusion arose in the latter part of the Session. That was very much owing to the regulations for the conduct of their business in the part of the Session before Easter. He was far from desiring to curtail the time that might be fairly allotted to discussions raised by independent Members. That time was most valuable. It was necessary to the proper working of the House of Commons that there should be a free expression of the voice of the people on subjects on which perhaps no direct Motion could be made. The subjects brought forward on the Motion for Adjournment were chiefly Questions addressed to Government by Members who wished to accompany those Questions with some remarks; they were not generally in the nature of Motions or proposals. And when the noble Lord (Lord C. Hamilton) said that those discussions facilitated the measures proposed by independent Members, he misrepresented the nature of those discussions. No measure proposed by an independent Member could ever then be brought forward; therefore it was impossible that those Motions could facilitate such Bills. If he were to make a suggestion, he would rather ask the House to consider whether it might not be possible that on a portion at least of the Thursdays before Easter, precedence might be given to Orders over Notices; or at any rate to allow some portion of those days to be occasionally devoted to the discussion of Bills. It was also worth consideration whether some limit might not be fixed with regard to the hour of the night at which Motions might be made on going into Committee of Supply, for it was an admitted inconvenience for Members to come down, seeing "Supply" in the paper, and expecting discussions on the Estimates, and to find the House occupied in discussing colonial or Indian questions, or some other matters wholly foreign to the question of Supply. He did not think that any good would result from pressing this Motion; but some improvement might be made in the distribution of their time before Easter, so as to give more time to the consideration of Government measures. He would also suggest that when a Motion had been brought forward by a Member of the Government, the House had as much possession of this Motion, and as full power of discussing it, as any Motion made by an individual Member. The Government had no control over the subject of discussion when once it was submitted to the consideration of the House. The only question was, whether it was desirable that a greater portion of time should be allotted to the subjects proposed by independent Members, or to those proposed by Government.

wished to add his voice to those who recommended the withdrawal of the Motion. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman had made it rather impossible for him to support his Motion by one of the arguments he had advanced in its favour. The right hon. Gentleman had cited him (Viscount Palmerston) as an instance of those who had taken advantage of this practice of raising discussions on the Friday Motions for Adjournment. He therefore could not, sitting on that side of the House, endeavour, without great inconsistency, to curtail the liberty which he had taken on the other side. There were occasions on which it might be a great public advantage for Members to have the opportunity, on the Adjournment of the House on Friday, to ask a question accompanied by a detailed statement, which the regulations of the House forbade on another day, and also for the Members of the Government who were interrogated, to have the opportunity of stating at greater length the circumstances of the case referred to. He however hoped that what had been stated in the course of the debate would induce hon. Members to exercise some discretion and forbearance in introducing subjects on a Friday, if the practice were to continue, and that some good would result from this discussion.

said, he was not of so hopeful a temperament as the noble Lord. If he thought that the result of this discussion would be to deter Members from abusing this privilege, he should be content. But the truth was, it was but a very small portion of the Members—if they were to be counted, a very small fraction—who resorted to this practice, for the majority condemned it. ["No, no."] He believed that those who said "no, no," were of the minority he referred to, and he thought that some regulation of the practice was due to the majority who were now at the mercy of the minority, which would abuse the present rule as long as it existed. He wished to remove the temptation afforded to those Members. When the noble Lord the leader of the House could not resist the temptation, when offered, of making a long speech, no wonder that others fell into the same course.

was sorry to hear that his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock was about to press his Motion to a division. He admitted there was a great deal of truth in many of the observations of his right hon. Friend; but he could not vote with him. He should prefer leaving the question on the footing on which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had placed it. He thought his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock might have introduced the subject in a more cautious manner. It was not usual to single out Gentlemen by name as he had done. A middle course, might, perhaps, be adopted—either the discussions on the adjournment of the House from Friday till Monday should he confined to the business and proceedings of the House, or else the Motion for the adjournment from Friday till Monday should take place after the Orders of the Day, making those Orders terminate at a certain hour. This would give ample time if there was any pressing occasion for discussion. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State appeared to be of opinion that hon. Members should rather give up their privilege of bringing forward Motions on Questions of Supply, and exercise their right of discussion on the Adjournment as much as they pleased. Now, he decidedly protested against that. Motions on Supply were, according to a sound constitutional maxim, the most legitimate means of asserting the rights and making known the grievances of the people of this country, which ought always to be attended to before any money was voted away. He therefore hoped the House would never agree that their powers with regard to Questions of Supply should be crippled or restricted. He hoped if his right hon. Friend pressed the matter to a division he would be defeated. The good sense of the House, he was quite certain, would correct the evils which had been pointed out.

said, he rose to move—"That in all cases where the Seat of any Member has been declared void by an Election Committee on the ground of bribery, no Motion for the issuing of a New Writ shall be made without two days' previous notice having been given in the Votes."

said, he would suggest that the present Motion and one which stood lower on the paper in the name of the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department, and required seven days' notice to be given before writs were moved for certain corrupt boroughs, should be combined together, and that seven days' notice should be necessary in all cases of that kind.

said, he rose to move—

"That no Motion for the issuing of any New Writ for the City of Gloucester or the Borough of Wakefield be made without seven days' previous notice thereof being given in the Votes."

