said, he rose to ask the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department a question, of which he had given notice. The right hon. Baronet stated, in the course of the discussion which took place the other day, that the note handed by Sir R. Mayne to Count Apponyi, for the use of the Emperor of Austria in the Court of Chancery, was brought to the office of Sir R. Mayne by a constable. He (Mr. T. Duncombe) wished to ask the number and letter of the Policeman from whom Sir R. Mayne received the Kossuth Note; the mode in which the Policeman became possessed of the note, Whether he is still in the ranks of the Metropolitan Police Force, and, if not, when he left

said, that when on previous occasions the hon. Gentleman had brought this subject before the attention of the House, he (Sir George Lewis) had informed the House that neither Sir R. Mayne nor himself had given any instructions to the police about procuring information in respect to the notes. He had also stated that if any improper use had been made by the Government of the information so received he was responsible for it. Under these circumstances it was not, he conceived necessary for him to give any further information upon the point. He might, however, state that no steps had been taken by Government for the removal of the policeman from the force, and he was still a member of that establishment.

said, he thought some explanation was due on the part of those who, like himself, had opposed the Bill of last Session; but he supported the present measure, inasmuch as it was based upon different principles. As the Bill now stood, many objections to the measure of last Session had been removed. The Bill of last Session proposed to pension off, at their full salary, all the existing Commissioners, but the present Bill utilised them, and allowed them to retire on a pension of two-thirds their present income. The Bill of last Session took away many of the safeguards which the mercantile community had against fraudulent debtors by the manner in which, while assimilating the law of bankruptcy to traders and non-traders, it made the same acts of bankruptcy apply to both, reducing in numbers those which at present applied to traders alone. There was another portion of the Bill of which the mercantile interests highly approved. It was that which provided that all deeds of composition should be registered in the Court of Bankruptcy, and should also be open to the inspection of the creditors. That was a provision which would prevent men getting credit upon false pretences. Another important improvement was, that all trials for misdemeanour arising out of the Act were placed in the hands of the Judge of the courts, which would relieve the creditor from the expense of following the fraudulent trader into a criminal court, where the whole expense of the proceedings would fall upon him. There was, however, one part of the Bill to which a strong objection was still entertained. It was considered that it took away too much of that control now exercised by the official and placed too much power in the hands of the trade assiguee. There was, too, in the Bill a clause which he hoped to see altered in "another place." He alluded to the clause making it an act of bankruptcy in a person to suffer an execution to be levied upon his property. That provision whilst it took away all the rewards of diligence from the man who sought to recover his debt, deprived him at the same time of all the costs to which he was put in bringing the debtor's estate into that condition, that the assets might be equally divided amongst all the creditors. He did not object to this new act of bankruptcy, but he did not think that a man who had gone to the expense of suing another for a debt, and obtained judgment should not only lose that debt, but also the costs of the suit. On the whole, if these alterations were made elsewhere he believed the Bill would give general satisfaction to the mercantile community.

said, he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant to favour the Committee with any further information on the details of the Bill than that he had already given, but it seemed to him that Parliament was left almost in total ignorance of the manner in which it was proposed that the sys- tem should be worked. The three first clauses of the Bill gave the Postmaster General power to establish a post-office savings bank in any part of the country wherever a money-order office at present existed. He proposed to take the power to establish by the machinery of the Bill a great national bank with branches all over the country, at any one of which branches it would be in the power of any person to deposit any amount of money, and receive in return a certificate or piece of paper, duly stamped at the central office, on the production of which at, any subsequent period he would be entitled to have his money back again. Such was what he understood to be the effect of those clauses, and it was all the information which the Committee and the country had with regard to the machinery of this system. They did not know how many clerks were to be employed, or what would be the expense of its management. He could quite admit the inconvenience of imposing restrictions on any department which was about to try a new experiment and from which he hoped good would arise; but still he thought it was desirable to make the new system correspond as far as it was possible with the existing system of savings banks. Under the present system there were certain limits imposed on depositors, so that no man could deposit more than £30 in one year nor have more than £150 in all. He understood it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman that all the restrictions and limitations imposed by the present law were to apply to the depositors of the new post-office savings banks. But he did not see how it was possible to ascertain that those limits had been reached in the case of any one depositor. How was any one to know how much stood to a depositor's account in more than one post-office? What was to prevent a man from depositing one sum at Falmouth and another at Newcastle, and on producing his papers at any one of these banks he would be entitled to receive back his money? On all these points very little information had been given. He had read the paper which Mr. Sykes, who took credit for being the immediate suggester of the scheme, put forward, and he had also had the pleasure of some information on this subject, but still he was at a loss to comprehend how the great scheme of a central bank was to be brought within the limits of the present law. Again, every depositor in a savings bank was en- titled to have his account made out as often as he pleased; but how was that to he done by a central bank in London, especially in the case of an individual who might he constantly moving about from one part of the country to another? Again, how would the accounts of the post-office savings bank be made up—what check or audit would there be—who would know whether the accounts were correct or not? In the case of the ordinary savings banks a depositor was generally a known man; but nothing of the kind would take place under the new system. They would have no hold on the depositor or the depositor on them. He must frankly say he could not see from all that was yet before them how the accounts could be correctly kept from year to year, and he would be very glad of information on these points.

said, that although he was of opinion that it would be more convenient to to enter into the explanations of the various parts of the subject, minute and complex as they were, upon each clause as it came on for discussion, he thought it right at the same time to make a reply in such general terms to the right hon. Gentleman as might be deemed a sufficient answer to the questions which he had just put. The scheme, then, on which the new system would be based was one in accordance with which the savings banks' accounts of the different depositors would be kept in London, those accounts forming portion of the general cash transactions taking place between the several local postmasters—who would merely be the recipients and transmitters of the money through the Post Office—and the head of that department. For the due conduct of the new business which the Bill would create there were already a set of rules in existence relative to credit and the control of accounts, which, he believed, would be found amply sufficient for the purpose without the introduction of any new principle. The Postmaster General, for example, as matters now stood, took security from his subordinate in charge of a money-order office; and if it were found that, under the operation of the Bill that security did not correspond with the augmented amount of money passing through his hands, then the Postmaster General might, as he constantly did at present, require that the security should be increased. He might add that it was matter of astonishment that the working of the money-order system was so safe that while £330,000,000 had under it been transmitted from all parts of the country to their various destinations, the amount of the defalcations had reached only £6,000—an amount which was, he believed, more than covered by the sums represented by unclaimed money-orders which remained in the hands of the public. But be that as it might, the mode in which the new system would be carried out would be that the accounts of the depositors would be kept by the Postmaster General in London, the whole of the different sums being transmitted by schedule from day to day as the local postmaster received them, and the Postmaster General would acknowledge the receipt to the local postmaster. The depositor would be provided with a form which, when desirous of reclaiming his money, he might transmit to the Postmaster General, who would thereupon authorize the local postmaster to refund the sum demanded in the event that the state of his account showed the depositor to be entitled to its receipt. He might further observe that it was his intention to propose the omission of Clause 8, an omission which no doubt would receive the approbation of his right hon. Friend. He also intended to fix the rate of interest payable on deposits under the Bill at £2 10s. per cent, thus dealing, in his opinion, in the most effective manner with the objections of those who had an interest in the existing savings banks, and who might very naturally and justifiably entertain a fear that if the present rate of interest were maintained under the new system an undue temptation to depositors to withdraw the sums now inserted in their names would be afforded. By taking the course, however, which he had indicated all suspicion of unfairness would be avoided.

said, he wished to propose, by way of Amendment, the omission of the last member of the Clause but one—that which related to the Parliamentary title to be constituted by means of the Bill. The main object of the measure was to afford the depositor who might place his small savings in the hands of the Government the security of the State for the money thus invested. That being so, next arose the question how that security was to be created. It might be said that it could be conveyed by means of the acknowledgment which would be put in the hands of the depositor when making his investment, and by the entry in his book which it was provided should be made by the local postmaster and attested by the stamp of his office and the writing of his initials. But then came the difficulty, that if these documents were to constitute a sufficient title to immediate repayment of the sum lodged, the transaction would be subjected to the discretion and integrity of the local postmaster, unaccompanied by any effectual check. It was plain, he thought, that the security of the State ought only to be given by means of an acknowledgment from head quarters—in other words, from the Postmaster General in London, after the deposit had been received in London, and after it had been entered in the accounts at the chief office. The deposit book, therefore, ought not to give a statutory title at all, but the depositor ought to remain without a Parliamentary title until he received an acknowledgment from the Postmaster General of the receipt of his deposit. But then came the difficulty what was to be done for the depositor in the short interval between the time when he made his deposit and the time when he received an acknowledgment from London. That interval would be a very short one; in the vast majority of cases it would not exceed a couple of days; but, at the same time, the depositor ought not to be left even for a single hour in the position of being exposed to the possibility of fraud and loss by the defalcations of the local postmaster. For that reason he proposed to insert words in the clause to the effect that the moment a deposit was made the simple entry in the deposit book should for a limited time constitute a Parliamentary title. It was necessary to give the title for a limited time, because otherwise the depositor would have no interest in obtaining an acknowledgment from the Postmaster General, and in that case the Government could not reckon upon him as an ally in possessing himself of that which would constitute the only effectual check of the Postmaster General in London upon his officers in the country. Hence the necessity for giving him a motive for acquiring the acknowledgment of the Postmaster General and that motive could only be applied by limiting in point of time the security afforded by the deposit book, leaving the depositor, if he did not receive an acknowledgment from London within the period specified in the clause, to apply for a further extension of time till he did. The Amendment of which he had given notice provided that the deposit book should be conclusive evidence of title for a period of ten days only. Long before the lapse of that period the depositor would have received an acknowledgment from the Postmaster General; but, to provide for every conceivable case, he was to be entitled to apply for a further extension of time in the event of a delay in the transmission of the acknowledgment from London. Thus the clause as amended would give the depositor State security from the moment he lodged his deposit, and at the same time would place in the hands of the Postmaster General that control over his officers in the country which formed an essential part of the scheme. It would be observed that the clause contemplated the receipt of deposits as low as 1s. The receipt of such deposits, of course, would not of itself be remunerative; but he was satisfied that the average amount of deposits would be remunerative; and, on the other hand, the receipt of deposits as low as 1s. would be a material aid to the formation of habits of economy and providence among the poor. He would, therefore, conclude by proposing his Amendment, which was as follows:—In clause 2, after "Postmaster General," omit all the words down to "acknowledgment," and insert,

"And, in order to allow a reasonable time for the receipt of the said acknowledgment, the entry by the proper officer in the depositors' book shall also be conclusive evidence of title for ten days from the judgment of the deposit; and if the said acknowledgment shall not have been received by the depositor through the post within ten days, and he shall, before or upon the expiry thereof, demand the said acknowledgment from the Postmaster General, then the entry in his book shall be conclusive evidence of title during another term of ten days, and toties quoties."

said, he thought the measure would be attended with the greatest possible benefit to the working classes, and he hoped it might pass into law without unnecessary delay. But he thought the minimum for deposits ought to be raised above the sum fixed by the right hon. Gentleman. If the interest to be paid in these banks was lower than the interest paid by the ordinary savings banks, he did not see why deposits should not be made by the same depositor in various places. He thought no limits should be placed on the providence of the labouring classes.

said, his constituents apprehended that this was, in some degree, a measure of centralization. The accounts with local postmasters in the case of the Money Order Office in Ireland and Scotland were kept in Dublin and Edinburgh by the Accountants-General there; but the Bill seemed to provide that the accounts of the post office savings banks should be kept in London alone. He saw no reason why there should be a difference between the two departments in this respect.

