said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, In what way the Government propose to give effect to the Recommendation of the Commissioners of Customs that the services of their late Senior Surveyor General, Mr. St. John, should be recognized in some special manner?

, in reply, said, the Treasury had no funds at their disposal, with which they could meet any case of this kind. Mr. St. John died in the public service, and the Pension Acts absolutely gave the Treasury no authority, however strong the claim might be, to grant an allowance to the widows and families of public officers. The Commissioners of Customs were anxious to obtain pensions out of the fund attached to the Civil List, but he was not aware whether his noble Friend at the head of the Government had been able to comply with their request.

said, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, in the distribution of the Constabulary Force in the several counties and towns in Ireland contemplated in the Constabulary Force (Ireland) Act Amendment, Bill he intends to withdraw the extra Police from the county of Tipperary, who have no duties to perform, and are paid out of the local rates.

said, in reply, that the extra force of police causing a large additional burden on the county had been sent into Tipperary on the requisition of the magistrates, and it was only on a requisition from the magistrates that they could be withdrawn. If the hon. Gentleman could induce the magistrates to petition the Government for their withdrawal they would only be too happy to acquiesce in their request.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he will state the following particulars relating to Her Majesty's Ship Bellerophon:—The date of the Order of the Board of Admirality for the building of the Bellerophon, date of approval of design, under the signature of the Board; date when floated out; condition when floated; were decks laid when she was floated; what number of armour-plates will be required to plate the Vessel according to the approved design; what number of armour-plates were on the Vessel when floated; and estimated time of her completion?

replied that the drawing of the Bellerophon was approved by the Admiralty on the 23rd of July, 1863; that the actual commencement of the Bellerophon took place on the 28th of December, 1863; and that she was undocked on the 26th of April, 1865, when she was in perfect readiness for receiving her engines, boilers, and lower masts, which had been put into her. When she was undocked there were 3,050 tons of material worked into her including 440 tons of armour-plate. There remained to be worked into her about 1,200 tons of material, including about 630 tons of armour-plate; and she would probably be completely ready for sea by the end of November next.