It would be in the recollection of the House that Committees were appointed last Session to inquire into the Returns for the City of Gloucester and for the borough of Wakefield, and that those Committees had reported the extensive prevalence of corruption in both of those constituencies. In consequence of this an address was adopted to the Crown to inquire into the matters attending the elections in these two boroughs. The Commission in the case of Gloucester had made their report to the effect that corruption had existed extensively during the last two elections in that city. That report was on the table of the House, and would be in the hands of hon. Members in the course of a few days. It was unnecessary for him to detain the House with the details of these circumstances; but hon. Gentlemen would see when the report was presented that such was the case. With respect to the borough of Wakefield, the report was not yet presented to the Crown, and consequently he did not know what was the result arrived at by the Commissioners; but he had been informed by the Secretary of the Commission that the report would be ready in a few days, and it would then be laid on the table of the House. As to Wakefield, there was a Committee of last Session which reported the existence of corrupt practices in that borough, and a Commission was issued in consequence. Under these circumstances the House would not think that he adopted an unusual or objectionable course in requesting them to resolve that no writ for a new member to represent the constituencies of Gloucester or Wakefield should issue without a previous notice of seven days being given in the Votes.

said, he wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, what was the position in which the delinquents at Wakefield and Gloucester stood; whether the bribers and bribees were amenable to the law, or whether any pledge had been given to them that on making full disclosures they should be indemnified against any prosecution for the offences they had committed. If legal punishment was not to be visited on the heads of those who had been guilty of such flagrant acts of corruption, the appointment of these Commissions was a perfect farce, and only defeated the ends of justice.

I have already stated that the report of the Wakefield Election Commission has not been presented. With regard to the City of Gloucester, I can only say, as far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, that they have made no promise whatever—nor has the Attorney General or any other law officer of the Crown made any promise—to any of the witnesses who gave evidence before the Commissioners. Without referring to the report, which is not now before me, I should be unwilling to answer the question of my hon. Friend as to what may have been done by the Commissioners themselves under the powers in the Act of Parliament. If, however, he will repeat his question to-morrow or Monday I will give him precise information as to any steps that may have been taken by the Commissioners.

said, that when the Gloucester Commission was appointed, the objection was urged that no result would be attained by its issue; and, although no understanding was come to or pledge given by the Government that action should be taken upon the report of the Commissioners being presented, there was certainly a feeling among hon. Members that, after the expense attending such an inquiry had been incurred, something should be done to prevent their being nugatory. Commissions had been issued for Galway, Hull, Cambridge, and numerous other places, the records of which slumbered on the shelves of the library as monuments of the impotence of Parliament to deal with the evils they disclosed. The matter ought to receive the serious consideration of the Government, and the law officers of the Crown should have their attention immediately directed to the propriety of commencing proceedings against the delinquents. If that were not done, these investigations would become the laughingstock of the public. The practice was to give both the bribers and the bribed cer- tificates of indemnification, and it was even doubtful whether the granting of those certificates would not preclude the raising of any question of disfranchisement.

said, he hoped the right hon. Baronet would do his best to expedite the production of the Report of the Wakefield Commission. It was important that the House should be in possession, at an early period, of the Reports of the Commissioners appointed in the Gloucester and Wakefield cases. With respect to what had just fallen from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Marylebone (Mr. E. James), he should merely observe that the law officers of the Crown would, he feared, find it extremely difficult to prosecute and attempt to bring about, with any hope of success, the punishment of those persons who had been discovered by the Commissioners to have violated the law, owing to the fact that immunity had been not only offered but promised to those who had so offended. He at the same time hoped that when the Report of the Commissioners was laid before the House, some means would be devised without violating pledges, to visit with the severity which they merited practices such as those which the inquiry before the Commissioners had brought to light.

