, in moving that the House should resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, said its sole object was to determine the law with regard to establishments calling themselves "savings banks." There were two classes of savings banks, those that had complied with the Government regulations and those which had not. The beneficial operation of savings banks under proper management did not admit of dispute, but great hardships had been entailed on poor an unsuspecting persons, who, having entrusted their money to so-called "savings banks," under the impression that they were under Government regulations, discovered too late that they had been deceived by the assumed name, and had placed confidence in improper quarters. It had been proved before the Committee which investigated the subject that the monetary crisis in Glasgow was aggravated by the suspension of sixteen of these self-styled "savings banks," the law at present allowing any persons who though to do so to associate with a common object under that title. In Southampton there were three establishments of that class, one of which was next door to the real savings bank, and instances were adduced in which it had been mistaken for the bank under Government control. The Committee had also received evidence with regard to similar cases in Brighton, Birmingham, and Manchester, and a circular had been produced which the persons interested in promoting one of these fictitious savings banks had put forward, detailing the advantages of forming a connection with their particular banking agency. The object of the Bill was not to punish such persons for the past, but to prevent them for the future from adopting the name of savings bank. It did not prevent them from proceeding with their business as they pleased; but what it said was that if they adopted the name of savings bank they should come under the savings-banks law, and should not deceive depositors by assuming a title to which they had no claim. He had the sanction of the Government for the measure, which had been most favourably received in the other House of Parliament, and he did not anticipate any opposition to its provisions. He, therefore, begged to move that its consideration in Committee be entered upon.

said, the House was naturally disposed to receive with favour any measure emanating from the right hon. Baronet, but he thought he had not fully considered the necessary consequences of his present Bill. It proposed to create a new offence, punishable as a misdemeanour, to meet exceptional cases. But the Bill would, likewise, affect a number of institutions which were not merely harmless but positively beneficial; he referred to the "Penny Savings Banks," which had been established under somewhat varying regulations, with the greatest advantage to the working classes, and whose managers, if the Bill were to become law, would be guilty of misdemeanour. They were very numerous in the north of England. They were not started for personal profit, but purely from philanthropic motives. If there, were any public reason for compelling them to drop the term savings banks he should not object. But there was not, so far as he knew, any such reason. It must not be supposed that a change of name was a little matter with them. It was a serious thing; and what was more, to require them to remove that name was to cast a slur upon them. He should not have objected to the Bill if it had proposed to carry out all the recommendations of the Committee to which reference had been made. It was true the Committee in their Report referred to the inconvenience arising from institutions not under Government control assuming a similar appellation; but their attention was more especially directed to the advisability of giving guarantees to the present savings banks. When one of these failed, from any cause whatever, and it was found that the prevailing impression that the establishent enjoyed a Government guarantee was unfounded, public faith was shaken, and it was hard to induce them to place confidence in any savings banks whatever. His great objection to the Bill was that, by imposing this severe punishment on the conductors of establishments which were not under the Government regulations, the impression that these latter enjoyed a Government guarantee would be increased. But so far from having any such guarantee, the trusteees by recent Acts of Parliament had been relieved from all liability, even in cases of wilful neglect and default, and he regretted to say that flagrant cases of what he must call fraud had taken place in these very Government savings banks. At Rochdale, for instance, it was discovered upon the death of the actuary that he had abstracted some £50,000 or £60,000 from the savings of his neighbours. The principal savings bank in Kendal was conducted in the names of several gentlemen, and the directors for the time being were responsible. As the directorate would probably be good for £500,000 in the aggre- gate, he would appeal to the House whether that bank was not safer than a Government savings bank, in which the only guarantee on the part of the Government was that they would be responsible for money after it got into their hands, they taking no steps whatever to insure that it ever would get into their possession? In a Welsh district there had been a Government savings bank in which a temporary defalcation took place. After that occurrence the people would not patronize the Government bank, and the proprietors of large iron works in the district established a savings bank in connection with their own concern, for the benefit of their work-people. Was the House of Commons prepared to make that philanthropic act a penal offence? He thought they ought to postpone legislation on the subject till they were prepared to meet the whole question, and carry out the recommendation of the Committee. Parliament had begun that year to give a Government guarantee by passing the Post Office Savings Bank Bill. Would it not be better to see how that Bill worked before introducing any measure of this kind? He was of opinion that the Bill would interfere with a number of banks which were doing a great deal of good; that it was uncalled for at that time, and that it would strengthen a false impression throughout the country, and thereby prevent that careful inspection and management of savings banks which would take place if it were not generally believed that there was a special guarantee for the money deposited in those establishments. He, therefore, moved as an Amendment that the Bill be committed that day three months.

said, he must oppose the Motion for going into Committee on the Bill, as the right hon. Baronet objected to an Amendment of which he had given notice, for the insertion of words which would limit the operation of the measure to banks other than Government established, "for the purpose of profit to the managers or shareholders." The right hon. Baronet said, that if that Amendment were agreed to he would give up the Bill. Under these circumstances, he felt bound to second the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bradford. In its present shape the Bill would strike at hundreds and thousands of institutions which were arising throughout the country, and which he conceived to be attended with great usefulness—he meant the penny savings banks. They were on a small scale, and connected with almost every Sunday school, mechanics' institution, and evening class. They were managed by those who managed those benevolent institutions, by the committees of Sunday schools, and others whose object was purely and absolutely philanthropic. In many cases the object was to collect the pence of the children, and on the approach of winter or spring, to provide them with new clothing, the money was withdrawn. They got a much better interest than they could get if they invested in a Government savings bank. He held in his hand a letter from a friend in his own borough, who, with his wife and family, had established an evening class to teach mill girls to sow. He had established a penny bank in connection with that class, and he had written to him to say that he should give it up if the present Bill passed, as he did not choose to subject himself to be charged with an offence or to be visited by the penalties of the Bill. It might be said that they would only be required to take away the word "savings" from their title; but that word was the charm of the institution, and if they took away that they would be doing a great deal of mischief. The effect of the institutions to which he had referred was to induce children to acquire a habit of saving, which could not but be of the greatest possible value to them in after life. The evil which the right hon. Baronet wished to reach by his Bill was one which he (Mr. Baines) believed could be reached by the ordinary course of law against fraud; and as that Bill would demolish thousands of useful institutions, andas the right hon. Gentleman would not permit him to amend it, he had no course but to oppose the measure by seconding the Motion.