said, he thought there was no ground for the hon. Member's apprehension. The course of money transactions would be the same under this Bill as under the money-order system. Though London would be a centre, yet Dublin and Edinburgh would be subordinate centres, because one part of the business could not be separated from the other parts. But he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would make further inquiry, and would be prepared to let the hon. Gentleman know exactly how the matter stood.

said, that having been absent from the House at the beginning of the discussion, he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had expressed his views of what was likely to be the charge of carrying this Act into execution. He (Mr. Ayrton) had given notice of a Motion to which the right hon. Gentleman had objected owing to the state of public business, and the Motion had been deferred and now stood for the following day, just one day too late for the discussion. The object was to obtain an estimate as to the probable charge of this new system, and as to the means which would be available for the payment of that charge. The right hon. Gentleman had assured the House in general terms that the measure would be self-supporting; but they would be guilty of a great dereliction of duty if they did not obtain from the Minister some more definite statement, some positive information which would enable hon. Members not conversant with the details of the Post Office to judge whether his conclusion was well founded. Under the Bill a deposit of 1s. might he received; it might be demanded back in a fortnight; he understood there would be no interest payable in that case; but the gain to the country would he rather infinitesimal—perhaps the fiftieth part of a farthing. The smallest deposit must be transmitted to the Postmaster in London, who must open a ledger account for every customer, and the amount might have to be written off again and retransmitted to the depositor at the end of the fortnight. It might be said that, generally speaking, the sums would be much larger and deposited for longer periods, so that the operations would be remunerative; but he wanted to know on what data the Post Office had proceeded in estimating first the cost of remitting the deposits to and from the Post Office, and next of conducting the National Bank in London. The right hon. Gentleman might think it a small matter at present, but if the scheme reached such proportions as he anticipated, the bank required in London would be an institution larger than the Bank of England. An account must, as he had stated, be opened for every customer; it must be balanced and checked every year, or every half-year, and interest computed on every transaction, which would require a large number of clerks, and a very expensive establishment. The right hon. Gentleman, then, ought to lay on the table some distinct statement of what he calculated would be the charge of carrying out the scheme. It was all very well to talk of projects being self-sustaining, and even economical, but under such statements the Civil Service Estimates had, within the last thirty years, grown up by millions. Hon. Gentlemen might cry out about that increase, and write letters to the Prime Minister on the necessity of taking some steps to check it, but of what use was all this if, when a scheme came before them which must increase the public expenditure, they did not take the trouble to inform themselves on the subject? If they voted now without information they would have no right afterwards to complain if the expense turned out to be £200,000 a-year, as had been the case with the county courts. A scheme for granting retiring annuities to the Civil Service had been brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman behind (Sir James Graham); it was described as self-supporting, deductions being made for that purpose of 5 per cent from the larger and 2½ per cent from the smaller salaries; but the Civil Service officers combined, they waited on Members of the House of Commons, reasoned with them, appealed to their sympathies, and placed them under such a pressure that in spite of the Government a Bill was passed to relieve them of this 5 per cent and 2½ per cent. and their retiring annuities were thrown on the public funds. So with regard to savings banks; they had been in operation for forty years, but no Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever had the courage to come down and bring before the House the question of subsidizing them. On that account they were annually paying a sum varying from £10,000 to £100,000, but Chancellors of the Exchequer did not call on the House to make it good out of the annual revenue; they avoided the question by adding the charge year after year to the national debt. The right hon. Gentleman proposed, in the meantime, to give only 2½ per cent in the shape of interest, but if he got £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 of money into his hands would he be able to restrict the interest to that rate? They could not continue to pay £2 10s. while the fundholder received £3 5s. per cent if other investments yielded £4 or £5 per cent, or even a higher rate of interest. They must look at the rate of interest allowed by other bankers, for, by the measure, the Government would constitute themselves bankers. His argument was not a mere fanciful one, because it had been used by Mr. Huskisson himself, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, to induce the House to allow the poor depositors in the savings banks a higher interest than that obtained from Consols. The £2 10s. would therefore soon be raised to £3; and if the rate of interest continued high it would reach £3 5s. The maximum rate invariably became the standard, the minimum being regarded as an injustice. The scheme of a national bank, however plausible it might look at the outset, would lead to the most serious consequences. The Committee which sat on the subject, and of which he was a Member, came to the decided and unanimous opinion that it was desirable to separate the operation of banking for the people from the national Treasury. It was thought that these national banks would act as a powerful inducement to the working men to intrust their money to the Government rather than to their own benefit societies, which were always identified with those trade societies which some hon. Gentleman regarded with so much aversion and horror. For his own part, he believed that those benefit and trade societies had been the means of regenerating the people of this country, and that their social influence was most conservative. It had been admitted by a great advocate of Parliamentary Reform that the minds of the working classes were at present entirely preoccupied with the subject of those societies. Those institu- tions had made the people connected with them thoughtful, and during the late distress in London it had been found that no persons belonging to a trade or benefit society had applied for relief from public charity or through the medium of the poor-houses, because their members, from a feeling of self-respect, had engaged to maintain each other in sickness or in want, without having recourse to extraneous aid. It was therefore not expedient to discourage these societies by means of a national bank. In his opinion, the present savings banks, with all their imperfections, were infinitely preferable to a great Government institution. It was desirable that the country gentlemen of England should take an interest in the welfare of the labouring population by which they were surrounded, and to supersede their exertions by the services of mere stipendiaries of the State would weaken that social system on which the liberties of the people were mainly founded. If, however, the present scheme was to be persisted in, care should be taken to prevent it from sliding into the condition into which all other projects of the same kind had fallen, and sufficient guarantees ought to be provided for its continuance on its original footing. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would give them some practical and definite information as to the cost of carrying out his scheme, and how he proposed that it should be defrayed.

said, the matter before the Committee was the second clause of the Bill; and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets need not have gone into the general question with regard to the Bill. But the hon. Member had spoken of the expenses that would be incurred by the working of the scheme. Now he (Mr. T. Hankey) apprehended that there would be no necessity for any additional book-keeping. The hon. Member had assumed that there would be two sets of books at each post-office; one being such as were now kept by the savings banks, and the other being such as were kept by the post-office money-order offices. But there was no such intention, as he believed. The hon. Member had also remarked that these small deposits would be left in the hands of the Government for so short a time that the system would not be remunerative. But in that respect he believed the same rule would be followed that was adopted by the existing savings banks, and their experience showed that it was not the habit of the people to deposit a shilling and then to withdraw it in a fortnight. Taking the average time for which deposits visually remained in the hands of bankers, it was sufficient to make that a remunerative business. The object of the Bill was to give the poor the same accommodation that was given them by existing savings banks, but to enable them to avail themselves of it in an easier manner. He had made these observations because he was unwilling to submit in silence to the insinuation that he had given no consideration to the matter, but had voted blindfold for a scheme that might lead to unlimited expense.

said, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would give a full reply to the observations of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, as the question of expense, both present and future, was a most serious one. As one conversant with figures he ventured to say that if the scheme were carried out the national establishments must be greatly augmented, and if it proved successful the establishment that would be required would be of the same gigantic proportions as the Bank of England. It was true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a low rate of interest; but the argument of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was that when the deposits had swelled to millions the depositors would not remain satisfied with a lower rate of interest than was paid to the national creditor. He (Alderman Sidney) believed that the depositors would ignore the working expenses of the plan, and the country would be asked to defray the cost of a philanthropic scheme and give the highest rate of interest. He believed that the scheme was founded upon error; that it would interfere with the self-working of existing establishments, and would entail a large expense upon the country at large.

said, that he must beg to be excused from undertaking the task of giving a full reply to the speech of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, that being a duty beyond his powers. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets often gave to the House notable examples of his discursive powers; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) never knew an occasion on which the hon. Member had more signalized himself than on the present. When the hon. Member rose into the air on eagle wing he passed over the limits of time and space, and was not subject to any of the conditions that bound the efforts of ordinary mortals. He would, therefore, confine his reply to that portion of the hon. Member's speech which seemed to bear practically on the working of the Bill. It might, however, be observed, that both his speech, and that of the hon. Member who had just sat down, as they were directed entirely against the principle of the Bill, could hardly be quite in place on that occasion in Committee, when they were discussing the question whether the depositor's book should be conclusive evidence of title for ten days or for a longer period. But the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) had already given an answer to part of their objections. He (Mr. Gladstone) would at once admit that the consideration of expense was vital to the measure. It would be absurd for the Government and Parliament, even for the purpose of encouraging provident habits among the poor, to make the working classes of the country pensioners on the Exchequer. To such a principle he should be altogether opposed; and if such were found to be the operation of the Bill, it would be their duty to check and limit its operation, so as effectually to prevent so enormous an evil. But the hon. Member had alleged that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had showed some disinclination to produce returns from the departments of the Post Office, giving the calculations, statements, and figures by which the officers of that department had satisfied the Government that this would be a self-working and self-supporting system. Although it was, undoubtedly, in the power of the House of Commons to call for the most minute statements from every permanent officer of the Government as well as from the Ministers of the Crown, yet such was not its practice; and if the House were to alter its practice in that respect the effect of it must be to divest the responsible Ministers of all responsibility, and place it where it ought not to be. He begged the House to bear in mind that the present was an experimental system, while two opposite objections were made to it—one that it would do but little good, and the other that it would rise into a system of such enormous magnitude that it would require in time an establishment as large as the Bank of England to carry it out, and that it would create a great deal of patronage. Now, with regard to the question of patronage under the Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have nothing to do. He would not appoint a single clerk, and not half a dozen clerks would be appointed for a length of time after the passing of the Bill. If the system were to grow, the appointments would be made by the Postmaster General exclusively. He did not think they could altogether get rid of the system of patronage, but it might be limited, and that appointments of this kind should be made by free and open competition was what he desired to see. He was, therefore, entirely impregnable on the score of patronage. As to the expense of the system, any calculations on that point must be of an entirely hypothetical character. They must depend on certain assumptions as to the amount of business the savings banks would have to transact. Although he had hopes, and sanguine hopes as to the successful operation of the system he had not the slightest conception as to the amount of business that would be done. He did not know whether it would be moderate or exceedingly large, and he felt reluctant to deal with figures by anticipation that might be falsified by the result. What he wished the Committee to observe was—first, that the operation of the Bill would be gradual; and as the first year's expenditure with the result of the measure would be laid before the House, the House would be in a position to judge of those results, and whether the system was likely to become self-supporting or to entail a charge on the public. The next point was that whatever was the expense of the system it would be an expense that would he precisely adjusted to the extension of its operation. It was not proposed to create a large and new establishment under highly-paid officers. The framework already existed, and everything would fall in with the existing machinery of the Post Office. It might admit of an extension, but that extension would be in precise proportion to the demand. As to the expense, he confessed he attached more weight to the experience of the Post Office authorities in the business of their department and what it had already accomplished than to mere calculations of figures however plausible. The modern Post Office started upon the assumption, which was not believed at the time, that it could receive, carry, and deliver letters with a profit at a uniform rate of 1d. To the carriage of letters the Post Office added the book post, and showed that it could receive and carry more weighty matter. It then added the money-order office, and although the profit on that was almost infinitesimal, considering the amount of business done, it still left a profit of some £20,000 or £30,000. The Post Office authorities had carefully examined all the steps of the process under which deposits would be received, transmitted, kept, retransmitted, and returned to the depositors when demanded, and calculated the charge at which that could be done. The result at which they arrived was that one halfpenny on the receipt and another on the reclamation of each deposit would be ample remuneration for the local postmaster. This was independent of the penny for the transmission of the letter. It was quite true, as the hon. Gentleman stated, that deposits of one shilling wonld be unremunerative, but by the Bill they were not compelled to take a shilling. They might do so, but it was not the particular deposit that they must look to, but the average of the deposits. If the hon. Gentleman saw from the first balance-sheet that the result of the measure was unsatisfactory, it would be competent for him or for the Government to step in in order to stop the slightest appearance of the charge upon the public for the transaction of the business. The Post Office authorities in their calculations had adopted two modes of comparison—the labour involved in, and the cost of the money-order office, and that performed in the existing savings banks; and in both points of view the result was satisfactory as to the result of working the proposed measure. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last said that by reducing the interest from £3 5s. to £2 10s. he gained £750 on every million, but he might have made a more favourable management of his figures, and he would have at the same time been more accurate if he said he would have gained £7,500. It was the opinion of competent persons in the Post Office that they could transact the business more cheaply than the money-order office; and with regard to the existing savings banks the result of the calculation was that that which cost the existing savings banks one shilling per transaction would cost sevenpence per transaction under the system about to be established. These were statements on which the Committee might venture to rely. These were the views with which he trusted the House would be disposed to make a trial of this experiment, reserving to itself, of course, the powers and the duty of correcting any tendency to excess if it should exist. All calculations based on an assumed number of deposits were only probabilities; it was better to rely on the estimate of the cost of the additional details of work to be done in an establishment already existing. He bad a sanguine hope that every statement he had made would be verified, and that the measure would entail no charge on the public. He could not agree with the invective of the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) on the savings banks; they might be far from perfect, but they had proved a great advantage to the depositors, and had enabled successive Governments to effect an economy in the management of the public money transcending ten times over any charge the State had been put to.

said, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had treated the two hon. Members who had spoken somewhat hardly. He had complained that they both made speeches which were much better suited for the second reading of the Bill than for going into Committee. But the right hon. Gentleman ought to hear in mind that the second reading of the Bill was brought on at such an hour that Gentlemen who took any interest in the matter were prevented from offering any observations upon the Bill; and the hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Tower Hamlets was, he (Mr. Estcourt) believed, among the number. The hon. Member had asked for details of the expense, and he thought he was perfectly justified in asking that question, for they were discussing both the machinery and the expense of the machinery for carrying out the Act, without any foundation or basis upon which any Gentleman could make up his mind, seeing that they were speaking of an entirely hypothetical question. He should be much better satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman could tell them that an estimate had been prepared, that the minutest particulars had been investigated by the Post Office authorities, that he had had reports from them in regard to expenses under different heads, and that he could give something like an idea of the probable expenditure to the Committee. He was not so unreasonable as to call upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay before them a specific estimate of the expense of the machinery, but if he had received positive information from the Post Office and other quarters which would enable him to give him a general view of the ex- penditure it would be very satisfactory. He confessed that the statement which the right hon. Gentleman had made in reference to the eighth clause had created a great difference in his apprehension of the risk which the public would incur of having expense entailed upon them under this Bill, but his objections in regard to the principle of the Bill, and which he took the liberty of mentioning on the occasion of the second reading, were not varied. He certainly thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to give the Committee some of the particulars, sufficient to enable them to judge of the expenditure with respect to which he seemed so satisfied in his own mind. He dare say what had satisfied the right hon. Gentleman would satisfy the Committee, but unless they had some further information in regard to the expenditure he trusted the Committee would not pass a Bill which involved so great a risk of saddling the people with an additional charge.

inquired, whether the hours during which these post-office savings banks would be open, would be the same hours as the money-order office hours? He thought that to enable such banks to do any good, the hours must be such as would enable the public to attend and deposit their money without any loss of time or other expense.

said, that he had paid much attention to the subject, having been the manager and trustee of two savings banks. The subject was a difficult one, and he thought very few Members of the House understood the merits of the question. He should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended the measure as auxiliary to or subversive of the present system of savings banks? That was an important question. In one large city alone there was nearly a million of money deposited in savings banks, and a large establishment was kept up. Now they had been told that no additional books would be necessary in order to keep the accounts under the new system. The management of a savings bank required great care and attention, and when a large sum was periodically transmitted to the Commissioners of the National Debt accounts had to be kept, and, no doubt, individual accounts would be necessary under the present system; but the Commissioners of the National Debt did not keep individual accounts of separate depositors. It was admitted that the measure was an experimental one—then why not try it on a limited scale? There were no less than fifteen counties in which no savings banks existed, and the measure might in the first instance be applied to those counties and the question of public approbation tested. Without wishing to speak in any unfriendly spirit, he wished that the measure had received more mature consideration by the House and the country, and he suggested that separate accounts should be kept of the transactions which took place under the Bill, so that the House might know the advantage and disadvantage of the new system.

denied that he had passed any severe strictures upon the present savings banks. On the contrary, he was particularly well pleased with the present banks, and regretted that anything should be done to diminish their usefulness and efficiency.

said, he had only understood the hon. Gentleman as objecting to the system, and not to the local management. With regard to the remarks made upon the haste with which this Bill had been pressed, he should be sorry to have it supposed that he had wished to prevent hon. Gentlemen from expressing their opinions on the principle of the measure. He had made no attempt to force it through the House, and if upon the second reading any hon. Member had objected at that late hour to go on with the Bill he would at once have postponed it. With regard to the time during which the post-office savings banks would be open, they would not be absolutely tied to the hours of the money-order offices, nor would they in all cases be confined to those offices. Those points would be left under the control of the Postmaster General, who would make such arrangements respecting the days and hours in particular cases as would suit the convenience of the working classes in the district. He had been asked whether the Bill would prove auxiliary to or subversive of the existing savings banks. Now, that was so general a question that he could only give to it a general answer. He could not tell what the relative merits of the new system would be as compared with that now existing. His opinion was worth little, but he thought it probable that one class of depositors, who desired secresy in their investments, would prefer the new institutions; while another class, who wished to act under the immediate view of their local superiors, would prefer the existing savings banks. He could not say whether the Bill would be auxiliary or subversive. His only feeling in bringing it forward was that it would give to large numbers of people in this country facilities for investing their savings which they did not now possess. That was the sum and substance of all he had to say. As to the suggestion that the Bill should be limited to the fifteen counties in which there were now no savings banks he could by no means concur in it. What were those counties? They consisted of two or three in England, several in Scotland, and some in Ireland, with a very small population and a very insignificant trade; and by limiting the plan to these you would exclude all the great masses of population and all the important centres of trade which were not sufficiently accommodated by the present savings banks system. As to giving more definite information of the probable results of the measure it was impossible to give any as to the amount of business which would be done, except in a form more or less hypothetical. Taking any given number of deposits—say 1,000,000, it would, of course, be possible to say that on that million so much would be the expense of remuneration to the local officers, so much for the transmission of letters, and so much for the cost of the central estsblishment in London where the banking business would be carried on. Those items would include all the elements of the calculation, and probably he could furnish something in the shape of an estimate so far. But with regard to the amounts in which deposits would be received, and the length of time they would be left, it would be absurd to venture to present an estimate.

said, that as the representative of a county (Kerry) in which very severe distress had been caused some years ago by the failure of two savings banks, he rose to tender his grateful acknowledgements to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the new experiment which he was about to try. A Committee of the House of Commons which had sat on the subject of those failures had recommended considerable changes in the law, but so great were the difficulties in the way that no Chancellor of the Exchequer had been able to grapple with them. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, had adopted a very wise course, as the old system apparently could not be mended, to give the people their choice between that and a new one. No doubt at the present time savings banks were very well managed, and the chance of failure was the exception and not the rule; but so long as loss was possible under the present system depositors ought to have a choice between it and a system under which loss would not be possible, and he hoped the experiment would succeed.

said, the real question was whether the measure was a safe experiment. It involved high financial principles and ample time ought to be allowed for its discussion. Upon many of the principal points the right hon. Gentleman had left the Committee somewhat in the dark. It was not an easy thing to establish a bank of any kind, but it seemed to him that they were going to turn the Post Office into a sort of bank, and to make the Postmaster General—a political officer, and subject to constant change—a sort of banker. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not given the Committee sufficient information as to the probable effect of this great change, and the probable chances of its success. If the scheme were ordinarily successful the number of depositors would probably be numbered by thousands and tens of thousands, and he should like to know how provision was to be made for dealing with such a multiplicity of transactions as the change would involve. Again, there would be many cases of disputed claims involving difficulty of adjustment. The Bill would have the effect of closing up many of the existing savings banks. He believed they were all solvent at the present moment. Would it be wise to destroy existing savings banks? The expense of the proposed system would necessarily be large, as it could not be carried into effect without the employment of a numerous, well-paid, and honest staff of clerks. The Committee were also asked to assent to these monies being paid into the hands of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, but an ex officio Commission was not a proper tribunal for securing the successful operation of a new banking experiment, and he could not believe that the Committee would assent to such power being lodged in the hands of such a body. If the Post Office was to be turned into a bank somebody ought to be appointed to watch the proper auditing of the accounts.

said, he must repeat he could not undertake to give any estimate of the number of transactions. If it were small a little good would be done; if it were-large a great deal of good would be effected. He really had not the means of forming a trustworthy judgment, but those who had the best means of forming an accurate judgment thought that the number would be very considerable. With regard to disputed claims, they would be disposed of in precisely the same manner as at present, by the intervention of an experienced gentleman, Mr. Tidd Pratt, who had disposed of those claims without difficulty and to the satisfaction of depositors in the existing savings banks.

said, that it was necessary to contemplate a great number of cases in which oral and personal communication between the depositors and some confidential person appointed by the Postmaster General would be indispensable. Difficulties were constantly arising from the death or marriage of depositors, or from the joint deposits, on the part of friendly societies, by two or three officers who were either dead or removed. These cases were generally arranged after interviews with the claimants by the managers and trustees of the present banks. It was only when legal points were involved that the managers sent a written statement for the opinion of Mr. Tidd Pratt; but the depositors were quite incapable of drawing up such a statement, and it would be absurd to require them to make journeys to London in order to see that gentleman. The measure would be incomplete unless some local authority were appointed to settle the difficulties to which he had referred on the spot. The local postmaster, of course, could not be such an authority, but probably the local head of the revenue department might be employed for the purpose.

observed that he had not said that in all cases of difficulty reference would be made to Mr. Tidd Pratt, but that reference would be made to him in cases of disputed claims. Where the intervention of a local officer was required the duty might very well be entrusted to the present district surveyors of the Post Office, who were able and intelligent men. It was not intended absolutely to confine the savings banks to the money-order offices, but to extend the number to places where there was a real need for such institutions and the postmasters were sufficiently qualified to conduct them. At the same time the number to commence with would be much less than the existing number of money-order offices. There was no intention to make a wholesale augmentation of money order-offices in order to open savings banks of this description.

proposed an Amendment after the words "or any part thereof," to add, "if such part be one shilling, or some multiple of a shilling."

said, he wished to ask for an explanation of the strictly legal character of the acknowledgment to be given to each depositor? It was to be conclusive evidence of the right to the money. Would it have to be given up when the demand for repayment was made? Could a lien be created upon it, or would it only be valuable to show the ownership of the money

said, that the postmaster's acknowledgment was to be evidence of the depositor's title, but nothing more. The surrender of the acknowledgment would not be a necessary condition of payment of the deposit.

said, he wanted to know what voucher the postmaster would have that the person claiming the money was the depositor.