If I rightly understand the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken, he thinks the case under our notice is not one in which the Law Officers of the Crown, or even Parliament, can proceed with a view to the punishment of those electors who have been shown to have received bribes before the Commissioners. The point, I may add, is one which seems to me to have been settled some time ago in the case of the electors of Hull, or some other borough, when the House of Commons came—and came very properly, in my opinion—to the conclusion, that after a certificate had been given to certain persons who had been bribed, exempting them from all penal consequences to which they might be liable in consequence of any disclosures which they might make, it would not be strictly just to inflict upon them the punishment of disfranchisement. I therefore am prepared to admit that neither the Government nor the House is in a position to deal with the offences which have been committed at Wakefield and Gloucester by visiting with penalties the voters who have given evidence before the Commissioners in those boroughs. I at the same time feel that we shall still less find ourselves able to disfranchise two towns which possess populations so large and an influence so considerable. There is, however, another course which it appears to me may fairly be pursued both as regards the individuals and the representative rights of even two such large constituencies, and the adoption of which I would recommend to the notice of the Government. That course is, that the constitutional right of the boroughs in question to send representatives to Parliament should be suspended for a lengthened period, so as to mark the condemnation of the Legislature of the practices which have recently been brought to light. Such a step would, I feel assured, meet with the sanction of the country at large. So far as Wakefield is concerned, I happen to possess—for two reasons, which will immediately suggest themselves to the House, the one being that I am connected with the gentleman who was the unfortunate candidate for that borough at the late election, and the other, that I happen to reside in its immediate neighbourhood— an intimate acquaintance with the result of the recent investigation into the existence there of bribery and corruption. That result is, that out of 800 electors 100 appear to have accepted bribes, and I confess it is to me a subject of astonishment that only so small a number should have been guilty of this offence, when I bear in mind, that a single voter could not show his face in the streets of Wakefield without having a bribe offered to him at almost every hour of the day as well as of the night. While, therefore, we are shocked at the corruption of 100 electors, we must not shut our eyes to the fact that 700 others, to the great majority of whom £30 or £40 was a matter of some consequence, resisted the temptations which lay in their path. Now, in speaking thus, I may appear to be about to argue that it would not be fair to disfranchise a borough in which, out of 800 electors, there are 700 who are innocent of the offence of receiving bribes. The fact is, however, that these 700 voters are not so free from blame as may seem to be the case. I lay down this proposition, because no corruption can, in my opinion, take place such as that which has been proved to have existed in Wakefield and Gloucester without the leading men belonging to both political parties—although they may not be guilty of bribery by any direct act—being cognizant of, and morally mixed up with those transactions. In the borough in which I happen to reside, an election took place in the year 1835, or 1837, I think it was, and upon that occasion—hon. Gentlemen opposite may perhaps suppose that I am not speaking impartially in saying so—there was a very profuse expenditure of money on the part of the Conservative candidate, while upon our side, on the days of polling and nomination, there was a good deal which I could not deem right, not exactly in giving bribes but in keeping open the public-houses in the town. Fortunately for us, however, our candidate was defeated, and after the election was over a meeting was held at which a considerable number of the influential members of the Liberal party in the borough were present, and we there pledged ourselves to a resolution, under no circumstances whatever, to take part in an election, or to invite any gentlemen to come into the town for the purpose of being a candidate at an election, which was to be conducted upon any other principles than those which were strictly legal and moral. I recollect myself having said at that meeting, "You may bring forward any candidate you like, but I for one will never go across the street again to assist any man unless an agreement is entered into that not one shilling will be laid out in the contest the expenditure of which will not bear the test of being scrutinized by Parliament and the country." The result was most satisfactory, and I am strongly of opinion that if a dozen, or even half-a-dozen, of the leading men belonging to either political party would come forward in Wakefield or Gloucester, or any other borough, and adopt a similar resolution, the corruption of which we complain would soon cease to exist. The fact is, however, that, instead of taking this course, everybody at Wakefield and Gloucester seems to have winked at what was taking place. I should be glad, therefore, if those influential persons who cannot be held to be totally blameless in the matter should be made to feel that the country regards their conduct with something like horror, for nothing can be more prejudicial to us as a nation than that transactions such as those which we are discussing should continue to prevail. Parliament, then, in order to mark its sense of the enormity of such proceedings, would, in my opinion, act wisely if it were to deprive those boroughs for a considerable time—say for some period not exceeding ten years—of their right to return Members to thin House. I would have them, in short, debarred from the exercise of that privilege for a period so long that the whole country might be able to point to them as black spots—not, perhaps, spots in reality one bit blacker than others, but more unfortunate in this respect, that their blackness had been found out. I am not one of those, whatever may be my feelings with regard to individuals or to particular constituencies, who can for one moment countenance such disgraceful proceedings as those to which I am adverting. They are a disgrace to this House as well as to the nation at large, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Home Department, may take into his serious consideration the suggestions which I have thrown out, with a view to putting an end to this system of corruption at elections as far as possible. He cannot, as I said before, punish particular individuals, or completely disfranchise entire constituencies, but then he may, by taking the course which I have indicated, do all the good that can be done until this House has passed into a law the only measure that can be really effectual in such cases—I mean a measure bestowing the right to vote by ballot.

said, that with regard to the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), it had never been proposed to disfranchise the electors of Hull. A Bill of the nature referred to had indeed been brought in with regard to the town of Galway. He must decline to express an opinion as to the legal construction of that portion of the Act relating to bribery which granted an indemnity to those persons guilty of that offence who happen to give evidence before a Commission, but he contended that the Act in no way deprived Parliament of the right to disfranchise, if it should deem fit to do so, any portion or the whole of the electors of a borough in which extensive corruption had been proved to have taken place. He concurred with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright), in the expediency of suspending the right of exercising the franchise for a time in such cases. That right had for a considerable period been suspended, in the borough in which he had the honour to represent, for as long a period indeed as a year and a half. He had the satisfaction, however, of being in a position to state that anything like direct bribery was now unknown in that borough, and that the expenses of a contest for it were not one-sixth of the sum to which they used formerly to amount.

said, he would express a hope that the Government in dealing with the cases of Wakefield and Gloucester would feel themselves completely unembarrassed by any consideration leading to the supposition that the Commissioners had the power to enter into a pledge that Parliament should not disfranchise, either as a whole or in classes, the electors of those constituencies in which the existence of corruption on a large scale had been brought to light. The object of a Commission would be a farce if it were not issued for that very purpose. The certificate they had the power to give only protected those who gave evidence from the pains and penalties attached to bribery.

said, that he was one of those who protested against the issuing of these Election Commissions. A great deal of expense was incurred without leading to any practical result. If it were really intended to take any effective measures for putting down bribery, what a ridiculous thing it was to send three Commissioners to Gloucester and three to Wakefield, for the mere purpose of preparing another blue-book, upon the production of which no proceedings were to be taken. He confessed he could not understand the object of the Home Secretary in moving that the writ be suspended for seven days. If, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman had proposed the suspension of these writs until he and his colleagues had read the reports of the Commissioners, and considered what measures they should adopt in consequence of them, his course would have been intelligible; but the present Resolution was without meaning. If it were true, as the hon. Member for Birmingham said, that only 100 voters at Wakefield, of which he seemed to know a great deal, out of 800 were bribed, he would ask where was the justice of punishing 700 innocent men for the misconduct of 100, who perhaps from their poverty were more exposed to temptation than the others? Unless the Government were prepared to bring in a measure that would effectually detect and punish the bribers, he repeated it was most absurd to have issued those Commissions. He would ask the Government if, in the forthcoming Reform Bill, or by any other means, whether they really intended to go to the root of the evil? If the leaders of a party, as was suggested, had been guilty of sanctioning the practice of bribery, let them be visited with the proper meed of punishment. He should certainly rejoice if he lived to see the day when the abominable practice of bribery was effectually put down. This he was satisfied of, that the nostrum of the hon. Member for Birmingham would never put it down. The ballot would never have the effect of extinguishing this evil. He trusted therefore the House would make up their minds to a measure that would have some practical result.

said, he wished to state in explanation that the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay), was under a mistake in saying that he (Mr. Bright) was in error in what he said as to the course taken by former Governments in relation to bribery. He found by reference to Hansard that in 1854 the Attorney General of that day moved for leave to bring in a Bill directed against Canterbury, Barnstaple, Hull, and Marlborough. The House, however, did not feel disposed to concur in the objects of that measure.