said, he was very sorry to hear that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth would not consent to the modification of his Bill, because he agreed with the hon. Member for Leeds that the measure as now framed would injuriously affect an infinite number of penny savings banks in connection with schools. Those banks had no rules, but the elergyman of a parish, a schoolmistress, or some other person said to the children, "Put in a penny a week and I will add so much, and at Christmas or Michaelmas the money will be distributed in a particular manner." Now, were they to declare the person who did that to be guilty of a misdemeanour. That was the real question. The right hon. Baronet said, "Why do you not change the name?' He had cast a good deal about for words, but he could not find a word that would express what "savings" did as well as that term itself. Every child understood it. He was very reluctant to vote against the Bill, but if the right hon. Baronet did not modify it he should feel bound to do so.

said, he agreed very much with what had fallen from the last three speakers, but his object in rising was to explain the effect which the passing of the Bill would have in Scotland. In many towns in Scotland the only savings banks were those the deposits of which were guaranteed by the great chartered banks in that country. They were purely benevolent institutions, not conducted for profit, but for the benefit of the poor. Every day the money received was placed in the chartered banks with which they were associated, and was guaranteed by those banks the moment it was entered upon the depositors' pass-books. He would put it to the House whether that was not a better guarantee than that which the right hon. Baronet placed so highly? While they all knew that there had been several defalcations in connection with the Government savings banks, there had not been a single instance of defalcation in the banks which he had described. The effect then of passing the Bill in its present shape would be to deprive many of the towns of Scotland of the advantages which they enjoyed from the name of savings banks.

said, the truth was the object of the Bill was to protect those who from their position in society were unable to protect themselves; and what they had heard of the charm in the name savings banks only strengthened the case of those who wished to pass the Bill, because it showed that the very fact of the assumption of the name of savings bank secured confidence and attracted depositors. Some of the most extensive institutions, which had assumed the name were carrying on a most thriving trade so far as regarded the acquisition of deposits, but an exceedingly losing trade so far as regarded their own profits and the security of the depositors. One of these institutions, established a few years back, promised high interest and undoubted security to depositors: while it promised large profits and limited liability to its shareholders. How those conditions were to be harmonized it was not easy to perceive. In the year ending June, 1859, that society by its own account alone made a deficiency for one year of £2,135. Up to September 1859 the liabilities amounted in the whole to £37,000 from the commencement, while the assets amounted to only £24,000, making a deficiency of £13,000. That was an illustration of the mischief which was going on. In one year thirty new branches had been opened, and £37,000 received, While those institutions were managed upon such principles, and since in a few years they must be eaten up by the expenditure, it was not for the Legislature to stand by and say, "Let the public take care of themselves." He submitted, then, that there was a case for the intervention of Parliament to prevent loss to persons who were unable to help themselves.

said, he deprecated too much interference on the part of Parliament in affairs which people should manage for themselves; nor did he see why the Government should adopt the fascinating title of "savings banks" without incurring full responsibility for all money deposited in those institutions, and at the same time deny to others the right to call their banks by that name. In the borough which he represented (Scarborough), and which contained about 18,000 inhabitants, those banks were established since 1850. During that time there were something like 1,100 depositors, and of these about 1,000 were connected with the schools in the town, while the whole amount deposited was only about £500, although the banks were something like the money-boxes given to children, the object being to get them to put in their money and make it difficult for them to take it out again. He should like to see everything connected with the poor self-supporting, but that could not be the case if such security was given as was intended by the Bill. He, therefore, thought it would be safer to reject the Bill, and wait for a more comprehensive measure to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee.

said, that it appeared to him that it would be going very far in the direction of penal legislation if, because the Government gave certain assistance to savings banks, but without giving an absolute guarantee, that House were to give them a sort of monopoly in the title "savings bank," and make it a misdemeanour, punishable by fine and imprisonment, for any one else to establish a savings bank and call it by that name. If it would be shown that there was a fraudulent intent; that the object of the party was to create a misunderstanding and to produce an impression that a bank was a Government savings bank, when it was not, the case would be different. Some qualification of that sort might remove the objection which now existed to the Bill. He could not call to mind any instance of a similar prohibition to that contained in the Bill. With regard to any argument that might be drawn from the law relative to the assumption of trade marks, where a trader assumed the trade mark of another firm there was prima facie evidence of fraud; but the case under consideration was a mere assumption of a name which might accurately describe the nature of the business.

said, he must have been labouring under a great delusion. Last year that or a similar Bill was brought into the House of Lords, and the Government expressed approbation of it in that House. That year it was brought into the House of Lords, and the noble Lords who represented the Government then expressed the Government then expressed their approbation of it. He had had the honour of communicating on the subject with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he understood that right hon. Gentleman to wish him to go on with the Bill. He had acted under the conviction that he was proceeding in concert with Her Majesty's Government. However, after the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had declared against the Bill it was hopeless for him to go on with it; but he wished that the Government knew their own minds a little better, and that hon. Members should not be told by one Minister that what he was doing was sanctioned by them, and then, when he came down to the House, find himself thrown over by another. In pronouncing the funeral oration of the Bill, he wished to observe that he was as unwilling as any human being could be to interfere with the privileges of those benevolent institutions which had been referred to in the course of the debate; but he could find no words which would really draw a distinction between what he wanted to stop and what he would allow to go on. He admitted that that was an argument against the Bill itself. He had received communications with respect to what were called penny banks, but these would not have been affected at all by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by withdrawing his Motion.

said, he thought the right hon. Member had exercised a sound discretion in determining not to press his Bill. What was really wanted was that every charitable and benevolent society should be obliged to submit its transactions to an efficient annual audit at the hands of a paid auditor. Frauds were as common in the case of friendly societies as in the case of savings banks. He hoped, therefore, that next year a Bill would be introduced insisting upon an efficient audit in the case of all societies in which the working classes invested their money.

said, he was not aware, before his right hon. Friend mentioned the Circumstance, that this was a Government measure. He never had heard the subject discussed by his Colleagues, and he had given his opinion as an individual Member of the House, without wishing to bring Government influence to bear upon it. He was not before aware of the circumstances to which his right hon. Friend had adverted.