replied, that the depositor must produce the acknowledgment, and the Postmaster General would be entitled to require possession of it, if necessary, in evidence of title.

remarked, that in that case the acknowledgments would be documents on which a lien would be created, and would, in fact, form a paper currency bearing interest. Now, the great object of the savings hanks had hitherto been to withdraw from men the temptation of spending their money by interposing a little difficulty and delay in getting it out of the banks. But the new system would leave men exposed to the temptation, because the acknowledgments would be pledged to tradespeople and converted into a circulating medium. If a workman carried them about with him they would "burn a hole in his pocket," just the same as so much hard cash. And there would be the further evil that probably the vouchers would be disposed of under their value to satisfy the cravings of the moment. He did not see how the Postmaster General could deal with hundreds of people of whom he knew nothing, unless the acknowledgments were surrendered.

said, that it was impossible at present to prevent a depositor from pledging his book if he chose to do so, and the voucher of the postmaster would not be in the least more liable to that fate. The hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong in supposing that the acknowledgments could be converted into a circulating medium. His object in drawing the Bill had been to insert in it whatever related to the position and rights of the depositor as against the Government, but to reserve as much as possible everything as to the mode in which operations were to be carried on. The general intention of the Post Office Department was that a depositor who wished to withdraw money should make application in a form supplied to him for the purpose, and that he should insert therein the number of his book, the amount he wished to withdraw, and his full name and address. The application would be forwarded to London for examination, and the Postmaster General would generally be in a condition to forward a warrant for payment of the money. That would be the ordinary course of the transaction.

said, he thought that a good deal of the confusion arose from the want of further information as to the details of the proposed operation of the Bill. The clause, as it read, unquestionably said "the depositor or any body legally authorized." Now, those words involved the first question requiring explanation. What constituted, then, a legal authorization for a demand of the money? They were, then, wholly at a loss to know, except from the sort of casual information given, the particular form in which the demand was to be made. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the number of the depositor's book was to be sent up. The question then arose, was the number of the book to be specified in those receipts or acknowledgments? Because, if so, it appeared to him that it would be quite easy for any one who got hold of one of those deposit vouchers to make a demand on the Post Office for the money, and to give the number of the book. He thought it would be far better if the right hon. Gentleman gave more details in his Bill. He confessed, however, he should be glad to see the measure properly worked out, as he was favourable to its principle. Nevertheless, he thought it most important to prevent, if possible, a circulation of 1s. or 5s. deposit notes, which, in effect, might become a sort of bank-notes, and might be pledged for their amount. A system of that kind would be a source of much evil, and would lead, he thought, to constant attempts at fraud. Under such circumstances it was obviously most desirable to obtain fuller information as to how the provisions of the Bill were to be worked out. They were not told whether the acknowledgments were to be received as the only evidence of the depositor's claim. If the book were to be required as evidence also, there would no doubt be further security of the propriety of the claim. The bits of paper might be lost. He found by the first clause that the production of the book, and then the acknowledgment, were to be held as conclusive evidence of the validity of the claim; but it did not say whether a man would have the power to obtain the money without this acknowledgment. Now, that was a point on which it was most important to furnish the most complete information to the depositors.

said, he could not, of course, undertake to say that every contingency had been foreseen and provided for. But with regard to the meaning of the words "the party legally authorized to claim on behalf of the depositor," the construction of those words would be governed by the same principle as that recognized in the existing savings banks law in reference to similar cases. This was not a new code of savings banks law, but the introduction of a new principle in reference to that law. The acknowledgment was a document in favour of the depositor, which, when given to him, would become his absolute statutory title. It might be necessary that he should be required to produce it, and, therefore, the depositor would for his own interest see the importance of preserving it. He was not sure whether or not the acknowledgment would bear upon its face the number of the deposit-book to which it referred; but even if it did there would be this security against fraud, that the local postmaster would have to see that the signature of the person receiving money corresponded with that in the depositor's book.

said, they were now informed that the signature of the claimant should be given, and that it should correspond with that originally made. So far so good. There might, however, be other details equally important for the public to know, and which were not inserted in the Bill. It appeared that the Committee were being gradually informed of them as the discussion proceeded.

said, he saw the object aimed at by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Reading. But if the words proposed were introduced into the Bill the effect would be to prevent the depositor withdrawing the fraction of a shilling. He would, however, make inquiry into the subject, with the view of ascertaining whether such an Amendment would have the effect of creating an economy of labour in the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill.

said, in that case he would consent to withdraw his Amendment.

then moved that in line 21 the words "proper officer" should be omitted, and "depositor" inserted in their place.

said, in the savings bank with which he was connected the great bulk of the working people received their interest regularly. He wished to know whether in all cases under the Bill it would be necessary for the depositors to give ten days' notice of their intention to withdraw

replied in the negative. The Bill merely provided that after a notice of ten days the depositor would possess an absolute title to receive his money. He apprehended that the Warrant would be sent by return of post; but it might so happen, on rare occasions, or when the money was to be repaid at another office than that at which it had been deposited, that a little time would be necessary for the verification of the signature.

said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that unfortunately there was a large portion of the working classes who were totally unable to write, and he wished to know how was their mark to be verified

said, that in cases where persons were unable to write or sign their names, a similar course would be adopted for the verification of marks to that now pursued—namely, the attestation of a witness to the mark.

said, he thought that every care was necessary to prevent confusion arising in regard to the acknowledgments and books of deposits. The matter was of great importance, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider it, so as to give additional security to the money of the depositors. The original scheme of Mr. Sykes was that those certificates should have the value of money and bear interest. He (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) ventured to urge on the right hon. Gentleman that as the matter now stood there was hardly sufficient security given for the payment of the money to the proper party.

said, that in his opinion the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had exercised a wise discretion in not inserting all these precautions which had been alluded to in the Bill. Such matters might very well be intrusted to the Government.

said, he still feared that both depositors and the Government would be involved in inconvenience in consequence of the double element introduced by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, the passbook and the acknowledgment. Clause No. 2 declared that the acknowledgment by the Postmaster General of the deposit made to his officer should be conclusive evidence, not of the receipt of the money by the Government, but of the depositor's "claim to repayment thereof." No depositor could receive repayment without the production of that acknowledgment, which would be such a bit of paper as a poor person was likely to lose. The opinions of the Post Office officials on these subjects were based on the money-order system; but they were not more competent to judge of such matters than hon. Gentlemen who took part in the discussion on the Bill.

remarked, that he understood the Bill to provide that, no matter who presented the tickets, the payments would be made to the depositor.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would object to the insertion of words limiting the powers of the Commissioners in dealing with the money of the depositors? He strongly urged that these funds should only be dealt with in the exclusive interest of the depositors. He had prepared words to secure such a limitation, but he would rather leave the matter in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Experience in the case of other banks had shown the practice of dabbling with deposits to he pernicious, and he hoped the principle would not be revived in this measure.

said, he wished to ask why there should be in all cases this peremptory secresy? He thought there ought to be some exceptions to it, and especially in the case of persons who became chargeable to the Poor Law. In those cases the facts relating to the deposits ought to be disclosed to the guardians. There ought to be some protection against persons obtaining relief from the parish, and at the same time being depositors in a savings bank.

said, he thought the point, though a new one, would be met by leaving the parish authorities to make application to the Postmaster General, who, he believed, would not be precluded from giving all the information required.

considered that that would not be a correct construction of the clause. If a postmaster could not disclose the name the Postmaster General would not be able to do so. There ought to be a proviso enabling the Post-office authorities to give proper information in certain cases.

said, he agreed that on a proper demand being made the names should be disclosed. He would make inquiries upon the subject, and give further information on the bringing up of the Report.

inquired whether there were to be any restrictions as to the way in which the deposits should be invested

said, the Commissioners would deal with these funds in the same way as they did with the funds of the present savings banks.

said, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to introduce words that would limit the power of the Commissioners in dealing with the money of the savings banks. If they were about to establish new savings banks, he trusted that the power of the Commissioners to use the money of the depositors for stock-broking purposes would be limited.

said, the hon. Baronet asked the Committee to reverse the procedure which had been acted upon by many successive Governments, and which had been sanctioned after repeated discussions by that House. He sought to revolutionize the system which had been long acted upon by a clause in the present Bill, and if he wished to destroy the Bill he could not take a more effectual course.

insisted that although it might never have been intended that the monies deposited in savings banks should be used for stock-jobbing purposes, that such had been the practical result from the clause in the Act of Will. IV. That power of dealing with depositors' monies had been strongly deprecated in repeated discussions in the House of Commons. It could not be maintained that the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt had any right to get hold of these monies for the purpose of operating on the money market, irrespectively of the interests of the depositors. He should move the limitation he now proposed in a subsequent clause.

proposed an Amendment altering the date for the first commencement of interest on deposits from one month to half a year.

said, the introduction of such an alteration would benefit the Government by very much simplifying these transactions, but they had fixed a very low rate of interest, and he thought, in regard to the commencement of the payment, they should not place the depositor in a less favourable position than he enjoyed under the practice now prevailing.

said, he rose to repeat his objections to placing savings banks funds at the discretion of the Commissioners for the purpose of operating on the money market, and he should move an Amendment to the effect that whatever monies were invested by the working classes under the Bill should he vested in the manner required by the Savings Bank Acts, with the provision that no sales should be made except for the purposes of the savings banks. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would agree to the Amendment, and thus obviate the recurrence of unpleasant discussion. If such a power were to be delegated at all, he should prefer its remission to the Chancellor of the Exchequer eo nomine, and not a mere mock Commission; but he contended that it was unwise to allow the suspicion to be generated that a secret power rested with these Commissioners for operating on the stock market in the purchase or sale of stock and bills, without regard to the interests of depositors.

said, that in the principle expressed in the Amendment he quite concurred. The object of his previous question was to learn whether, in addition to the £40,000,000 which had been dealt with by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, they would have the same power to deal with the £20,000,000 which he anticipated would come into their hands under the operation of this measure. The Amendment provided that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have no power of dealing with the deposits.

said, he was entirely at issue with the hon. Baronet, and could not agree to the introduction of the words he proposed. Had the principle he advocated been adopted, Mr. Goulburn's suggestion in 1844 could not have been carried out, and we should now have been paying an extra £1,200,000 a year for the interest of the debt. The hon. Baronet deprecated a Commission for managing public business, and yet proposed one for this business. [Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY: An ex officio commission.] The hon. Baronet proposed a really substantial bodily flesh and blood Commission. It was apparently, he thought, forgotten that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no power to deal with these funds without the privity and presence of the Governors of the Bank of England; and the disapproval of those gentlemen would have a strong moral influence upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. For the purpose of showing the absurdity that would result from the adoption of the hon. Baronet's Amendment he would put this case. Last year the House of Commons passed a Bill for the purpose of enabling the Government to raise £2,000,000 for fortifications. The time when that money was wanted was rather uncertain. It so happened that up to the present time but £200,000 of it had been required. That amount had been taken up by the Commissioners of the National Debt. That would have been a good investment for the depositors as well as a convenience to the State. But it might have been required in larger and more frequent sums. Was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then, to go into the money market once a month, when he wanted money, and call for £100,000, £200,000, or £300,000, as the case might be, disturbing and agitating the market unnecessarily, and depriving these depositors of the benefit they might acquire from such an investment? It was positively too absurd a question to provoke an answer. The two questions—namely, as to the management and as to the finance of savings banks were most important questions, but nothing but confusion and mischief could arise from mixing them up with each other in a Bill like that before the Committee. The hon. Baronet had objected to what he had called the clandestine and irresponsible nature of the dealings with these funds. All he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could say was that he was responsible for those dealings; and as to their being clandestine there was scarcely ground for such an assertion, because the hon. Baronet, and any hon. Member who took equal trouble, was as well acquainted with them as he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could be. The words proposed by the hon. Baronet would put the conscience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—if the hon. Baronet admitted a Chancellor of the Exchequer possessed a conscience—in a most painful position, and, indeed, it would be impossible for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to act under such words if they were passed into law. The best way of regarding the interests of the depositors was, however, to make it certain to them that the Government would pay back their deposits with interest, and, if so, the less the depositors knew about anything else the better. It was impossible to have two systems of finance—one for post-office savings banks and another for other savings banks. He trusted that the hon. Baronet would not divide the House on words so ambiguous, and, on many accounts, so objectionable in their character.