said, he wished to remind the House that it was only by moral evidence of the most doubtful and delicate character that they could arrive at a suspicion of who were the bribers at an election. In the recent cases he did not think that more than a glance of suspicion had fallen upon the leaders of parties. Some slight suspicion bad attached to the right hon. Member for Wells (Sir W. Hayter), but all who knew the character of that right hon. Gentleman must be persuaded that that suspicion was entirely without foundation. But if the House were to proceed to inflict punishment upon persons taking bribes they would have to proceed in the ordinary courts of law, and he believed it would be impossible to get any jury to convict upon such evidence as could be produced. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins), talked about going to the root of the matter—but it appeared to him that the root of the matter was not the guilt of either briber or bribee. It lay in the fact that the franchise had been extended to people who were so poor that they were liable to be bribed. The elective privilege was enjoyed by a great number of persons who had no proper sense of its value, and, therefore, sold it for the highest price they could get. Some people seemed to think that if they could prevent the passage of a bribe from the hands of the canvasser to those of the voter all would be accomplished that could be desired; but supposing that a man was willing to take a bribe if he could get it, would the preven- tion of its receipt make him a patriotic, intelligent and enlightened citizen, fit to elect Members of Parliament? Nothing of the kind. The recent inquiries had thrown considerable light upon the ballot. He was one of the Members who sat on the Election Committee with respect to Gloucester, and it was proved before them that in almost every case the bribe was given to the elector before he voted, and in some instances the recipient voted contrary to his promise—a clear proof that for the suppression of bribery the ballot would be an entirely inefficacious nostrum. For himself, he regarded this matter with despair. Bribery was the result of legislative steps which could not be retracted, and they must make up their minds to the existence of an evil which no human forethought could remove.

said, he trusted that the statements just expressed by the noble Lord would have no weight in that House when the Reform Bill was introduced. He would remind the noble Lord, however, that every voter must occupy a £10 house, and that therefore electors could not be persons in very inferior circumstances. He believed that there were cases in which persons in what were called respectable positions had been bribed.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would consider the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham with reference to the suspension of these writs. At Wakefield, which he knew well, the electors, especially the poorer classes, were now ardently longing for a new election; and should such an event occur without the introduction of new blood, which would result from the suspension of the writ for five or ten years, he believed that corruption would prevail there to as great an extent as it did at the late contest, and the longest purse would carry the day. He would suggest that in future the expenses of an election petition should fall, not upon the petitioner, who was almost invariably the rejected candidate, but upon the borough or upon the country at large. If upon the borough, the electors who had accepted bribes would come to be regarded as nuisances by their fellow townsmen, and bribery would soon cease to be practised. Meanwhile he hoped the recommendation of the hon. Member for Birmingham, in the cases of Gloucester and Wakefield, might be adopted, and the writs suspended at least till the end of the Session.

I hold in my hand a printed copy of the report of the Gloucester Commissioners, and I trust that printed copies of the same document will be distributed to hon. Members within a few days. Inasmuch, however, as the report in a printed form has not yet been circulated, I intentionally abstain from making any allusion to its contents, thinking that any discussion upon it should be postponed until the House has been put in possession of the entire Report, and has had an opportunity of perusing it with the attention which it deserves. I confine myself, therefore, within the bounds of the limited Motion which I have made—namely, to suspend the writs for Gloucester and Wakefield until a notice of seven days has been given. It is not desirable to go into any questions as to what the House might be disposed to do with respect either to Gloucester or to Wakefield. The Report on the latter borough has not yet been presented to Her Majesty. I may state, however, that I had been informed by the Commissioners that their Report would he ready before the meeting of Parliament. It has not yet been received, but I presume it is in a state of forwardness. As the House as thought fit to go into a discussion upon the general question of bribery and of the Corrupt Practices Act, I may say that the Report of the Gloucester Commissioners condemns in very strong terms, and with a statement of very forcible reasons, the provisions of that Act. The Commissioners find that its main provisions—those respecting an election auditor and the return of expenses by candidates—are altogether nugatory and inoperative. I do not wish to discuss that subject at present. Two hon. and learned Members have already announced their intention to bring before the House measures for the amendment of the Corrupt Practices Act and dealing generally with the law respecting bribery at elections. I may state that the Government has under consideration a measure on that subject. We are preparing, and hope to be able to introduce a Bill for materially altering the Corrupt Practices Act, and also, if possible, for amending the procedure for the trial of election petitions. However, I do not desire to interfere with the discussion of measures that may be proposed by private Members. I merely wish to show that the Government has not overlooked the important questions which have been and will be raised by the Gloucester and Wakefield Reports.

said, he wished, before the right hon. Gentleman left the Chair, to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to ask the Committee to pass his Resolution that evening, and if so, whether he did not think it would be expedient to make a preliminary statement before going into Committee? His own opinion was that the passing of the Resolution, which affected very important interests, should be postponed till a future day, inasmuch as hon. Members had an opportunity of seeing the terms of it only that morning. The propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be right, or they might be wrong, but he wanted time to consider them maturely.

said, he hoped the hon. Member would allow him to pursue what was the invariable practice upon such occasions—namely, to withhold his statement until the House had gone into Committee, when hon. Members would have the power of speaking as often as they pleased, and thus obtaining the fullest information on the subject before them.