said, the Committee that sat on the subject only wished to interfere with institutions that were carried on for profit, and not those that were instituted only for benevolent purposes. He was certainly surprised when the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary rose and threw over the Bill, as he thought it might have been so amended in Committee as to render it a valuable measure.

said, he considered that, in the case of the small institutions, anything like an efficient audit would be impracticable; and that, even if it were practicable, it would be most distasteful to the depositors.

expressed a hope that in a future Session a comprehensive measure would be introduced on the subject.

thought the present was a favourable opportunity for the dispassionate consideration for the question. The only measure on this subject which of late years had passed through the House was a Bill for the total abolition of church rates, and that Bill had recently received a gradually diminishing support, until, from a commanding majority, it had met with actual rejection. The parties, however, on that last division were so accurately balanced that neither could claim a predominance, and they were so far qualified to consider the subject with reciprocal motives for liberality and conciliation. But why had this decline occurred in the fortunes of the Total Abolition Bill? Because the measure itself was out of all proportion to the grievance alleged by one party of its supporters, and because it proved so truthful an interpreter of the ulterior aims of another, and that the effective party who supported it. The hon. Baronet (Sir John Trelawny) and his friends promoted it as a remedy for a conscientious grievance, and excused its going so far beyond the necessity of their case by urging that it was in the interest of the Church itself that they proposed to abolish church rates. The answer to that plea briefly was—"Churchmen are the best judges of what is for their own advantage, and beg that they may be left free to tax themselves for their own purposes." But the object of the real and effective promoters of total abolition was to denationalise the Church, and for their object the proposition was most admirably contrived. Upon that field the Liberation Society would meet with a resolute resistance, and hon. Gentlemen opposite may be satisfied that this question would never be settled upon the ground of ignoring the nationality of the Church. Neither (would he add to Gentlemen on this side the House) could the question be settled by ignoring the principle of religious liberty. If these facts were mutually recognized, there would be no difficulty on the part of Churchmen in appreciating the position of Dissenters, and granting them all that they could reasonably desire. The Bill which he had brought forward stated in the first place the legitimate objects for which church rates ought to be raised. It proposed to constitute modern ecclesiastical districts into parishes so far as church rates were concerned. It transferred the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts in the case of church rates either to the County Courts, the Quarter Sessions, or the Supreme Common Law Courts. Then it assimilated the mode in which the church rate was to be collected to that followed in the case of poor rate; and it gave power to persons not conforming to the Church of England to claim exemption from the rate. He would not affirm that there was nothing in a name, but he must say that the phrase of ticketing Dissenters had been erected into an unreasonable bugbear. If it were a disgrace to be a Dissenter, it would be natural to shrink from being known as one, but what was the origin of a Dissenter? A Dissenter was one who, taking advantage of the liberty awarded to him, dissented from the Church, and the fact of his doing so proved that he was a man of determination, and that he took the step irrespective of any social consequences that might ensue from it. Why, then, should such a man shrink from being ticketed as a Dissenter? He was sure the Society of Friends could have no such feeling, for they were not only the oldest and most consistent controversialists on behalf of their peculiar views, but they ticketed themselves by the adoption of a peculiar dress, antiquated but convenient, and by adhering to a phraseology which respected the rules of grammar, while it violated the rules of courtesy. A more serious objection to a declaration of Nonconformity was raised by those Churchmen who looked upon schism as so fearful a danger and offence that they deprecated inviting or allowing men to assume the character of Dissenters. Well, if that scruple were generally entertained by the House, he should readily yield to it, for, although he thought the form of claim he had framed a natural and reasonable one, he did not consider the disclaimer of Church Communion to be an essential feature in it. But would that change in the construction of the claim remove the objection, or would it be urged again, as it had been by the learned Member for Plymouth, that any claim to exemption implied Nonconformity, and was, therefore, to be considered as a ticketing? He was really anxious to adopt the form which was most entirely free from a liability to offend the conscience, the scruples, the prejudices even, of Dissenters; but he must frankly say that he saw no prospect of an adjustment if they approached the discussion only in the spirit of the Liberation Society. In one of a series of propositions advertised by that society on the eve of the last division, they objected to the retention by Churchmen of a legal power to levy church rates, and declared that if it were continued Dissenters would be entitled to claim a right to levy "chapelrates." This struck him as a most significant declaration, for it implied that it was the legal status of the Church as bound up in the Constitution which they attacked, and that, rather than leave the Church in the sole possession of a legal power to rate, they would themselves demand the same right, a right be it remembered, which they had decried as a hateful one, and destructive of all true and vital religion. The hon. Member for Birmingham, in a previous debate, had invited them to give up their exclusive prerogative, but, "only upon church rates;" but did the Liberation Society assail the prerogative of the Church only as to church rates? Oh, no! They were explicit enough. Their indictment was sufficiently distinct and ample. The religious compact at the Coronation between the Sovereign and the people—the recognition of the Church in the religious service of the House of Lords, of the House of Commons, and of the Universities—the religious teaching of the destitute in our workhouses—the religious conversion of our very criminals in our prisons, since the religion was that of the Church—the maintenance of the religious endowments of the Church for parochial and educational purposes—all these, and many other facts are boldly designated by the Liberation Society as so many objects of their deliberate and resolute hostility. Now, while he avowed for himself, and for others whose feelings he knew, a desire to meet the consideration of any real grievance on the part of Dissenters with the utmost liberality, he must add that they could have no hope of adjusting these differences with men who shared the extravagant and revolutionary views of the Liberation Society, Let Members on the other side acknowledge and respect the nationality of the Church, and let Members on this side frankly recognize the principle of religious liberty, and he could anticipate a fair and equitable adjustment of this lamentable and prolonged struggle. He did not expect that at this period of the Session it would be possible to pass a Bill of such importance as the present, but he hoped he would be pardoned by the House for the statement he had made, as he had made it with a sincere desire to promote a fair and equitable settlement of this question. As he saw no prospect of being able to carry the Bill this Session, he would move that the order for its second reading be discharged.