said, that since the Chancellor of the Exchequer had introduced a clause regulating the investment of these funds, it was not the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Willoughby) who had imported a question into the discussion which ought not to have been introduced. [The of the I must do something with the money.] The proper plan was to confine the present Bill to the establishment of these banks, and to bring in another Bill regulating the appropriation of the money.

said, the issue he had raised was a very simple one, and was not to be got rid of by any offhand statement. He had suggested that if £100,000 was deposited by the working classes that amount should be invested in stock, bills, or bonds for the benefit of the depositors, and for no other purpose; also that the accounts should be well kept, strictly audited, duly circulated for the information of the House and the country. All he asked was that they should not extend what appeared to him a vicious system; that the £100,000 should be sold not for the benefit of their depositors, or to answer any call on their behalf—as had been the case, for instance, in the transaction of the Exchequer bills. He was surprised to have heard his right hon. Friend allude to that honest Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goulburn), for it had been through him that the House had been favoured with the information which had enabled it to denounce the system of using the savings banks money of the country for the purpose of investing it in the public stocks. It was Mr. Goulburn who had laid the voluminous statement on the table; and he had had the advantage of hearing his opinion on the subject, and it was in favour of the course he was now pursuing. With regard to the Commission which at present managed the savings banks funds, it comprised the names of several persons of eminent position, but who did nothing. It consisted of the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, the Accountant General, the Governor and the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but the only members who attended the quarterly meetings were the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. It was matter of common knowledge that the national debt of this country had been increased to the amount of £2,000,000 without the knowledge of the House of Commons, He desired to put a stop to such a state of things. Then he had moved for a Return showing how much of the unfunded debt had been changed into funded debt. The Return made was nil. But it afterwards turned out that £7,000,000 of unfunded debt had been so treated. Such laxity in the management of those funds showed the impolicy of allowing them to be dealt with without the authority of Parliament. It was against such operations that he protested; and, therefore, he asked that the savings of the poor should be kept as simple deposits, and should not be mixed up with state purposes and projects.

said, he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn, for its proposition on the present occasion, involving as it did an enormous change in financial arrangements, seemed almost like taking the Committee and the Chancellor of the Exchequer by surprise The question was important, and if the hon. Baronet gave notice of a Resolution on the subject, it might then be fairly discussed. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets must on consideration see that the present clause was absolutely necessary; for it was no use to have money deposited without the power of investing that money somewhere.

observed that Mr. Goulburn had made a brilliant operation with the savings banks money, but succeeding Chancellors of the Exchequer had lost £3,000,000 by their employment of it.

said, that as the present Bill was brought in to amend the previous system, the question arose whether the Commissioners ought not to act as trustees simply, and not as bankers.

said, that as there appeared to be some fairness in one or two of the observations which had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should assent to the withdrawal of his Amendment, but not on the score of principle.

said, he must object to the withdrawal of the Motion on those qualified terms.

said, that while he concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Eversham in thinking that the mode of dealing with the savings banks funds as a whole was not satisfactory, he should yet be unwilling to take a course which would be calculated to have the effect of placing two systems of savings banks deposits—the present, and that which would be created under the Bill before the Committee—upon a different footing. He should, therefore, recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.

said, an appeal had been made to the hon. Baronet to withdraw the Amendment upon a technical point. He thought the principle was a very important one. The Government were anxious to become bankers and receive deposits, and it was contended for the first time that the depositors were to have control over the actions of the banker. He did not know what restraint should be put upon the public banker which was not put upon the ordinary banker. When they thought a banker was a sober-minded, discreet man, they trusted him with their money, and they did not ask him whether he invested the money in the 3 per Cents or Exchequer bills. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite right, and he thought the hon. Baronet should withdraw his Amendment, but not with the view of bringing it forward again.

observed that the Government, in the present instance, were to be regarded not so much in the light of bankers as trustees.

asked, whether the result of the audit and examinations of the savings banks accounts would be laid before Parliament.

replied that the same course would be pursued as was adopted in reference to the other public accounts; the auditors would report to the Treasury, and the House could, if it so pleased, bring the matter within its own view. He, however, intended to move the appointment of a Committee of public accounts, and his opinion was that ultimately, though not at present, all that was done with public money should be under the revision of that Committee.

intimated a doubt whether the mode of deciding disputes under the Bill was the best that could be devised. He alluded to a case under the present system of savings banks where awards had been made for £15,000 or £16,000, which had been afterwards pronounced by one of the Irish Judges not to be worth the paper on which they had been made. He thought there should be a power to have two arbitrators appointed.

said, he believed that the disputes would be of a different character from what had occurred under the ordinary savings banks. The former disputes had been between the depositors and the trustees of the banks, and unfortunately as they gave no security, the result was always unsatisfactory to the depositors. The only dispute that could arise now would be with regard to the falsification of a signature, or the withdrawal of an acknowledgment. The dispute would always he between the depositor and the central Government. He did not think it was the assistance of two arbitrators that would be required, but of a person best acquainted with the law. That being so, he thought it better to leave the matter in the hands of Mr. Tidd Pratt.

Sir, in moving the second reading of this Bill I shall trouble the House for a few minutes only, inasmuch as I stated when asking leave to introduce the Bill the general purport and character of the measure. The House is doubtless aware that duties are now levied upon all coal imported into the City of London, and within a radius of twenty miles from St. Paul's, or some other central part of the Metropolis. The amount which is thus raised consists of three portions—namely, of 4d. a ton which is levied for the benefit of the Corporation of London, and of two other sums of 8d. and 1d. which are levied under the authority of several Acts of Parliament, and the proceeds of which have been exclusively appropriated to certain works of public utility. During the last Session a Committee was appointed to consider the question of the embankment of the Thames. That Committee was composed of various Members well qualified to form an opinion on the subject, and the unanimous Resolution which it reported to the House was to the effect that, as in 1861 the 8d. and 1d. duties upon coal and the ½d. duty upon wine which were imposed and continued by Parliament to defray the cost of public improvements would cease, those duties should be renewed for a limited period, and the whole or part of the expense of the Thames embankment should be made a first charge upon them. The present measure is based, in substance, on that recommendation. I need hardly say that the present Bill is not one in which the Government have any peculiar interest. It is only because it affects to some extent the general interests of the Metropolis and of the country at large that they have thought it their duty to take charge of it, and to see that the recommendation of the Committee of last Session is carried into effect, if the House should think fit to agree to it. The main object of the Bill is to continue for ten years the 8d. and 1d. duties which are described in the Resolution that I have just read. The Committee of last Session recommended that the great and, I believe, useful work of the Thames embankment should be executed. Since that time the Government have issued a Commission to persons who either have professional knowledge on the subject or are locally interested in the execution of the work, with the view of selecting the best of the different plans which have been proposed for that object. The decision of the Commission will be of an engineering character. The Report will be laid before the House as soon as made, and it will then be in the power of the House, if it thinks fit, to legislate on the subject, with the best advice which is in the power of the Government to procure for that purpose. If the House should be disposed to agree to the plan selected by the Commissioners it will then be enabled to appropriate to the execution of such plan the proceeds of the 8d. and 1d. coal duties, which will be preserved under the operation of this Bill. What, therefore, this Bill proposes to do is to keep alive the 8d. and 1d. duties for ten years, preserving them for such purposes as Parliament may hereafter determine. But, in addition to the 8d. and 1d. duties, the Bill will likewise continue the 4d. duty now levied by the City. I understand that tax has been levied for a long period by the City either in the form of a duty of 4d. per ton, as at present, or at the nearly equivalent rate of 4d. per chaldron, which was the case before 1831. I am informed by the officers of the Corporation that their books show that the tax has been levied uninterruptedly since about the time of the great fire of London, at which period the City records were destroyed. How many years it was levied before that time I am unable to inform the House; but at all events it has been levied continuously since the year 1666; and it is hardly necessary, I think, to go further back. Well, with regard to this 4d. duty on coal levied by the City, I am aware that a great deal of discussion may be raised. It may be said that the Corporation ought not to levy for their own purposes a duty of 4d. per ton on all the consumers of coal in London and within twenty miles of London. The Corporation, however, maintain that they have what they consider as a right of property in that impost. I am unwilling to enter into a controversy which I know from experience may not be very easily determined in this House with regard to what may be the rights of property of a Corporation in dues of that nature. That subject gave rise to great differences of opinion in former years; and the plan I would propose may, I think, tend to abridge that controversy. I should wish, when the Bill reaches the Committee, to insert a clause appropriating the whole of the 4d. City duty to the extinction of the debt which has been created by the City for purposes of public utility, under the authority of Acts of Parliament. If that were done there would be no discretion on the part of the City to apply the 4d. duty to any purposes which had not been expressly sanctioned by Parliament. I will state to the House the nature of the debt which is now actually charged under authority of Acts of Parliament upon the 4d. coal duty. The City has been empowered by Acts of Parliament to raise money for the execution of the improvements in Cannon Street. They have raised £540,000 for that purpose, and having power by Acts of Parliament to charge that sum upon any of their revenues by the authority of the Common Council, they have charged it on the 4d. coal duty. If the plan I propose meet with the approbation of the House I should hope the City Corporation would agree without any serious objection that the whole produce of the City 4d. duty for the next ten years should be approriated to the payment of the interest on this £540,000, and the redemp- tion of the principal. The estimate I make of the annual produce of the City coal duty under this Bill—somewhat diminished, inasmuch as the radius will be less—amounts to £60,000. The interest on the sum borrowed will, I believe, be about £21,000 a year; that would leave about £40,000 a year to be applied to the redemption of the debt. That would make in ten years £400,000; but, allowing for the gradual diminution of the sum by the operation of an annual sinking fund, I believe the entire £540,000 would be extinguished at the end of ten years. If the House would agree to that course, I would, when the Bill reaches Committee, insert a clause appropriating the produce of the 4d. City duty to the purposes I have described. There would then be the 9d. duty, if the House should see fit, to be appropriated to the Thames embankment. In regards to the 4d. duty, it is at present levied within a radius of twenty miles from the Metropolis. It is rather a difficult thing to say what the Metropolis is, inasmuch as it has no legal boundaries; different limitations of it exist for different purposes. I believe the original state of things was this:—Going back to the time when railways did not exist, the whole of London was supplied by sea-borne coals, and in general terms upon the whole of these sea-borne coals a duty was paid to the City, and no part of it was drawn back. The consequence was that as far as the neighbourhood was supplied from London the City duty was levied on the coal. The City, some years ago, consented to limit the radius within which the duty should be payable and allow a drawback to all places lying beyond the twenty miles. That measure was represented as a grasping and rapacious act on the part of the City, but it was really a concession to the consumer, inasmuch as it said, that whereas formerly places in Hertfordshire and Kent which got their coals from London—Brighton might have been so supplied—were subject to the City duty, all places beyond the radius of twenty miles are now entitled to a drawback. I say, therefore, some injustice was done to the City in reference to that measure by the descriptions and complaints I have occasionally heard in this House. There is certainly an objection to take an arbitrary limit and say every place without shall be free from this tax and every place within shall pay. What I propose to do, therefore, is to take a district recognized for some other existing purposes. I propose to adopt the district of the metropolitan police, and say, every place within the metropolitan police district shall be subject to the duty, but it shall go no further; and I shall be prepared in Committee, if any doubt should exist on the construction of the Bill as it stands, to insert words expressly giving the drawback to places lying without the metropolitan police district. I hope that explanation will save the House a great deal of antiquarian and legal discussion, and possibly some very irrelevant matter, on this question. I trust the House will consider it not as a question of law, but of expediency. The question is simply this:—We have already by the Metropolitan Board of Works carried direct taxation within the Metropolis to the extent to which the ratepayers are willing to go. The last measure for the execution of great drainage works has added to their burdens, and I do not think that any Gentleman who should come forward and propose to raise a large sum for works of public utility by taxation on the Metropolis would have a very easy task to perform. That being the case, is it, or is it not desirable that a certain sum should be levied for public purposes within the Metropolis? It is a question which every hon. Gentleman can answer for himself. I can only say I have no personal interest in pressing this matter on the consideration of the House. The Government are perfectly willing to abide by the decision to which the House may come. But I rely on the recommendation of the Committee, and my belief is that unless this tax which now exists, and which is not felt a heavy burden by any class of consumers in the Metropolis, be continued, there is no feasible method by which either the Thames embankment or any similar work can be executed. With respect to the principle of putting a port duty on coals, I wish to suggest to hon. Gentlemen who as connected with the ownership of coal may feel some difficulty on that point that I believe there is not a single one of the large ports in the north from which coals are exported where an export duty on coal is not collected for municipal purposes. I make this statement on the authority of a return made to this House in 1831. In Newcastle, Stockton, and Sunderland, and I believe all the large towns in the north of England, in Scotland, and Wales the municipal corporations levy similar export duties. I, therefore, submit that it is not open to Gentle- men from the coal districts to object to the principle of a municipal duty being levied on coal. With these explanations—and I am sorry to have troubled the House so much at length—I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

said, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would consent to postpone the second reading of the Bill until the inhabitants of the Metropolis had had an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon the tax. He had not received the Bill until his return to town after the recess, and therefore had not time to consult his constituents upon the matter.

observed that the Bill had been delivered to hon. Members on the 20th of March.

said, he had not seen his copy until the present day. The tax was most objectionable, as it was levied upon an article of consumption, which was nearly as much one of the necessaries of life as bread. The principle, too, of placing so much money at the control of the Metropolitan Board of Works was most objectionable. If levied at all it ought to be placed in the Treasury. It was proposed that a portion of it should be employed in the embankment of the Thames, but that was a work which could not be carried out under existing drainage arrangements. As the tax pressed so severely on the labouring classes he was opposed to its continuance, and the only purpose for which it ought to be continued would be for the embankment of the Thames, and which should be carried out upon both sides of the river. The debt of £700,000, which the Court of Aldermen advanced Charles II. out of the orphan fund had been entirely paid off eighty years ago by the Tax on Coals, so that they might calculate that 4d. duty had long since paid the debt incurred for the improvement of Cannon Street.

observed that the whole of that debt was entirely unproductive.

said, the City had, in deference to public opinion, relinquished the toll charged upon carts carrying goods to market which amounted to £7,000 a year, and ought now to forego this impost. He had no objection to the second reading of the Bill, but hoped the right hon. Gentleman would postpone it for a fortnight.

said, he rose to move the adjournment of the debate. He was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary should have totally ignored the existence of the Select Committee of which he was a member, and which was appointed to inquire into the whole question of metropolitan taxation and local self government. It would he irregular for him to refer to the proceedings before that Committee, but he should be quite in order in referring to the proceedings of that civic Parliament, the Common Council, and he might mention it had been stated that the Committee in question had demanded from the authorities of the City corporation certain information which was at first refused, but which he believed would now be supplied. Allusion had been made to the Committee of last year on the embankment of the Thames. As a member of that Committee he had himself endeavoured to obtain the very information which the present Committee had applied for and hoped to obtain, and he had met with the same difficulties as beset the members of every Committee which had to deal with that question. It had been said that the City dues had been mortgaged for the payment of certain debts, and that a charge had been created on that source of revenue. But the fact was, that no sort of mortgage had been effected by the corporation other than the issue of the ordinary bonds of the City of London. No specific charge had been created on any particular source of their revenue, their whole property being pledged as security for the money they borrowed. Other Committees had, no doubt, sat upon that subject, but none of them had dealt with it as a whole. He had no wish to obstruct the Government nor to offer any hostility to the City of London; but as a Committee had been appointed to investigate the entire question, and was still sitting, they had a perfect right to demand that that Bill should be postponed until they had a fair chance of having before them a clear and compendious statement of the facts relating to that important subject. The House was now dealing with a matter affecting several millions of persons and involving very large sums of money, and it was bound to avoid undue haste. There would be ample time to consider the question after the Committee had reported, and he, therefore, trusted the House would support the Mo- tion which he now begged to make—namely, that that debate be now adjourned for six weeks.

seconded the Motion.

remarked that he had understood from the right hon. Gentleman that the object of the measure was not to extend but to contract the area of the tax; but he should be glad to learn if he were correct in the supposition that Gravesend, Northfleet, and Dartford would become liable to it for the first time if the Bill passed.

said, that the subject under dicussion was by no means new to the House of Commons. During the last seven years there had been no less than four inquiries with regard to it; and a Committee, of which the right hon. Baronet who represented Westminster was chairman, had reported favourably of the claims of the City of London to the expenditure of the coal duties. [Sir J. SHELLEY: No, no!] He did not believe that those claims could be legally disputed; nor had he ever heard that the Corporation of London had been charged with misappropriating the funds. In a large city like London great and expensive improvements were required from time to time, and those improvements affected not the locality alone, but the nation. If these funds were swept away how were improvements to be continued? How was London to keep pace with the other cities of Europe? The hon. Member for Lambeth had compared the tax on coals to the tax on corn. He said we might as well tax the people's food as tax their fuel. [Mr. WILLIAMS: Hear, hear !] But the tax on food affected the poor man daily, while that on coal amounted, in the case of the poor man, to not more than 6d. or 1s. a year. Many a poor man did not consume more than a ton of coals in the year. That then, was not a poor man's tax; on the contrary, the poor man was greatly benefited by the outlay of the tax, which was spent in public improvements, for it gave him work. He believed that the embankment of the Thames and other improvements were imperatively required in the Metropolis. He did not mean to contend that the present area of taxation was a wise or just one, but he contended that if any tax at all was to be levied for metropolitan improvements there was none that would fall less oppressively upon the community than the coal-tax. The opposition of metropolitan Members seemed to be dictated by a spirit of jealousy, because other districts did not possess those local institutions which were the pride and boast of the City of London. No charge had ever been sustained against the Corporation that it had not properly applied the funds at its disposal, and he thought it would be better for other metropolitan districts to seek to obtain mayors and municipalities for themselves rather than to attempt to destroy the ancient privileges of the City. He should support the second reading of the Bill.

said, he did not think they were called upon to discuss whether the coal tax was the best way of raising a fund for metropolitan improvement. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Roupell) very recently said that as the Committee were inquiring into the subject, the better course would be to post-pone the second reading of the Bill. Being a Member of the Committee he was precluded from saying a word as to what they were doing. The Committee had not yet reported, and it was an extraordinary proceeding for the right hon. Gentleman to bring forward the Bill, and to propose a continuance for ten years of a tax which was still under the consideration of the Committee. He should vote for the post-ponement of the second reading.

(the said, he objected to the assertion that the Committee appointed on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets was intended to inquire into the right which the Corporation of the City of London had enjoyed for centuries of levying a tax on coals imported into the metropolitan district. He doubted whether the House would have so readily consented to the appointment of that Committee if the hon. and learned Gentleman had avowed that it was his intention to inquire into that right. He objected to the proposed delay, and contended that it was highly necessary to proceed with the Bill. He might argue that, inasmuch as the Corporation of London had enjoyed from time immemorial the right to impose this tax, it had a right to dispose of the money as it pleased. No doubt it had such rights, but the City took higher ground than that of mere legal right; it had appropriated a much larger amount than this tax out of its revenues for the public benefit. All who were acquainted with the City would admit that there was a growing necessity for public improvements; and that there was an urgent demand for an outlay of money. The money necessary for that purpose could only be raised by taxation of some kind; and the question was whether, with that demand for improvements, they should sacrifice a tax to which the public was accustomed, and which fell very lightly on the community. If they did some other means of raising money must be found; and he could not conceive the possibility of raising it by any tax that would fall more lightly. During the whole time the City of London had received the tax it had expended it for the public benefit. The improvement in Cannon Street was a great improvement, and had cost £500,000; but that was not all that had been done in the last few years. The City had laid out nearly the same sum in removing Smith-field Market, a work forced upon them by public clamour and a vote of that House. It had also spent £100,000 in building a new prison. That was not for the City of London alone; it would not have required it for its own population. The City was continually called upon to lay out money for improvements beyond the City boundaries. The centre of a great kingdom was liable to demands to which no country town could be subject. The City of London, therefore, did not belong to that category of towns which should bear their own bur-dens. The City was placed on the banks of a broad river, with two bridges that cost £1,000,000 each. Was it reasonable to expect that the 130,000 inhabitants of the City should raise the money for such enormous public works out of their own means? Though the City of London had claims and rights that would satisfy the mind of a lawyer, he would not go into that question at all He took higher ground, and contended that the funds it received it applied to public purposes. The question, then, was narrowed to this—could they go on in the great Metropolis without expending large sums of money, and could they raise the funds by any better means than a tax to which the public had been accustomed for a great number of years, and that was raised with the smallest possible cost and inconvenience? The tax on coal was collected by a clerk from every vessel that came into the river. The money was paid, and the cargo liberated at once. But what was the case in the great cities of the continent, such as Paris? He should not recommend a wall to be built round the Metropolis with a hundred gates, at seventy of which an octroi duty would be levied; while through the other thirty nothing would be allowed to pass in. But it was absolutely necessary that money should be raised by indirect taxation, for of direct taxation they had reached the extreme limit, for the purpose of constructing the great sewers for the drainage. If they threw away this tax they would get into difficulties it would be impossible to surmount.

said, he regretted that the Amendment for postponing the second reading should have been moved, for he could not imagine a more convenient period for discussing the measure. If the improvements in question were confined to the City it would be a different thing; but why there should be a feeling on the part of the metropolitan Members merely because the tax was collected and expended by the Corporation of the City of London, when the improvements were extended over the whole Metropolis, be was at a loss to understand. The City was the nucleus of the whole Metropolis; and, although he had himself given evidence in favour of the establishment of other minor metropolitan corporations, still the City of London was now the only Corporation, and would, in any case, have the prestige of antiquity, besides which it had, confessedly, carried out public works in a far preferable mode to that which had been adopted by the Metropolitan Board of Works. Every visitor to London was struck at the crowding and block which took place in the streets, and those who, wishing to remedy this evil, yet objected to continue the coal duties, ought to be prepared to point out some better tax. He did not mean to say that if the tax were now to be imposed for the first time the existing form was the best in which it could be raised, but he believed there were few taxes that could be imposed which pressed so lightly on the poor. The only disputable question was as to the area of the taxation. It was not creditable to the City that at present they had three different areas of taxation—the coal tax, the police tax, and the Metropolitan Board of Works. The present area of the coal tax was to be given up and the police area substituted; and though he had at first been in favour of the Board of Works area as the most limited, be soon saw that it would give rise to much evasion without the establishment of something like an octroi. It being evident that a tax of some sort was necessary, the House should next consider that this was a tax to which the inhabitants of the Metropolis were accustomed; and speaking with impartiality, be repeated that no one could point out a better body to distribute these funds than the Corporation of the City of London.