said, he should be glad to hear an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman before they proceeded further. He had not stated whether or not he intended to ask the Committee to pass his Resolution. It appeared to him that the House was placed in an extremely difficult situation as regarded the important principles involved in the Resolution of which the right hon. Gentleman had given notice. That Resolution was at once important and intricate, for it involved the whole question of Savings Banks. The House, however, had no information before it upon which the Resolution appeared to be founded, Hon. Members had not had an opportunity of seeing its terms until that day; they had been unable to take the opinion of competent authorities upon it, and yet they were called upon at once to go into Com- mitttee on the Consolidated Fund, in order to afford the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of moving his Resolutions. It was true that even if he passed his Resolution he must bring in a Bill upon the subject: but what was the meaning of being compelled- to proceed by Resolution unless the House was to have some safeguard in regard to making those financial changes. By passing the Resolution they would bind themselves to the declaration that it was expedient to deal at once with £36,000,000 of money, and to give power to the Commissioners of the Treasury to cancel and create stock as they pleased. They should recollect that they were about to deal seriously with the principles laid down by the 9th George IV., and to set some of them altogether aside. He thought therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to give a clear explanation of his intentions on this subject. A similar Resolution was proposed in 1854. It was passed, and a Bill founded upon it was introduced. What was the fate of that measure? It was repudiated by the directors of almost every bank in the country, who prayed the House not to legislate without a preliminary inquiry, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was eventually compelled to abandon his Bill. A Committee of that House had taken a great body of evidence on the subject, and had reported a number of Resolutions, but among those Resolutions he found none like the Resolution now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He thought that at least a week's notice should be given of such a Resolution, and that the House should not be suddenly called on to exchange and alter the entire nature of the securities of the savings banks.

said, that though it might be inconvenient to take the Resolution that day, it was still more inconvenient for the House to enter upon a discussion of it before hearing the Chancellor of the Exchequer's explanation. He felt some interest in the subject, but he confessed that the Resolution, without explanation, was totally unintelligible to him, and he conceived he was only making a reasonable request if he asked the right hon. Gentleman, after explaining the meaning of the Resolution, to give the House an opportunity, on a subsequent day, of voting upon it.

said, he wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer would add to the present Resolution words affirming the expediency of repealing that Act of Parliament which gave to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt the power of chopping and changing the vast amount of savings-banks' money to Exchequer bills or 3 per cent Consols, just according to their opinion of the necessity of sustaining the money market. It was well known that a vast amount of money had been lost to the public by such transactions.

remarked, that the most convenient course for the House to pursue, was to resolve into Committee, and hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer's explanation. Afterwards, if it should he deemed desirable, the decision on the Resolution might be postponed till some subsequent period.

said, he must maintain that in such a thin House as the present, and with some £36,000,000 of money at stake, hon. Members ought not to be called upon all at once to bind themselves, by passing a Resolution, embracing a variety of important points. The suggestion to hear the explanation now and to defer the decision to some future period, therefore, appeared to him reasonable.