said, he did not know whether, strictly speaking, he ought to allow the Bill to be withdrawn. However, he would content himself by giving hon. Gentlemen opposite a little advice, in many of whom he saw signs of improvement. He trusted they would make up their minds during the recess on some definite plan they would be prepared to support in the next Session. The hon. Gentleman had put a wrong gloss on the resolution of the Liberation Society, when he said that they were in point of fact asking the House to give them coercive means of obtaining rates the same as Churchmen had. They merely said that if the House adopted these rates, and they were held to be right and proper, then the necessary and logical consequence would be that the same right should be conceded to Dissenters. But they were entirely against any compulsory process whatever.

said, that the general principle of a compromise must be that the Established Church alone had the right to levy a church rate. Her supporters, however, were willing to give to all who did not belong to the national Church the power of declining to pay church rates. He was opposed to drawing any hard line of demarcation between the Church and those who did not belong to her, and he had reason to know that that sentiment was shared not only by the Dissenters, but by many of the heads of the Church. The Bill of his hon. Friend (Mr. Cross) was fixed for the 24th inst. He could not say whether it would be introduced and discussed this Session, but, looking to the present appearance of the House, and the desirableness of securing a full House on a subject of national importance, his hon. Friend would probably not attempt to proceed with his Bill during the present Session. Next year, however, he trusted that a compromise would be adopted which would give satisfaction not only to both Houses of Parliament, but also to the public out of doors.

said, that church rates in Liverpool had been practically abolished for years. A sort of rate, how- ever was made, which was printed in red ink on the rating paper, with the word "voluntary" against it. If a ratepayer objected to it he had only to strike his pen through it. There were hundreds of Dissenters in Liverpool who formerly objected to pay the rate when it was compulsory who paid the voluntary rate cheerfully. By that method all "ticketing" was avoided, and universal satisfaction was given. The amount was certainly not so great as had been collected previously, but it was amply sufficient for all church purposes.

said, he wished to bear his testimony to the conciliatory tone of the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock. The hon. Baronet was almost as one with himself in thinking that church rates had better be abolished, provided there were an adequate substitute secured to the parishes, The hon. Baronet had used great exertions to induce hon. Members to consider the plan which he (Mr. Newdegate) had the honour of submitting to the House, the plan being to "ticket" no one, but to give an exemption to tenants, if they chose to take it, by private arrangement with the landlords. That plan was practicable. It would be impossible to revive church rates in Birmingham by any compulsory system, and his plan would have left Birmingham exempt form its operation. If some such plan as existed in Liverpool were adopted in Birmingham it would provide the means for maintaining the fabrics of churches in that borough. He deprecated all compromises which would create a demarcation between Churchmen and Dissenters. His principles were ably enunciated by a learned Nonconformist who derived his origin from Birmingham. He claimed that the National Church should be open to every one; that every denomination having the means of providing for its own religious worship with the amplest freedom should never be debarred from returning to the Church of England; that no distinction, whether legal or moral, should be raised against their return; for he held that to establish such demarcation would invalidate the foundation of the National Church, and be calculated to disentitle the Church to the possession of her property, which she used so much to the advantage of the community. Such a demarcation would in short lay the ground for the denationalization of the Church. It was a principle of exclusion to which he would never readily yield his sanction. The principle on which he proposed his plan was the principle of inclusion. He saw no reason why a settlement satisfactory to all parties, not depriving parishes of their right to their property, not depriving them of legal means of maintaining the fabric of the church, should not be adopted.

said, that they heard a great deal about compromise within the walls of that House, but he believed that those whom he represented, and the large body of Nonconformists, had not the least intention to come to any compromise, It was only in that House that it was talked of, and they were only deceiving themselves if they believed that any compromise would ever be entered into. The hon. Baronet (Sir John Trelawny) had disclaimed any connection between his measure and the Liberation Society. Why, the Bill was the Bill of the Liberation Society. It was first brought in by Sir William Clay, into whose hands it was placed by the society. The agitation throughout had been the agitation of the Liberation Society, and the question would never have assumed the triumphant importance it had if it had not been for the Liberation Society. It was entirely their doing. Depend upon it they had no intention of compromising the question. But he thought it an unfortunate thing that the hon. Baronet (Sir John Trelawny) had acceded to the invitation of the hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) who said he had a Bill in preparation for a compromise, and volunteered to delay his measure from the 5th of June to the 20th. He (Mr. Duncombe) believed if he had stuck to the 5th of June he would have carried his Bill, and it would have gone to the House of Lords, and Mr. Speaker would not have been placed in the shameful position of having to give a casting vote. Many hon. Gentlemen threw off on account of that delay. They saw compromise was intended, and they went away. He thought the cause had suffered by the course taken. The Nonconformists had the struggle to begin again. Let them stick to it. It was too late to compromise, and depend on it before many years were over, the rate would be abolished.

said, that he had contrasted with regret the tone of the language of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) and that of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe). He ventured to say that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Duncombe) had undertaken to do more than he was entitled when he said that he spoke on the part of the body of Nonconformists. [Mr. T. DUNCOMBE: I did not say I spoke for them. I said that I believed it.] He would then express his confident hope that the hon. Gentleman's belief was erroneous. He was much more disposed to agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool in thinking that there was no small proportion of the Nonconformists of England who would not only be glad to see the question amicably settled, but who, if the compulsory payment of church rates were abolished, would gladly contribute to the support of a church open alike to rich and poor. He thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Hubbard) had acted judiciously in withdrawing his Bill. He rose to express his strong and emphatic feeling, which was shared by a very large proportion of hon. Members on both sides, that the time had now arrived when the House might and ought to decide upon some amicable settlement of that long-vexed and disputed question. The course of the agitation ought to have taught both sides alike the necessity of moderation. He would venture to remind the Nonconformists, in the first place, that from the moment the evidence taken before a Committee of the House of Lords established the fact that a certain portion of the Dissenters used the agitation of church rates as a means of attack on the Established Church their majorities had gradually fallen off, until the majority was reversed. The lesson they might learn was this, that so far as they had used church rates as a weapon for injuring and weakening the Established Church, their design had signally failed. No doubt, however, the majority of the Nonconformists were sincere in their conscientious objections to church rates. On the other hand, he would remind the friends of the Church that the question of church rates did not stand in a satisfactory position. They had at length succeeded in defeating a Church Rate Abolition Bill, but it could not be disguised that a large majority of those who voted against it were sincere members of the Church, who desired to put an end to church rates. In many parishes church rates were refused, and the present system could not be said to be working in a satisfactory manner to the church itself. The Church, for her own interest, was required to make concessions, and he had reason to think that if the subject were approached in a fair and amicable spirit on both sides of the House a satisfactory solution might be arrived at. His opinion was the result of many recent consultations with hon. Members on both sides of the House. He trusted that during the recess hon. Members who had brought in Bills would again devote their minds to the subject, and that, instead of renewing painful conflicts that were a scandal to religion itself, and that created and prolonged ill-feeling between Churchmen and Dissenters, some measure might in the next Session of Parliament receive the consent, if not of the two extreme parties, yet of the great majority of that House.