said, he would recommend those hon. Members who were in favour of the Bill to vote against the adjournment, which was made for a covert purpose. The coal tax expired in the month of July next, and the adjournment of a month or six weeks, therefore, would effectually lose the tax.

said, that op the part of the Metropolitan Board of Works, he rose to disclaim any desire to take out of the hands of the London Corporation the distribution of this fund. It would be impossible to accomplish that which every man anxious for the improvement of the Metropolis desired to see effected—namely, the embankment of the Thames—unless a tax of this sort were resorted to. He fully concurred in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that direct taxation within the metropolitan district had reached its limit. In 1858 a return was made to the Metropolitan Board showing that the amount paid in direct taxation within the metropolitan area was £2,000,000 per annum, and since then the main drainage rate had caused a large addition at least £150,000 per annum to the direct taxation levied. The calculation for the product of a rate was simple enough, for a penny rate in the Metropolis produced £50,000 a year, but it would be impossible, he thought, to raise any further sums by direct taxation. Where were the £2,000,000 to be found for the Thames embankment if the coal tax were refused? As regarded the main drainage, the House should remember that that might be carried out without the embankment. There was no mechanical or engineering difficulty; but then the sewer must be carried up Parliament Street and along the Strand, interfering with the traffic of all these thoroughfares in the most inconvenient and offensive manner. Now, they wanted to combine with the scheme of drainage a great line of road, and perhaps a line of railroad, which would relieve the over-crowded thoroughfares and be an ornament to the river. Somewhere about £15,000,000 was wanted for metropolitan improvements of one sort or another, and if the House would not consent to the continuance of this impost, or provide other means, they must be con- tent to leave London as it was, with all its inconveniences. He had no particular objection to the postponement of the Bill for another month except this—that postponements very often led to a Bill being lost altogether.

said, he thought every body would agree that the Thames embankment would be an excellent thing, but the question was, how was it to be paid for? He had not seen any disposition in the debate to prejudice the very ancient right of the City, if they could show that it existed, to the tax of 4d. a chaldron on sea borne coal. If they had that right let them enjoy it, and welcome; but they would find it very difficult to make out any right to levy a tax on coals brought to London by railway and canal. The questions for the House to decide were whether this tax on coal was the best mode of raising the money required for Metropolitan improvements, and, if it were the best mode, whether the area fixed by the Bill was a just one. It had been said that the direct taxation of London had reached its limits, but he thought that if a certain amount of taxation was to be borne it made very little difference to those who had to bear it whether it came in the shape of a coal tax or of a direct rate upon their houses. As far as he could make out, an additional rate of 3d. on houses would raise pretty much the same sum as this coal tax. In a Report from the Metropolitan Board of Works, which had been laid before the House, he found it stated that the imposition of a coal tax would be 50s. a year on persons who lived in large houses at the west-end of the town, and 50d. on the poorer class at the other end. Now people who would have to pay 50s. a year to the coal tax would probably live in houses of about £300 a year, so that the 3d. additional house tax would be but 75s. to them or only 25s. more than the coal tax, while on the £10 householder at the other end of the town the 3d. additional house tax would be but 2s. 6d. instead of the 50d. coal tax. So that the advantage was certainly, as far as the poorer occupiers of houses went, not on the side of the coal tax. The great disadvantage of the coal tax seemed to be that it would throw the burden of the metropolitan improvements on the great consumers of coal, the large manufacturers and employers of labour in the Metropolis, who would be placed at a disadvantage as compared with similar employers of workmen who lived outside the area of taxation. He was very much disappointed at finding that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary persisted in extending the area of the tax beyond the districts which would share the benefits of it, and which elected the representatives who were to administer it. The right hon. Gentleman was not correct in saying that the police district was defined by Act of Parliament. The Act simply gave power to the Queen in Council to fix the district within certain limits, and it was only by a strained construction of the Act that many places were brought in. There was no reason whatever why a parish which was included in the police district should also be subjected to the coal tax. The words defining that district were extremely ambiguous, so that the boundary was very irregular. When any part of a parish came within fifteen miles of the General Post Office the whole was taken to be included, although another part of the same parish might be twenty miles from the same point. One parish—Harefield—which would be subject to the coal tax if the present Bill became law was twenty-one miles and a half from Charing Cross. No doubt before there were rural police it was desirable to extend the metropolitan police as far as possible; but now people in the rural districts considered it a hardship to be under the metropolitan police, because they were rated at 6d. in the pound for what other people only paid 2¾d., who were quite as well served. Parishes in Hertfordshire considered the metropolitan police rate a great burden and a grievance, and now it was proposed to add to their misery by making them liable to the coal tax, for no other reason than because they had been already rated at 6d. in the pound to the metropolitan police It was adding one injustice to another, for which he saw no shadow of excuse, and unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave notice of his intention to alter the area of taxation he should vote against the Bill.

said, he could not understand how the Lord Mayor could charge him with having moved for the Committee without allowing it to be known what its objects were, or how the Corporation could be surprised at being asked by what right they levied this tax. When the Home Secretary's Bill was introduced last year he moved to refer it to a Select Committee, which Committee was also to inquire into the local taxation, and in making the Motion he explained fully what it was that he wished to be investigated. He particularly stated that there was no satisfactory evidence of the right of the City to this tax, and that be wished that to be inquired into. That Bill was withdrawn, and his Motion consequently came to nothing; but this year he put the same Motion on the paper, omitting that part, of course, which referred to the Bill; and in moving it he referred to his speech last year, and the explanations as to his object which he had then given. The very first subject which the Committee had undertaken to examine was this very question of taxation by the Corporation in the Metropolis.

said, he rose to order. He submitted that the hon. Member was not justified in stating to the House what a Committee was doing.

said, he wanted to know what was to be thought of the conduct of a Minister of the Crown who brought forward a Bill with the knowledge that by the appointment of a Committee the mouths of the metropolitan Members were closed upon the subject, because, if he had no right to refer to what the Committee were doing, still less had he the right to state what was said before that Committee. He supposed he should be out of order if he referred to what was made patent by the proceedings of other Committees—namely, that the Corporation of London did not claim as a right the taxes which the Government proposed to give them by this Bill. He undertook to say that before no Committee had the Corporation claimed as a right the taxes which the right hon. Gentleman was going to give them by law. He thought the House would stultify itself if it proceeded with the discussion that night while the whole subject was under consideration, and they were not in possession of essential information. The City of London was bound by law to pay into the same fund as that into which the coal tax was paid a sum of £12,000 a year. It was a condition for receiving the 4d., and it was an open question whether it was not merely a condition, but a permanent obligation. He had privately made a proposition which was so reasonable that he would publicly repeat it. The sum and substance of the whole matter was that the Corporation could receive the 4d. and do what they pleased with it; but that the 9d. and the £12,000 a year were to be applied to metropolitan improvements. The Acts of Parliament under which the tax was levied would ex- pire on the 31st July, 1862, but a question of construction had arisen. In two or three months there would be no object recognized by Parliament to which the money raised by this tax could be applied, and, therefore, the question had arisen whether the tax would not expire in that time—two or three months—instead of in July, 1862. Now, his proposition was that the right hon. Gentleman should introduce a short Bill to continue the existing state of things until July, 1862, and if in the mean time there should be no object to which the present tax could be legally applied it could remain in deposit as proposed by this Bill. That would enable Parliament to give this Session to consideration and the next Session to legislation. His hon. Friend behind him had been charged with a covert purpose in moving an adjournment, so that the coal tax might be allowed to expire. His hon. Friend had no such covert object. What he desired was that the House should be in possession of information on the subject. In matters of taxation they wisely voted Estimates first, and then provided Ways and Means. The present, he assented, was the first instance in the annals of Parliament in which a Minister of the Crown had proposed to impose taxation, amounting to £250,000 a year for ten years, without having given a thought as to what should be done with the money so raised. There was no necessity for such precipitation, and he should therefore support the Motion for adjournment.

said, that his hon. Friend was quite out in his calculation as to the produce of the coal tax. Even if the area of taxation remained, it would not produce in the ten years, as he had said, £2,500,000. But with the area reduced at it was in the Bill, and the 4d. tax being applied to the liquidation of an existing debt, the 9d. would not produce more than £1,500,000 or £1,700,000 in the ten years. He believed the embankment of the Thames alone would cost over £2,000,000, and as the necessity of that work was universally admitted, it would be unwise to delay, for a month or even a week the passing of this measure. It was said that the tax was oppressive to the poor; but, considering the small consumption of coal by the poor, and the large consumption of it by the wealthy, he did not think there was any tax the incidence of which would bear more lightly on the poorer classes. Moreover, there was no tax that was more easily or more cheaply collected. It cost from 5 to 7 per cent to collect other taxes, whilst the coal duty was collected at 1 ¼ or 1 ½ per cent. A large portion of the fourpenny tax was spent in improvements of the Metropolis outside the City, or in improving and widening the great thoroughfares of the City, which must be considered metropolitan improvements, for the inhabitants of the whole Metropolis benefited thereby. Unless the Bill passed, those great and important works which all desired should be carried out must be suspended for an indefinite period.

said, he had not the slightest objection to the City of London taxing itself for the purpose of promoting public works, but that objecting as he did to the area proposed by the Bill, he should vote against it.

said, that in answer to the noble Lord the Member for Kent (Lord Holmesdale) he had to state that it was not intended to retain the town of Gravesend in the second section of the Bill, and would probably propose to limit the area in that direction by the boundaries of the metropolitan police district. The question of area was one which would properly be considered in Committee. The Motion for delay struck at the merits of the whole question, because it would be equivalent to a Resolution to read the Bill a second time that day six months. A new Member might, perhaps, believe that it was nothing to wait for the report of a Committee, but those who were experienced in the proceedings of the House must know that there was no prospect of any legislation on this question during the present Session if they waited for the report of a Committee which had hardly begun its inquiries. He had certainly understood that the Committee of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had been appointed to inquire into the general taxation, actual and possible, of the entire Metropolis, and was not to be narrowed to the consideration of the 4d. duty. Even if the Committee were to decide on the legal right of the City to levy the duty, they would not substantially assist the House in determining whether it was expedient to continue it. He could not admit that the appointment of the Committee ought to influence the decision of the House on this subject. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was mistaken in supposing that his mouth was shut because he was a member of the Committee. There was a wholesome rule that a member of a Com- mittee was not allowed to quote evidence adduced before the Committee until it had been reported to the House; but he was not precluded from citing information from any other source, or from expressing his own views on the question. There was plenty of evidence furnished by other Committees to enable the House to come to a decision at once. He differed from the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Puller), that it was immaterial to the taxpayer in what manner a tax was levied as long as the amount was the same. If his hon. Friend happened to be Chancellor of the Exchequer and attempted to enforce that doctrine, he would meet with the strenuous resistance of the House. It was unquestionably a recommendation of this tax that it already existed; and he trusted that, as the proposal now made was only to continue it for a limited number of years, leaving its appropriation for the subsequent decision of Parliament, the House would come to an immediate vote and read this Bill a second time.