I hope, notwithstanding what has been stated by some hon. Friends of mine as to the expediency of postponing the vote on the Resolution I am about to propose, the Committee will now come to some definite opinion with respect to it; and it is not for any purpose of my own, but for the advance of public business, that I wish to induce the Committee to adopt the Resolution to-night. I will briefly state the general objects of the proposition, and then the Committee will be in a better position to judge whether it would be desirable or not to pass the Resolution. It has been said, and truly said, that it is difficult to gather the meaning of the proposition from the Resolution, and the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) lamented that he had had only one day to consider it, though from a subsequent part of his speech it appeared that he had had five years to consider it, because he said that the present Resolution was the same in effect as one proposed by me five years ago. It must he obvious to any one who takes the most cursory view of the matter, that it is difficult to frame a Resolution of this preliminary kind in a satisfactory manner. It is desirable to frame it so fully that it may cover in letter and spirit the whole of the objects requiring a preliminary Resolution; while at the same time it is impossible to make it completely explain a measure of this kind, which will be found not too easily understood when introduced with all the details in the shape of a Bill. A preliminary Resolution drawn up with the same detail as a Bill would obviously defeat the object intended, which is, that the principle of a measure should in every case be first discussed, and afterwards the provisions. The present Resolution has been drawn up by persons of experience, and I am not aware that it could be better drawn up for its purpose; but it is quite impossible to make it a satisfactory vehicle of conveying to the House any clear idea of the meaning of the measure, and if hon. Gentlemen are anxious—legitimately anxious—to obtain a clear idea of its meaning, the only way of doing so, beyond listening to the few words I have to state, is to adopt the Resolution and permit the Bill to be brought in; and then, when they have the Bill in their hands, and have read it a first and second time, and put it into Committee, they will know what are the objects of the measure, and in what manner it is proposed to attain them. The adoption of a Resolution like the present binds the Committee to no greater extent than the expression of an opinion that they think the general objects of the measure desirable, and are ready to consider in Committee upon the Bill the means by which they may be carried out. The hon. Member for Evesham, who takes a lively interest in the position of the depositors in savings banks and friendly societies, has frequently complained in this House that that position was unsatisfactory, declaring that their property has been impaired and diminished by the financial management of their funds in the hands of the Government. I, certainly, for one, hold that the depositors in those savings banks and friendly societies have an honourable claim on the public for the full and absolute restitution of every farthing placed, through the means of those banks and societies, in the hands of the Government, entirely irrespective of what might be the management or mismanagement of the funds, or what might be the literal conditions of the law. At the same time, I must admit that, in point of mere dry law, the title of the savings banks, and, I believe, of some friendly societies, to the full restitution, principal and interest, of the money lodged in the coffers of the Government is, in part at least, and as the law now stands, an imperfect title. I think that is a state of things which calls for a remedy; and I propose to give, by the Bill to be founded on this Resolution, a perfect and absolute title to every friendly society and every savings bank to the whole sum which it may have placed in the hands of the Government, principal and interest, according to the stipulated terms. I ask the Committee to consider whether that is not a desirable object to attain; and then, if they think it be a desirable object, to allow me to lay before the House a measure calculated to give practical effect to it. Well, now, I come to the next point. I have not the slightest doubt that every hon. Member believes that every farthing of the funds which the Government receives from those parties ought to be held secure and harmless. But if the principle of the restitution of every farthing to those institutions is admitted, it is clear that the real debt of the State to savings banks and friendly societies is not to be measured by the amount of stock which the Commissioners hold, but by the amount that has been actually paid into their hands by those banks and societies. But, unfortunately, under the present law, the public official statement of the national obligations and the public liability in this particular is an untrue statement, because we owe to savings banks and friendly societies a very considerable sum which nowhere appears in the statement of the public debt. I may say that it is in round numbers about £2,000,000; and the second object of the Bill is, that instead of having a statement of the public debt untrue in that respect, we shall have, as each year comes round, a statement which shall be true, and shall represent the exact amount which we owe to those institutions. Another object I have in view, is to economise the management of those moneys; but the particular way in which I propose to do that I can hardly make intelligible on the face of the Resolution, and I would rather, for the present, defer entering into details on that part of the subject. The next and principal object I have in contemplation is to limit the powers which are now held over those moneys by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Somebody said, in the course of the preliminary discussion, that my object was to get hold of £36,000,000 of money. It is rather more than that; it is £39,000,000. Get hold of £39,000,000! Why, I have got a most complete hold of it already. The hold of the Finance Minister over this money is a larger and more absolute power than is required for the public interest, and I ask the Committee to afford me the opportunity of limiting that power. That is another of the objects which I have in view. I should wish, however, to state the practically important point on which I desire to effect that limitation. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) has said that it is in the power of the Commissioners of the National Debt—and that means it is virtually in the power of the Finance Minister—to convert Exchequer bills of particular descriptions which they may buy from the Government into stock, and thereby to create a new permanent National Debt without the consent of Parliament. That is perfectly true. I do not enter now into the question about the conversion of Exchequer bills, which form part of the regular Funded Debt. That is an entirely different matter. I speak of the conversion of what are termed deficiencies, and of what are termed Consolidated Fund and Ways and Means bills. These are means by which a temporary provision is made for the balances in the Exchequer. It is well known that by means of the conversion of those hills into stock it is in the power of the Minister of Finance, when there is a deficiency in the public revenue, to turn over that deficiency into permanent public debt. I proposed by this Bill entirely to abolish that power; and the last object I have in view is to bring the whole transactions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, through the medium of the National Debt Commissioners, regularly and periodically, under the view of Parliament, It is requisite, in my opinion, that considerable powers should be left in the hands of the Finance Minister. Though I am rather sceptical as to all that has been said as to the ill uses to which those funds have been put, there have been occasions on which uses have boon made of these powers which I am not prepared to justify; very considerable discretion, however, must remain in the hands of the Finance Minister. It is for the public interest that it should be so; but there has been no adequate public provision made for bringing his proceedings regularly under the view of the House of Commons. I propose to enact, for the first time, that the whole of his transactions shall he, at the commencement of every Session, submitted to the view of Parliament. Nor will I stop with the mere presentation of a return. A Committee of this House, appointed about three years ago on the subject of the public monies, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring) made, among other recommendations, a very valuable and judicious one, to the effect that the public accounts in the various Departments should regularly, at the commencement of every year, be submitted to a Committee, and that not an ordinary Select Committee, but one invoking in its constitution the aid and discretion of the highest authority in this House—namely, that of the Speaker himself. That is an admirable suggestion; and I do not consider this House, as the guardian of the public money, has discharged its duties, unless it reviews those accounts regularly from year to year, and sees how the Supplies have been appropriated. Looking forward to that review of the public accounts, I propose that you should extend it regularly from year to year to the management of those public monies which the Chancellor of the Exchequer holds in deposit. These are the general objects I propose to attain by the measure which, if permitted, I shall ask leave to introduce. On a former occasion, in December, 1854, when Parliament was summoned for the purpose of considering exclusively certain subjects connected with the war in the Crimea, I asked for leave to pass a Resolution of a similar character, in order that I might be enabled to introduce a Bill. Some hon. Member objected to passing a Resolution of the kind at that time; but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) rose in his place and said, it was evidently for the convenience of the House that that preliminary Resolution, which committed no one, should be disposed of in order to the plan being put into an intelligible form; and with the unanimous approval of the House that was done, and the Bill was printed. If the Committee is still of opinion, after what I have stated, that a postponement is desirable, I shall not offer any opposition. My wish, however, is to be permitted to pass now this Resolution to report it to the House, and then to bring in my Bill, which will be printed in three or four days, and there will be ample time given to every Member to consider its provisions and understand its object before I ask the House to read it a second time.

said, he rose to express his satisfaction at the clear statement made by his right hon. Friend on this important subject. He regretted, however, that he had omitted to deal with one essential part of the question. On a former occasion, when bringing in a Bill on this subject, his right hon. Friend observed, that if it could be said that any public creditor lost a farthing the state of public finance could not be considered a satisfactory one. He now felt disappointed that his right hon. Friend did not propose to deal with the whole question. The mode in which the money of these institutions was managed before it got into the hands of the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt was in the most unsatisfactory condition. The depositors, however, ought to be protected from any loss on the amount they lodged with the Banks. It ought to be made impossible that there should be any loss prior to the money getting into the hands of the State. If this could not be done it was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring in a measure to sever altogether the apparent connection of the State with these Banks. There was just at present sufficient interference by the State with these Banks to give the public an idea that they had Government security, and if they imagined that they were entitled to every farthing that passed into the hands of the Government there ought to be some machinery to protect the money of depositors before it got there. The Chancellor of the Exchequer came forward, and told the House and the country that he wished to bring in a measure for dealing with this matter. If it were beyond the power of the right hon. Gentleman to produce a really good measure which would remedy the present state of things, the Government should get rid of all connection with these banks. Formerly the Trustees and Managers were legally liable to the depositors, but in 1844 they were absolved from all responsibility for the moneys deposited. He did not complain of this, for it was unreasonable to make private individuals responsible for so largo an amount as the deposits of the savings banks; but surely their being absolved from that responsibility created a necessity for providing some other machinery by which depositors might be protected from loss before their money reached the State. He did not expect that his right hon. Friend would mix up this question of the losses of depositors with the one he had now introduced, but he might be permitted to express the hope that he had made up his mind to grapple with that important branch of the subject, and to put the money of depositors in such a position as to render loss to them impossible.