said, he did not believe that the Bill of his hon. Friend (Mr. Cross) could be urged with any hope of success this Session. It was, however, the only really conciliatory proposal that had been made, and he trusted that either that or some similar measure would receive the assent of Parliament next Session.

said, he rose to express his concurrence with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe). He was one of those who believed that compromise was out of the question—that there was only one remedy for the evils complained of, and that was abolition. Moreover, he ventured to say that the position of the Church of England was no longer such as to warrant her taking such a high- handed tone. She was no longer the church of the majority. Within her own bosom there were sects that differed as widely as Rome from Nonconformity. The only way in which the question could be settled was by abolition.

said, he would move that the House adjourn, in order—

said, the hon. Gentleman could not do so. He had already spoken, and it was not competent for him to make a Motion. He might explain.

said, a remark had been made that he was for a compromise. Certainly he should not be averse to a compromise, but he did not think the hon. Gentleman below (Mr. Duncombe) had treated him fairly. Why, Mr. Miall, who went as far as any one in these matters, had accepted the compromise which was proposed by Sir George Grey. He (Sir John Trelawny) was not allowed to explain further, but he would take care there was no mistake about the matter. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Duncombe) presumed greatly on his past usefulness when he made the statement he had made.

expressed a hope that in the next Session there would be a permanent settlement of this question; he meant one that would be satisfactory to all parties, for no other could be expected to be permanent. He had heard it said by high authorities in this House, who were themselves opposed to the unconditional abolition of church rates, that Wales was in this matter an exceptional case, differing altogether from England; and it was certain that however great were the evils of the present position of the question there they were still more aggravated in Wales by reason of the prevalence of Dissent. These evils could not be better described than they were in the Second Resolution of the Lords' Report; that church rates are only assessable by a majority of the vestry, and that for the neglect to vote a rate there is no penalty at common law. Thus, on a question which ought above all others to be removed from the arena of controversy; namely, whether the church shall be repaired or not, they saw continually evoked all the stormy passions of the political platform and the hustings; and more envenomed, because there entered into them a religious and sectarian spirit, telling men that they were conscience stricken and persecuted, and proportionably exasperating them. These evils seemed to him far greater than any that could arise from total abolition. In the evenly balanced state of parties in this House it was no disparagement of individual Members, however eminent they might be, to say that a settlement of this question was beyond their powers. He, therefore, wished to see it undertaken by the Government; that of Lord Derby had made an honourable attempt in that direction, and he had always thought that it was more honourable in them to have made the attempt than it was discreditable to have failed. Nec tam, Turpe fuit vinci, quam contendisse decorum est. If they looked back on the legislation of preceding years, they saw that those political settlements which had been made in a large and comprehensive spirit, had given general satisfaction and had been permanent. In such a spirit the Duke of Wellington, by the influence which he possessed, was enabled to achieve Catholic emancipation; and Ireland, which was once the most turbulent and distracted part of the empire, became as peaceable and contented as any other. After years of agitation the free trade controversy was closed. They had made peace with Ireland, they had made peace with the Free-traders, let them now make peace with the Dissenters. Some of them might have expressed ulterior views, some might have even spoken unadvisedly with their lips, but he did not think, he was sure the House did not think, that the great body of them throughout the country were an implacable race who had vowed the destruction of the Church. And if some of them had done so, that was no reason why they should refuse to apply timely remedies to admitted evils, which all deplored; which affected the clergy more than any others. If this question were once settled, and that of education treated in a mild and paternal spirit, he believed that thousands of Dissenters, from being opposed to the Church, would become its friends. Should the Government in the next Session address themselves to it they would, doubtless be supported on both sides of the Houses of Parliament; and they might feel the satisfaction of having accomplished two great measures—the French Treaty, and the settlement of the church rate question; peace abroad, and peace at home.

did not think the course taken by his hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock was open to the criticisms of his hon. Friend (Mr. T. Duncombe), for they were not founded on fact. He (Sir Charles Douglas), having been a member of the Committee moved for by the Member for Tavistock in 1851, could state that a Bill for the Total Abolition of Church Rates was the consequence of the proceedings before that Committee, was not drawn by the Liberation Society, on the contrary, it was introduced into that House before that society existed. He might add that the hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. T. Duncombe) was one, amongst others, who had originally asked his hon. Friend to bring in the Bill. It was perfectly true that the hon. Member for Tavistock had always expressed his readiness to accept a satisfactory compromise, but those who knew him, well knew that the only compromise which could be proposed as satisfactory to him must be, both in principle and substance, all he had so long contended for. He believed that the opponents of church rates owed much to his hon. Friend for his conduct of this Bill, for he had always endeavoured to promote goodwill, and he (Sir Charles Douglas) was sure he was only expressing the feeling of the House in bearing testimony to the courteous and efficient manner in which his hon. Friend had invariably conducted the opposition to the church rates. He believed that his hon. Friend had acted wisely in giving to Gentlemen opposite full opportunity for proposing a compromise, convinced as he was they could never agree on any plan which would settle the question short of total abolition. For his own part, for the sake both of Churchmen and Dissenters, he was not in favour of any compromise of principle on the question, and he was convinced that no compromise would ever be accepted on any terms which did not involve the voluntary principle.