said, he would then move as an Amendment to the Motion for the second reading, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Coal Tax and the London Bridge Approaches Fund should be continued until the 31st of July, 1862." The operation of this Bill being confined to the coal and wine duties, it would put an end to the other funds available for purposes of improvement, which had been contributed: for a period of 150 years. The arrangement, as proposed by this measure, was to give up taxes levied upon the City of London, from which was derived an income of £12,000 a year, and to continue taxes which weighed upon the inhabitants of the Metropolis generally. The object of his Amendment was to provide, in accordance with the spirit of previous legislation, that as long as the coal and wine duties were levied the City of London should continue the contribution which was the consideration for their imposition. In this case justice was set at defiance, and the matter was made a mere question of political power. He entreated the House, before deciding upon the measure, to consider the position in which they were placed, and to bear in mind that there were two of the Ministers of the Crown who were deeply interested in the question—the one representing the City of London and the other the borough of Hertford, which was to be exempted from the tax. He wanted the whole question thoroughly investigated, and therefore he proposed that the question should be left as at present for another year, which would meet the immediate object of the Bill, and Parliament would then have an opportunity of coming to a satisfactory decision upon it.

seconded the Amendment.

said, that the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) contended that the Government had taken a reckless course in respect to this Bill; but the measure was founded on the recommendation of a Committee which sat last Session. The Metropolis was represented on that Committee by his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster and the hon. Member for Lambeth, and they appeared to have been consenting parties to the Resolution which the Bill was intended to carry out. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets proposed to continue the coal dues for one year only; but that would be too short a period to afford funds for the Thames embankment. If hon. Gentlemen thought that a period of ten years was too long it would be competent for them to reduce it in Committee. The £11,500 which formed a part of the London Bridge Approaches Fund was part of a composite fund, made up of various items, and the question of dealing with it was a different one from that which was now before the House.

said, he did not see anything in the Bill about the London Bridge Approaches Fund, and, therefore, the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets was not in order.

said, he wished to explain that the Bill for levying this duty directed that it should be levied and applied under a statute relating to the London Bridge Approaches Fund, and, therefore he thought it was competent to refer to the fund in the Amendment.

observed, that the Hon. and learned Member must be alluding to the preamble. There were no words in the Bill itself referring to the Act under which the London Bridge Approaches Fund was raised.

said, he would then omit the words referring to that fund, which would obviate the objection raised. His Amendment would, therefore, stand to insert after the word "that" the words "in the opinion of this House the coal-tax and wine dues should be continued till the 31st of July, 1862."

said, he considered that the hon. and learned Member had knocked the brains out of his own Resolution. It would be competent to any hon. Member to move in Committee to reduce the period from ten years to one. If the first Amendment was out of order, the one now before the House was nugatory.

said, the consent of the House must first, as a matter of form, be given to the alteration of the Amendment as proposed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton).

said, that reference having been made to the recommendations of the Committee upon the Thames Embankment, he would draw attention to the recommendations of another Committee which sat in 1854, of which he was chairman. It was recommended by that Committee that the Metropolitan Board of Works should take into consideration the question of purchasing the various bridges upon which tolls were now payable, and he suggested that that was a fair subject for the House to entertain, when they were considering the means of providing for the embankment of the Thames. The present system of levying tolls on certain bridges between Surrey and Middlesex was a disgrace to the Metropolis.

said, the Bill did not carry out the recommendations of the Thames Embankment Committee. The Committee had not recommended any specific fund for the expenses of the Thames embankment. They could not have done so, because they did not know the amount of the expenses. They had merely pointed to the coal duties as one of the sources to which application might be made for these expenses, but that should, he thought, be done only in a limited manner.

said, he felt it his duty to say that his constituents approved the Bill proposed by the Government. The proposition of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets would only put off the question for another year The Committee had recommended the coal duties should be applied to the Thames embankment, and the Government were merely carrying out that recommendation. The Government had appointed a Commission of eminent men to consider the best plan for carrying out the embankment, and when they reported there Would be no more legislation required in that House; and he trusted the Government would at once carry out the recommendation. He thought the Metropolis would be in a better position if they paid more attention to carrying out great works of improvement instead of wasting the time of the House.

said, he could not support the Bill. He should have liked to see the Thames Embankment Bill brought in in the first instance. The proceedings in the matter had hitherto been of an unsatisfactory nature. They had the most splendid plans and most attractive pictures—castles hanging in the air, majestic esplanades, and other picturesque features—and yet, after two months' contemplation of this picture gallery, the Committee could come to no conclusion except that the embankment would be a very good thing if they could get the money. The Chief Commissioner for Works had begun at the wrong end for the City of London, but the right for the interests of Hertford. Under any circumstances, he (Mr. Locke) submitted to the House that the plan of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets should be adopted. The House should not throw away the revenues of the City of London up to 1862 merely for the purpose of obliging the town of Hertford by contracting the area of collection.

said, that every hon. Member who spoke seemed anxious the House should understand that he was not opposed to the embankment of the Thames, yet it unfortunately happened that some hon. Members objected to the Bill as much as if they were opposed to the embankment. Delay was often just as effective a method of defeating a Bill as any other, and was sometimes more plausible. He thought that the Committee had been wise in not entering into the details of the plan. The right thing in such matters was to find Where the funds were to come from, and how much, and then decide on the plan, which would depend upon the sum disposable for the purpose. Hon. Members representing the south side of the Thames seemed to assume—he knew not why—that the south side was not be embanked. The instructions to the Commissioners were to consider the embankment of the south as well as the north side of the river. The discussion which had arisen was, he thought, one more appropriate to Committee upon the Bill than its actual stage.

said, he rose to move the second reading of this Bill, which, he said, was founded on the Act introduced by the right hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Adderley). By that Act industrial schools were placed under the control of the Council of Education; but at the end of last Session a short Bill passed providing that the management of these schools should be transferred to the Home Office, on the ground that they were considered of a penal character. At the time that Bill passed it was stated that some technical objections rendered the existing Act difficult to he carried into execution, and it was attempted by the present Bill to put the enactments of the Act into a more working form. Whatever questions might arise upon its provisions, however, could be more conveniently disposed of in Committee; and he hoped that, under these circumstances, the House would he disposed to agree to the second reading without much discussion.

wished to make one observation, which as it related to the omission of a provision of the former Act, could not very well be made in Committee. It was this, that by the former Act guardians were allowed, with the consent of the Poor Law Board, to contract with the managers of industrial schools for the maintenance of children. This was repealed by the present Bill, and rightly so, because it belonged rather to the Poor Law. He hoped, however, that this omission would be cured by some special enactment. This might be done by merely inserting the words "and maintenance" after "education" in the Act 18 & 19 Vict. c. 34, and he hoped it would not be lost sight of by the Committee upstairs. The way in which children were treated in our workhouses was very discreditable. It was notorious that bringing them up in crowds was bad, both morally and physically, and girls especially were sent out to service at a tender age, when they were unable to take care of themselves, and the consequence was, that they frequently came back to the workhouse with illegitimate children, thus perpetuating a race of paupers; a state of things very disgraceful as well as very expensive to the country.

said, he would admit that the present Bill was a great improvement upon his Bill of 1857. In Committee, however, he thought that some amendments might still be introduced, and he should venture to suggest some. With regard to the point mentioned by the hon. Member, it was met by the 18th Section.

, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that as in the former instance, it was a re-enactment of existing legislation. The Bill was entirely founded on an Act now on the statute book, but which expired in August next, and it was desirable that the second reading should be agreed to at an early period, in order that they might go into Committee, A very competent Committee fully inquired into the subject last Session, and the Bill was either a simple reproduction, as he had said, of the existing law, or was founded on the Resolution of that Committee suggesting certain amendments in that law. With this explanation he hoped the House would not object to the second reading, and he would promise that ample time should be afforded for the consideration of the different clauses in Committee.

said, he must protest against proceeding with the Bill at that hour (a quarter after twelve.) It had, indeed, been correctly described by the right hon. Gentleman. It was the Corrupt Practices Prevention Bill disguised under another name. And well it might be; for the very name of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act stunk in the nostrils of the country. He contended if the Bill were passed it would increase bribery and entirely let intimidation alone. Before the Committee to which allusion had been made, the great Conservative authority, Mr. Rose, of the firm of Baxter, Rose, and Norton, said that the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act was of no utility whatever. It had been condemned by almost every witness. But learned gentlemen able in the law, and able counsel, set their heads together, and close upon the mons parturiens followed this feeble and wretched little mouse. It was the only Government Reform Bill of the Session, and the House was asked to pass it after twelve o'clock at night. As a consistent Reformer he could not allow it to pass without raising his voice against the Bill, which he believed to be an insult to the country. If the second reading were persisted in, he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

seconded this Amendment.

said, that while admitting that there were some of the provisions of the Bill which might with advantage be adopted, he strongly objected to the 15th Clause, which legalized expenditure incurred for the conveyance of voters in counties, and yet conferred no such privilege upon boroughs. Seeing no good reason why such a distinction should be drawn, he should, if the adjournment of the debate were moved, support the Motion.

said, he should give the clause his most strenuous op- position. His constituency extended seven miles, and he did not think voters were patriotic enough to go to the expense of a conveyance seven miles out and seven in.

was in a worse position than the hon. Member for Canterbury, as his borough was 22 miles by 9 in extent, and from five or six parishes in it the voters had to travel from 10 or 12 miles to the poll. Besides which the last clause introduced a new method of altering polling places, but gave no power to add to them. So that by a petition of fifty electors, the polling places might be placed in even more inconvenient places, and the distances for the voters much increased. If this Bill passed as it then stood, he had no hesitation in saying it would practically disfranchise two-thirds of his constituency.

said, he thought the objections which had been advanced against the Bill in the course of the discussion were of a nature which might more properly be disposed of in Committee than on the Motion for the second reading.

strongly urged the right hon. Gentleman to postpone the second reading. He (Mr. Deedes) had the strongest possible objection to some parts of the Bill, and if it were pressed on now he should be driven to vote against it.

said, he was convinced, after hearing the opinions which had been expressed by hon. Members, that the proper course would be to read the Bill a second time now. All the objections which had been made to the Bill might be dealt with in Committee. It should be remembered that, if the debate were adjourned, hon. Gentlemen who had spoken now could not speak again in the debate, whereas if the Bill were read a second time and went into Committee they would have a full opportunity of expressing their opinions. With respect to the 15th Clause, relating to the travelling expenses of voters, that was a question of great difficulty. It was not taken from the Bill of the hon. Member for Plymouth, but both the Bill of that hon. Gentleman and the 15th Clause of this Bill were taken from a common source—the recommendations of the Committee of last Session.

said, as he did not feel himself authorized in pressing the matter to a division, he should ask leave to withdraw his Motion and content himself with entering a protest against the second reading.

, in moving for the appointment of a Select Committee on Public Accounts, said that the object of the Committee would be to revise the accounts of the public expenditure after they had gone through the regular process of examination in the hands of the executive Government. That was obviously the true completion of the duty of that House with regard to the public money. The Committee on Public Monies which sat two or three years ago had made this recommendation, and made it unanimously. He should, therefore, move that a Select Committee be appointed for the examination from year to year of the audited accounts of the public expenditure; and if that Motion was adopted, he would on a future day move that a Committee of that nature be appointed at the commencement of every Session; and, likewise, that the order for the appointment of that Committee be made a standing order of the House.