said, that on reading the Resolution, he had found it rather obscure, and now that he had heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had been singularly disappointed with it, for he did not know much more than he did before. The object of going into Committee was to inform the House how, and in what manner, the Resolution on the table was to be carried out. But the right hon. Gentleman with great adroitness then said, that he could not make them understand what he wished to effect until they had seen the Bill. There was no alternative, therefore, but to accept the Resolution and wait patiently till the Bill was before the House. It was rather hard to be compelled to take so important a preliminary step in the dark; but if they had to do so he protested against being held responsible for anything whatever. As one of the savings-banks Committee he had gone into the matter very fully, but he had not arrived at the same conclusions as the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the relations that existed between the Government and the savings banks. It seemed a very sound proposition to say that the savings bank should receive back the amount which had been received by the State, but the right hon. Gentleman kept out of view an important phase of the question, which was this, that the moneys were paid to the Commissioners, who were charged with a special duty under a special Act of Parliament, and that they were to be invested in a particular manner for the benefit of savings banks. These investments were very different to the cash received by the Government. If, however, they had been fairly dealt with by the Government as trustees for depositors, instead of there having been a deficiency, there would have been a large surplus, or a sum of consols beyond the amount of cash received by the Government. It could not be denied that the duty undertaken by Government was not truly fulfilled. It would be found that a large amount of the invested money had been taken from time to time to make good the interest which the Government came under an obligation to pay, irrespective of the capital fund. The Government having, from time to time, applied the capital fund for the purpose of making good the interest, at last brought the savings-banks accounts into this position, that the deficiency was so large that the question was raised whether it could continue to pay even the rate of interest that would have been received had the capital account remained intact; so that the people who now invested were to be called on to receive a smaller rate of interest in order to make good the deficiencies of former years. How this state of things was to be remedied they had received no information; but he trusted the Bill to be brought in would be more satisfactory than the one introduced last Session, and which the Government were compelled to abandon. There was one remark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that somewhat alarmed him, as he was afraid from its tenor that they were to have the continuance of a system that had entailed much inconvenience as well as much loss on this fund. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had intimated that it would still be necessary for him to exercise considerable power over this fund which ought to be held as a sacred deposit for the working classes. He could not conceive that there was any necessity for the Chancellor of the Exchequer exercising any such power; if it was necessary that he should operate in the market as a "bear" or "bull" he must say he did not think the funds of the savings banks were legitimate funds for that purpose. If such a power were necessary, let there be some proper statute to sanction it. The present practice was productive of great inconvenience, and could not be defended on any principle. The Committee on Public Moneys were all agreed that for the time to come the administration of the savings-banks funds ought to be placed upon a solid basis, and that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted resources for financial operations, he ought to come to the House and obtain them by some means which the House might distinctly sanction.

said, he doubted whether the Committee would discuss this subject to advantage until they saw the Bill. He would, therefore, merely say that the objects proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to be good, but whether the details were such as ought to meet with the approbation of the House they ought not to judge too hastily. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposed to deal with the other recommendations of the Public Moneys Committee. He understood him to propose that the administration of these funds should be subject to the control or audit of a Committee of that House, probably nominated by the Speaker. The Public Moneys Committee recommended a kind of appropriation audit, and that some check should be exercised upon the expenditure of the money that had once been voted. If he had rightly understood the right hon. Gentleman the recommendation of the Committee with regard to savings banks was only a portion of the suggestions made by them which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to adopt.

remarked that, having heard the ingenuous speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he felt bound to say that, like the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), he was not a bit the wiser for it. In 1854 he took exception to a financial Resolution thus suddenly produced. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had previously agreed to the same Resolution. Now it was one inconvenience of bringing forward these sudden Resolutions that he had not had time to refer to the Resolution to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded. But this portion of the present Resolution was, at least, entirely new:—

"And also to authorize the cancelling of such amounts of the several capital stocks of annuities held by the said Commissioners for Savings Banks and Friendly Societies respectively as may appear to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to be expedient, and for the creation of like amounts of capital stock bearing a lower rate of interest than the capital stocks so cancelled, and for paying the interest on the stock so created."

This was not in the original Resolution, and it was very important. The Resolution of 1854 ended in nothing. A Bill was introduced making a certain proportion of the savings-banks money chargeable on the consolidated fund, and leaving the remaining third to be still dealt with by the Executive. He believed that what had occurred in 1854 would be repeated now. The trustees and managers objected then to the mode in which it was proposed to deal with their funds, and in like manner they would, he felt persuaded, resist the change now proposed, and entreat the House to adopt the recommendations of its own Committee. That Committee recommended that the investment of these funds should be treated as a bonâ fide trust, by Commissioners appointed under a law duly framed for the regulation of their proceedings, and that the saving banks should receive such interest for their money as the sums invested would bring. It appeared to him that the present Resolution struck at this principle, and only dealt with a single portion of the recommendation of the Savings Banks Committee. If, however, it should be the wish of the Committee to see the right hon. Gentleman's Bill he would not stand in the way of its introduction.