said, he rose to move as an Amendment that the Bill be committed that day three months. The measure contained provisions deeply affecting the feelings of the labouring classes of the country, and involved a breach of faith on the part of the Government, as two years ago they had agreed that there should be no compulsory legislation on the subject until after a Parliamentary investigation into it had taken place. With regard to vaccination much good might be done, provided persuasion and not coercion were used. Even at the present day medical men differed in opinion as to the efficacy of vaccination. The rage for it which existed at one time had very much evaporated, and if a Committee were appointed he had authority for saying that many eminent medical authorities, both at home and abroad, would be ready to give that Committee that results of their experience on the subject. Some said that vaccination was altogether useless, but, generally speaking, the opinion was in its favour so long as it was not made compulsory. One party would tell them that vaccination only held good for seven years, while another contended that if it were properly done it would last a man's lifetime. Where vaccination had failed as a protection against smallpox the answer invariably given was, that it was not properly done in the first instance. That, however, was a mistake. There were some constitutions which would not take the cowpox at all, and to which, therefore, it was no defence whatever. Be that, however, as it might, there existed a feeling among the people of the country generally that the authorities had no right, in order to carry out a particular theory, to take polluted matter from one person's arm and place it on that of another. There were medical men who maintained that the matter produced in some instances scrofula, consumption, and venereal diseases. When the lymph was taken from arm to arm it no longer was the cowpox which Jenner recommended, and which was to be taken direct from the cow. At all events, however if vaccination was desirable it should not be done under Act of Parliament, and he very much inclined to the opinion expressed by the late Sir Robert Peel when he said that

"The proposal to make it compulsory was so contrary to the spirit of the British people, and the independence in which they rightly gloried, that he would be no party to such compulsion."

seconded the Motion.

said, he hoped to have been spared the necessity of going at any length into this question, but the interests involved were of such transcendant importance that he could not refrain, in reply to the hon. Member, from placing a satisfactory and triumphant case before the Committee. The history of the measure was this. In 1853 Parliament passed an Act for compulsory vaccination; and that Act was for a time in operation, but as there was a defect in the Act, arising from the want of a provision by which those who prosecuted under it might obtain their expenses, the Act fell into desuetude. When the present Government was formed in 1859 he introduced a Bill to make what then remained of the Board of Health perpetual, and that Bill contained a clause remedying the defect he had just mentioned, but being pressed by the hon. Member for Finsbury on the subject, he, in order to pass the Bill, gave up the clause. It was a bitter reflection to him that he gave up the clause; but had he not done so he believed that he should have lost the measure altogether; yet he was convinced that the abandonment of the clause had occasioned the loss of many thousands of lives in this country. He was, therefore, determined to attempt to remedy the defect; and if the House would not support him, upon the House must fall the responsibility. He was almost ashamed to take up the time of the House by arguing respecting the efficacy of vaccination. From 1837 to 1840 the deaths from smallpox amounted to 12,000 a year; form 1840 to 1853, during which period vaccination by the Poor Law Boards was established, the annual average of deaths was only 5,200, so that it appeared that the diffusion of vaccination had reduced the mortality by more than one-half. Then came the period when the compulsory law came into operation, and its first effect was remarkable. The number of vaccinations enormously increased, and the deaths diminished. In 1854 they sank to 2,808. In the next year the deaths sank still lower, amounting only to 2,525. Afterwards they gradually increased up to the present time, the Act having, as he had already explained, fallen into desuetude, and thus the efficacy of vaccination was satisfactorily established. In 1859 and 1860, when there was a smallpox epidemic in London, and when the Act of 1853 was found not to work, the Board of Health, doing that which was rather irregular for a public office, set up an agitation to induce the Boards of Guardians to supply the deficiency of the law, and the report of the medical officer confirmed what the Board of Health knew before—that when vaccination fell into neglect the smallpox showed itself to be the same terrible pestilence as before Jenner made his valuable discovery. The first effect of this agitation was that the vaccinations in London were raised to five times their average amount, thus showing the enormous amount of neglect which had existed in respect to the matter. Those engaged in the agitation divided London into two districts, one of which they inspected, and in that district the deaths from smallpox were reduced, after inspection, from 621 to 231. The Committee might, therefore, from some idea of the amount of human life and misery that might be saved by the timely application of the remedy of vaccination, and it was ascertained by those who undertook the duty of inspection that before Jenner's invention, two-thirds of the persons in the blind hospitals had been rendered blind by the smallpox. The disease fell in a fatal form on children under five years of age; and it was a curious fact that children vaccinated, however imperfectly, under five years, scarcely ever had the smallpox under that age. In 1857 a circular was sent from the office of the Board of Health to 539 of the most eminent medical men in the country and in foreign parts, and the answers received from all, with the exception of two, were to the effect that vaccination conferred a very great exemption from the smallpox, an almost absolute security against death from that disease, and rendered people less susceptible of other diseases. The list included the names of Dr. Acland, Dr. Babington, Sir Benjamin Brodie, Sir James Clarke, Mr. Ferguson, Dr. Latham, Dr. Locock. Would the House be doing wisely, then, after being made acquainted with the verdict of so many eminent medical men, now to appoint a Committee of Inquiry on the subject? He had mentioned that the terrible malady of smallpox, whenever it attacked children of tender years, fell heavily upon them, and that vaccination was a protection against it; and now let them consider what a great responsibility they would take upon themselves, if, in the face of the almost unanimous opinion of medical men, to which he had just referred, they left unvaccinated children—who could exercise no discretion of their own on the subject—to perish, and also to communicate a dreadful contagion throughout the country. It would be profaning liberty, self-government, and independence, to say that any man had a right to set up his own sordid or brutal prejudices against such opinions as those he had quoted to the exposure of his child to disease and death. Those were his reasons for advocating compulsory vaccination. As to the alleged objection of the poor of the country to such a proposition, he saw no proofs of it. The Bill had been printed for three weeks, and he had not hitherto observed that any petition against it had been presented from that class, or that any objection had been taken to it in any way. He was assured by his inspectors throughout the country that the unions were glad to see them in every case without exception, and that their advice was cheerfully listened to. He was also informed by them that there was no indisposition on the part of the people to vaccination. Ignorance and apathy were found to exist, but he was quite satisfied that if once the people understood that the law which required children to be vaccinated was to be carried into execution it would not be necessary to enforce the law, for it would be obeyed as a matter of course. Naturally, there existed an enormous difference in the ways in which vaccination was performed, and in asking for compulsory powers the State was bound to give every guarantee that those powers should not be abused; consequently, in different parts of the country educational vaccination institutions had been founded, where persons were vaccinated and pupils taught. The quantity of lymph had been doubled and could be increased with the greatest facility and in perfect efficiency to any extent as required. Rules under the Act had also been issued, requiring boards of guardians to contract with on one but regularly qualified practitioners for the purpose of vaccination, and no deputies except of the medical profession would be allowed. More he would do if he knew how, but he hoped the House was satisfied that as far as they could they had endeavoured to promote the great object of vaccination. There was a theory started that the efficacy of vaccination was wearing out, but the valuable discovery of Mr. Seeley had set any doubts on that point at rest for ever. That gentleman had proved that the virus taken from the human body and introduced into that of the cow produced the cowpox. It was thus evident that they had means of obtaining lymph for the necessary power to any extent. The efficiency of vaccination was becoming greater and greater every day, owing to the beautiful discovery that its security could be increased almost indefinitely by increasing the number of punctures. But if there were no means of improving the effect of vaccination, still, under any circumstances, it was an enormous boon to man, for out of 1,000 persons who took smallpox without being vaccinated, 350 died, while out of 1,000 who, after being badly vaccinated, took the smallpox, only 150 died, and out of 1,000 who were well vaccinated, and afterwards took the smallpox, only five died. The Bill which he wished to pass into law was very simple. All that it enacted was that the Poor Law Boards might appoint persons to prosecute under the Bill those whom the medical officers reported ought to be prosecuted, and to allow the expenses of prosecution to be paid out of the poor rates, unless the magistrates should be of opinion that the information was improperly brought. He confined the power of recovering the expenses to official persons in the next clause, which provided for the appropriation of the penalties, and on these simple provisions turned the whole question whether compulsory vaccination should prevail or not. The subject was one with respect to which he felt the deepest anxiety, and he did not, for the reasons which he had stated, deem it consistent with his duty to accede to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury.