said, he thought that after what had taken place in previous discussions, the House would not be surprised if he made a few observations which would be somewhat in the nature of a personal explanation. The House would recollect that during the course of the discussions in previous stages lie had already taken exception to the wholesale charges made against all parts of England, and especially against the county of Oxford in which he lived. It was said that there had been a great and sweeping destruction and demolition of cottages throughout the agricultural districts, for the purpose of clearing off the poor. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board represented those acts as tyrannical, and made some strong remarks as regarded the county which he had the honour and pleasure of representing. It was stated that though the population of the county was nearly stationary the population of its principal city had actually decreased; and that consequently the rest of the county must have increased in population, he wished to question both these statements, which appeared on unquestionable authority to be erroneous. When the first of them was made he expressed great doubt about it, and he had since referred to figures, which made it plain to any one who looked at the census how the mistake had arisen. The city of Oxford was described in part of the Census of 1861 as a union with a population of about 20,000. It would be perfectly true that if the Oxford Union was taken to represent the city of Oxford, lower figures would show a trifling decrease; but when you came to take a larger area than one union—namely, the area of the cess—which was set forth in the detailed portion of the census, you found that not only had the population of Oxford not decreased, but had actually increased. The actual population of Oxford in 1861 was 27,533; its population in 1851 was 27,388, which showed a slight increase in the ten years; but even those figures did not exhibit the whole truth of the matter. As stated in a footnote of the Census Returns in 1861 the University was "down," in 1851 it was "up," a circumstance which made a difference of 700 or 800 persons. He had therefore shown that the argument for an increase having taken place in the county population founded on the decrease in the population of the capital completely fell to the ground. The premisses being wrong, the conclusion founded upon them was also erroneous, lie would illustrate the mistake in a still stronger manner by mentioning the oases of Banbury and Chipping Norton, two important towns, one of them of considerable size. In 1831 the population of the former town was 5,900, in 1861 it was 9,139; the population of Chipping Norton was 2,262 in 1831, it was 3,111 in 1861. The census showed that the increase had been in the towns and not in the rural districts. He now came to a larger question. Having disposed of fourteen or fifteen places which had been mentioned in the first instance, the right hon-Gentleman (Mr. C. P. Villiers) replied by firing eighty places at him—a pretty good discharge to come at a man without notice. He had gone through those places and grouped them. Out of the eighty he took thirty-four cases in which the decrease of houses in no instance exceeded three for any one case. The number of houses in those thirty-four places was 2,563; and the whole diminution in ten years had been sixty-five houses. But what was the number of unoccupied houses? No less than ninety-one. Were proprietors to keep up houses for which there were no occupants? If not, why should such cases be brought forward to show that landlords were pulling down houses in order to clear off the poor? He now came to twenty-nine other places in which the numbers varied above three, and he would first call attention to three or four parishes which were within eight or ten miles of the place in which he lived himself—namely, Charlton, Great Milton, Little Milton, and Great Hazley. In one of these the decrease was fourteen houses, in another eight, and in a third four. These were perfectly open parishes, so that the diminution must have been the natural result of the law of supply and demand. To show how dangerous it was to jump to a conclusion upon an insufficient knowledge of facts he would instance the case of Little Milton, the population of which was stated in the Report to have greatly diminished in consequence of the demolition of cottages. Some seventeen or eighteen years ago the proprietor of that parish, finding it to be over full, put his hand into his pocket, and assisted a great number of the inhabitants to emigrate. No doubt many of the cases relied upon in the Report as proofs of the tyranny of landowners were capable of an equally easy and innocent explanation. In that parish at the present moment there were four unoccupied houses. This parish also furnished an instance of the good feeling between the labourers and their masters, for when a number of rioters from a neighbouring county attacked and destroyed the property of the landowners, the inhabitants came forward the next morning and identified every mother's son engaged in the riot. Dr. Hunter referred to some parishes in which he said nothing had been done to increase labourers' house accommodation, but he (Mr. Henley) found that in Chesterton the number of cottages in 1831 was 83, and in 1861 it was 89; in Blackthorn the number of cottages in 1831 was 81, and in 1861 it was 90; in Clifton, in 1831, it was 54, and in 1861 it was 63, and in the last-named parish, which comprised 670 acres, there had been several houses pulled down; but he would ask how a population of 244 could be properly maintained there? In the parish of Hook's Norton there were 313 houses in 1831, and 347 in 1861, and the number of uninhabited houses was 18. Then came nine places—three of them market towns—Henley, Woodstock, and Witney, and which could not be said to be under the control of tyrannical landlords; the remaining six being parishes in the city of Oxford, St. Peter's, Holywell, St. Mary the Virgin, St. Aldat's, St. Peter Baily, and St. Michael, and in the whole of these there were 72 uninhabited houses. In some of these places, such as Woodstock, which had been famous for the manufacture of gloves, employment had declined; but in the county within fifteen years past the wages had increased 10 or 12 per cent, and there could not have been an increase of wages if there had not been a decrease of people. He had now gone through most of the parishes; six or seven of them were very peculiar, being cut off from the rest of the county; and, looking to Abingdon, in the two parishes of St. Helen and St. Nicholas, he found that in the former case there was a diminution from 1,225 to 1,202, and in the latter case from 151 to 147. He had been at the trouble to analyse the condition between 1831 and 1861 of a great number of the parishes in Oxfordshire, and his own surprise was that, having regard to the course of events, the diminution of houses was not much larger than it seemed to be. It was an absurdity to say that the conduct of landowners could have any effect in reducing the population of those places