said, he was glad to hear that the hon. Baronet would not press his objection to the passing of the Resolution. It was true that the Resolution was not a clear exposition of the whole subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was compelled by the rules of the House to frame a Resolution which covered all that part of the Bill affecting the Consolidated Fund. The House would not, however, be committed by the Resolution to carry out all the words of the Resolution in the details of the Bill, and hon. Members who objected to any portion of the Bill were equally at liberty to object to it, whether the Resolution were agreed to or not. The objects proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to him to be most beneficial and proper. No one could doubt that in point of equity the depositors in savings banks had a claim to every sixpence of capital and interest for the money which had been placed in the hands of the Government. He had sinned like other Chan- cellors of the Exchequer, in exercising the power which he possessed over savings-bank moneys, but he did not hesitate to say it had been done before, and was perfectly legal, that Chancellors of the Exchequer, in so doing, exercised a power which ought not to have been placed in their bands. He had employed these moneys, and, as a financial operation, he was prepared to justify what he had done. He did not wish to fight the battle of 1841 over again. In a financial point of view he had made the best arrangement in his power; but looking at the matter in a constitutional light, it was a power which the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be deprived of, and he would vote for any measure that took it away.

said, he wished it to be understood that in not dividing against the Resolution he did not pledge himself to its details, or to imply that he was in favour of empowering the Treasury to alter the investment of the moneys deposited in the hands of the Commission. He differed however from the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) in this, that he believed it to be a perfectly desirable and legitimate arrangement that banks should be provided in which the poorer classes might deposit their savings and receive a reasonable interest for their money, and as the amount of interest paid to them did not exceed the average interest on other loans, the tax-payers had no reason to complain. He hoped that the power of reducing the rate of interest proposed in the latter part of the Resolution did not imply any present intention of altering the present rate. He was anxious that the funds of the depositors in savings banks should be transmitted to the Government, to be employed for their benefit, and that depositors should be secured from loss by the institution of a bona fide Commission, but thought the Government should have no power of "stock-jobbing" with these moneys. He therefore felt bound to say that he acceded to the Resolution only with the full privilege of reserving any objections to any clause of the Bill which might carry out the purposes to which he objected.

said, he believed they were all agreed that, whatever might be the shortcomings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the depositors in the savings banks ought not to be the sufferers; that the accounts of these banks should be presented annually to the House, and that a Committee ought to be appointed to ex- amine these accounts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not, however, been sufficiently explicit as to the functions he was himself to exercise in regard to the savings-hanks funds. If the right hon. Gentleman was to have any control over them whatever, it was quite certain that he would make them subservient to financial purposes, and what had been done before would be done again and again. The same objections would then arise as at present existed. When he read the Resolution, he felt he should be unable to speak upon it until he heard some explanation regarding it, and then having heard the explanation, he was still unable to give an opinion until he had seen the Bill. Neither was sufficiently intelligible. But so far as he had under-derstood the explanation as to the objects of the Bill, those objects were desirable achievements. He should, therefore, not oppose the Resolution. But he should like some description to be given of what the functions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to be.

said, that as the passing of the Resolution did not pledge any hon. Member to the details of the Bill he should withdraw his opposition. He should object to the Chancellor of the Exchequer having any power under the Bill to deal with the funds for the purpose of propping up the public credit. The whole question, moreover, could never be in a satisfactory position until the depositors at large were fully assured that their funds were properly secured in the transit from the Bank to the Commission.

in reply, said he could assure his hon. Friend the Member for Kerry (Mr. H. Herbert) that he should be glad to have the opportunity of introducing a Bill for the better management of savings banks with a fair prospect of carrying it. He had not abandoned the hope of such a measure, and it was a subject that would receive his most anxious attention. With regard to the question of the hon. Baronet (Sir S. Northcote) as to the Report of the Public Moneys Committee, the saving-bank funds came not at all within their operations. Those funds were public monies on deposit, and in no way allied to the public money forming the revenue of the country, which alone formed the subject of that Committee's deliberations. He had, perhaps, been misunderstood in the allusion he made to that Committee, but what he meant to say was this—that the recommendations made by that Committee were equally applicable to the savings-bank funds as to the revenue, and he proposed, therefore, that a Committee should be appointed to discharge the same functions with regard to those funds that the Public Moneys Committee did with regard to the revenue. He wished to relieve the mind of the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire from the apprehension that the Bill would empower the Government to alter the rate of interest paid to depositors in savings hanks. The two subjects were entirely distinct; and the rate of interest ought to be fixed in a Bill for the management of savings banks, because the depositors would then see in one view all that portion of the subject which concerned them. He quite admitted that the rate of interest ought not to be left in the discretion of the Government, except as the law might fix it. He had been asked to describe the functions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer under this Bill. He had not entered into that subject at large, because he took it for granted that it would appear from what he had said—namely, that those functions were to remain as they were, except that they were to be based on certain limitations and restrictions, It might be the opinion of some hon. Members that savings-banks funds should not be subject to the operation of any discretion on the part of the State as to the use to be mode of them. He differed from that proposition entirely. He believed, if such a course were adopted, it would be found injurious and detrimental both to the public interest and disadvantageous to the depositors themselves. In point of fact, the question was, whose ought those monies to be? They ought to be the monies of the public, and used for the public benefit, but held at call, and liable to be restored to those who were originally and ultimately entitled to them. If, then, they were to be used for the public, it would be absolutely impossible to exclude the Government from all discretion in the management of them. In the Bill he proposed to limit those powers that were considered principally objectionable, and to enlarge those to which the recommendations of the Committee should point. But these were matters of detail. Finally, however, he proposed to bring all those powers regularly and periodically under the strict review of a body acting for and to be appointed by the House of Commons, and in whom the House will have confidence. Such were the main principles of the measure, but it was open to any hon. Member to propose any changes he might deem expedient.