said he was astonished to hear that any educated man could now entertain a doubt of the advantage of vaccination as a preventive to smallpox. In one parish in the union with which he was connected, eighteen births had during the last half-year taken place, and yet only two children had been vaccinated. He hoped, therefore, that Government would succeed in carrying out the measure under discussion, inasmuch as the present system of vaccination was wholly inefficient.

said, he wished to supply some figures which in the course of his remarks he was unable to lay hands upon. He found that the number of deaths from smallpox was —in 1856, 2,227; in 1857, 3,336; in 1858, 6,460; while in 1859, owing, he believed, mainly to the exertions made in agitating the question, the number had fallen to 3,840.

said, he was of opinion that the State had no right to interfere in the mode proposed by the Government. N doubt if they could be satisfied that all the assumptions of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) were founded on facts, his argument would be conclusive; but when they had to deal with figures, they knew they might be made to prove anything. The names of medical men of eminence had been quoted by the right hon. Gentleman in support of his views; but the saying, "There is nothing like leather," might be applicable to the medical as well as to other professions. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman had overlooked the great sanitary improvements which had taken place in their towns and cities, and, for his own part, he would rather see that system of sanitary improvement completed. He would ra- ther see the cause of disease removed than a remedy provided, which, after all, was of extremely doubtful effect, and he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member for Finsbury one of a very reasonable character.

said, by the provisions of the clause it was sought to be enacted that a number of officers named should be at liberty to institute a prosecution against offenders under the Bill, and that whatever expenses they incurred, unless a justice certified to the contrary, should be payable out of the poor-rates of the parish in which the offending person resided. The system of legislation thus proposed to be carried into effect he could only characterize as perfectly novel, and he hoped that the Government would consent to amend the clause, by providing that the expenses in question should be allowed if the Judge before whom the prosecution was instituted certified that such ought to be the case. Under the operation of the clause as it stood the prosecutor would naturally not ask the Judge for a certificate at all, and expenses might thus be allowed when they ought not to be given.

said, he was of opinion that the clause as it stood answered the purpose. As a general rule the party was entitled to indemnity for what he did, and it would be hard to deprive him of that indemnity except upon very strong grounds.

remarked that the words of the clause were very wide, and might be construed to go beyond the costs actually incurred in a prosecution. The common rule in cases of the kind was to give the costs if they saw fit. He saw no reason why that rule should be departed from on this occasion. The clause gave no discretion to the magistrates, but only gave them the power of refusing the expenses in a special case—namely, if the proceedings had been improperly instituted. He also could have wished that the Government had taken steps to insure that the lymph employed in vaccination was really good lymph. In his county, the people held a notion that the vaccine matter made use of not only did not protect them from smallpox, but induced other diseases.

said, that what was desired in that case was not costs, but indemnity.

said, he thought that the clause required alteration.

said, it was a gross and arbitrary infringement of the liberty of the subject to empower the police, as the agent of the Government, to go into private families and insist on the performance of an operation to which some parents might have a strong and, perhaps, well-founded objection. For his own part, he declared that he would not obey the law if there were ten Acts of Parliament.

expressed his readiness to defer to the wish of the Committee, that the justice should certify that expenses were to be paid, and that he should also fix the amount.

said, he also wished to call attention to the last part of the clause, which provided that the costs were to be paid out of the rates of that particular parish in which the offender happened to live. He thought they should come out of the common fund of the union.

said, he was afraid that if the charge were to be placed upon the union, and not upon the parish, the parishioners would take no pains to have the law carried into effect.

said, that if the parishioners had no control over the matter, which he believed to be the case, the expenses ought in fairness to be charged upon the common fund of the union.

said, he believed the parishioners had an indirect control.

asserted, on the contrary, that the control rested entirely with the Board of Guardians. The expenses, therefore, should be paid by the union.

said, he would remind the Committee that the Bill would be the means of lessening the rates of parishes. It was only fair, therefore, that parishes should pay some of the expenses. The clause as it stood would have the effect of enlisting the parishioners on the side of the law.

was persuaded that the Bill would not work at all if the expenses were not laid on the common fund of the Union.

said, that the Chinese principle of punishing a man with the view of compelling him to make another obey the law had never been acted upon in this country, and he did not think it would be wise to adopt it now. He proposed the insertion of the following words, "payable out of the common fund of the Union." All the original charges for vaccination were paid out of the common fund, and he saw no reason why an exception should be made in this case.

said, he was ready to defer to the opinion of the Committee, but it struck him that the clause was better as it stood. By placing the expenses on the parish the advantage would be gained of making it the interest of the parishioners to see the law carried into effect.

said, he thought that all the charges for vaccination should go together.

remarked, that boards of guardians were directed to provide for the vaccination of all children born, not in particular parishes, but in the Union. There could be no question, therefore, as to where the costs should come from.

said, he objected to parents being held responsible until their children arrived at the age of twenty-one. There ought to be some limit—there or five years.

said, he thought that so long as a parent might be considered to have a legitimate control over his child, and to be answerable for its conduct, the law should hold him responsible. He did not become more entitled to consideration because he had neglected his duty for a great number of years.

inquired whether the Bill was to extend to Ireland?

replied in the negative.

said, he objected to the proposal to give penalties to informers. He could not conceive a greater curse than such a practice. It had been aban- doned in a great many cases; and, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill had admitted the principle, because he had placed the power of laying information in the hands of public officers. Now, public officers ought never to have penalties, but should be remunerated for their time in the ordinary way.

said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, and would consent to strike out the objectionable words of the clause.

said, he rose to move the second reading of this Bill.

said, he rose to order. When the Bill was last before the House, he was counted out while speaking on the Motion for the second reading. He submitted, therefore, that the debate was an adjourned debate, and that he was in possession of the House.

If, as the hon. and learned Gentleman states, the House was counted out, that does not make the debate an adjourned debate.

said, he would then proceed to explain the objects of the Bill, which had received the assent of all the local bodies in the Metropolis, and also of the Select Committee to which it was referred last Session. The Bill was originally introduced at the close of the Session of 1859, it was then printed and circulated; after much discussion and many amendments late in the Session of last year he again introduced it, and it virtually passed this House, nothing remaining but the third reading, when, owing to the lateness of the Session, he was obliged to withdraw it. The Bill he now presented was word for word the Bill of last year, and was principally intended to amend the Act of 1855, by which the Metropolitan Board of Works was established, but it would not give to the Board any new powers. Under the old system of the Commissions of Sewers two large sums were borrowed and spent on the drainage of the Metropolis. The first, amounting to £200,000, was to be repaid in 1865. The second amounted to pound;142,000. Of that sum pound;42,000 had been paid off, and the remaining pound;100,000, as the law now stood, was to be paid in certain proportions by certain parishes in the Metropolitan district. Those proportions were felt to be unequal and unjust, but the proper time for discussing that question would be when Bill No. 2 was brought under the consideration of the House. The Bill before them was also intended to give a remedy against any parish which refused to collect the drainage rates made by the Board. As the law now stood the money required for main drainage, or any large arterial drainage, was to be obtained by sending a precept to the vestries or district boards. The precept was sent by them to their overseers; and if they neglected to obey it the Metropolitan Board had no immediate remedy. The parish of St. George's Hanover Square, had refused to allow its own collector to get in the drainage rates imposed by the Board, and the Board was put to the trouble of having to send their own collector to get in the rates from that parish. The Metropolitan Board of Works had been charged with neglect of its duties. What were the facts? The Board had seventy miles of drainage to construct, of which forty-five had been commenced. No less a sum than about pound;500,000 had been expended, and he had the authority of the engineer of the Board for stating that in two years the Metropolis would be relieved from the greater portion of the drainage which now fell into the Thames. Another great work in-trusted to them was the making of a new street from the vicinity of the terminus of the South-Eastern Railway to Stamford Street. It was a work of enormous difficulty; but it was now nearly finished; and the street had been constructed with a subway over the sewer so as entirely to obviate the necessity of taking up the pavements. He believed that so extensive a business had never been conducted in so short a time by any public body either in the City of London or in Paris. Besides this, there were other streets they had to make, one in connection with Victoria Park, and another from St. Martin's Lane towards the Strand. These works involved an immense amount of labour, and it could not, therefore, be justly alleged that the Metropolitan Board had neglected their duties. The new offices, which had been called a palace, had cost only pound;14,000, and were really less expensive in the nett than the alterations which must have been made at Greek Street, and when also there was not sufficient space for the wants of the public. The Bill before the House, as he had said, gave them no new powers; it simply sought to explain and amend the powers they possessed. The provisions were really intended for the benefit of the whole Metropolis, and not to oppress the ratepayers in any particular. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.

complained that a Bill of such magnitude, comprising 116 clauses, and involving the interests of 3,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects, should be brought forward at so late a period of the Session, to be discussed in so thin a House. He would not say it was monstrous as regarded the Metropolis, but as concerned his own constituents it was most inconvenient. Such a measure demanded a full and scrutinizing consideration. The constitution of the Board of Works was eminently vicious, and before they came to that House for extended powers they ought to have reformed their own constitution. They could not enjoy the confidence of the Metropolis unless they were elected directly by the ratepayers. In the Select Committee upon the local taxation of the Metropolis the Chairman of the Board, Mr. Thwaites, had been asked whether he thought any alteration should take place in the mode of electing its members—whether they should not be elected directly by the ratepayers rather than by the vestries, who, in nineteen cases out of twenty, selected their own members to represent them, but he had declined to give any opinion on the subject. Other members, however, were examined, and their opinion decidedly was that the Board would be more efficient, and enjoy greater confidence if directly elected by the ratepayers. Constituted as the Board now was, he had no confidence in it. The Bill as it went before the Select Committee last Session consisted of the two Bills, No. 1 and No. 2; but the Committee had struck out the clauses which now constituted No. 2 Bill; and the hon. Member for Bath, not satisfied with the decision of the Select Committee, had revived those rejected clauses and constituted them into a second Bill. What was called the Rock Loan and other loans by the 118th Section of the Metropolis Local Management Act, had been settled on the same principle as under the General Sewers Act, the 13 & 14 Vict., certain burdens being imposed on particular parishes; but the Metropolitan Board of Works, actuated by the trumpery spirit of the select vestries from which they sprang, sought unfairly, unjustly, and contrary to the law to double the liabilities of his constituents. That was the real object of No. 2 Bill. He would, therefore, oppose both Bills. The hon. Member for Bath was, in that respect, running directly counter to the decision of the Select Committe of last Session; and the borough of Southwark did not choose to suffer their interests to be compromised by this trick.