in which there were many unoccupied houses. So far from the poor being driven into the towns the town of Abingdon was pulling down its cottages in consequence of the decrease in the number of the labouring classes. He trusted he had stated what was necessary in reference to the eighty fresh shots that had been fired at his head. He did not pretend to account for the diminution of the population in the places referred to, which might be owing to various causes. Then, with reference to the Bill itself. They were told they were quite mistaken with regard to it. The leading journal described the Bill as being simply a measure for bettering the position of the agricultural labourers by removing the temptation at present existing to reduce the amount of cottage accommodation available for their use. That was not his view of the matter, as lie did not believe in the existence of any such temptation. In his judgment, there were two or three other strong reasons that had not been referred to which induced many people to regard the Bill favourably. One reason was, the prospect it held out of greater facility of management and a greater simplification of the accounts. Another matter which he could not avoid believing had had some influence upon the increasing majorities by which the Bill had been supported was that in the re-distribution of charge which it would effect, three-fourths of the parishes would gain at the expense of the other fourth; and it did so happen, no doubt quite accidentally, that among the gainers were all the large towns, and an enormous number of the boroughs which returned Members to that House. There was one thing he had been more and more astonished at: he was anxious to do away with all removals; he had no means of judging of the feeling of those who supported the right hon. Gentleman, but he should have thought that the supporters of the Bill would have been only too glad to give such a boon to the poor, for that it would be a boon no one had ever denied. The right hon. Gentleman, who knew the trim of those who supported him better than he could do, said that the measure itself was a proper one, but he opposed it because he (Mr. Henley) had suggested it. Many persons had thought that such a measure would increase the charge in particular places, but that circumstance could, of course, have no influence with Gentlemen who were supporting this Bill merely because it would confer a boon upon the poor. It did, however, appear to him to be, to say the least, problematical whether the right hon. Gentleman would at any future time be able to carry such a measure if when he was giving to his supporters a large pecuniary benefit they would not consent to do that which might in a slight degree diminish its value. The House did not know one half of the suffering that arose from the law of removal even as it was now limited. Let them take such a case as this:—A man came to this or to any other city, married, lived ten, twelve, or twenty years, had children, and died. If his widow, in order to obtain a less costly residence, went into another parish her irremovability was gone, and she and her children were liable to be carried away forty, fifty, or 100 miles, to some place where she had never been before, and where she knew no one. Even if she was fortunate enough or well-advised enough to remain in the parish in which her husband died, all her children over seven years of age might be torn from her and carried a hundred miles away. That, however, was only part of the evil which the House was continuing as burdens upon the backs of the poor. The main cause for the alteration of the law of removal was what occurred in the manufacturing districts during the periods of distress in 1839 and 1842, when it was found that many persons who were in the greatest distress would not apply for relief lest they should be removed. The same thing was going on now both in London and elsewhere, and the result was that the public were repeatedly shocked by the occurrence of cases in which distress actually resulted in the death of the sufferer. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman had the means of giving the House accurate information upon this subject, and if that was the case it ought not to be withheld. It was a most important part of the subject, and the Return of removals throughout the kingdom which had been presented to the House was intended to illustrate it. By the kindness of the vestry clerk he had obtained information as to the state of things in the parish in which they were now sitting, and he found that in 1862 there were 100 cases, including 263 persons, in which inquiries were commenced, but in order to avoid removal the applicants for relief ceased to make themselves chargeable. In 1864 the number of persons of whom that might be said amounted to 306. Some of these people might have had the good fortune to obtain employment, but many of them had, no doubt, gone down to the lowest dregs of distress, perhaps crime, rather than be torn away from the places in which they had lived nearly all their lives. This information was stated by those who had fnrnished it to him to be a part of a Return to the House of Commons. If that was the case, the Return presented to the House must have been shorn of a material fact. He had stated before that in his judgment, as far as the rural districts were concerned, the change introduced by this Bill would not be for the benefit of the poor. He said that because henceforward every union would be exactly in the position of a large parish, and he had noticed that whenever pressure came, the labouring population—he would not use the word "poor"—were not so well employed in large parishes as they were in more limited areas. The hest thing for a working man was regular employment, at the best wages he could obtain, and anything which tended to deprive him of that chance of employment was, no matter how he was dealt with after he had been made a pauper, injurious to him. That was another reason why he deplored this Bill. All measures such as this depended upon a balance of conveniences and inconveniences. If they had got rid of removability, he believed that the benefit to the poor would have been so great that they might have risked the other consequences of this Bill; but the House was about to adopt a measure which would confer no benefit upon the poor, and had refused to accept one which would have been greatly for their advantage, because the right hon. Gentleman, for some unaccountable reason, had said, "If I accept your Amendment I shall wreck my Bill." Why the right hon. Gentleman should have such an opinion of his supporters as to suppose that when they were receiving a considerable boon they would hesitate to consent to what would confer a double benefit upon the poor, because in some places it might increase the charge upon the rates, he could not imagine. His objections to the Bill remained in full force; but it was not his intention again to trouble the House to divide against it.

said, before the House went to a division upon this question he should like to offer a few words in reference to some charges which had been preferred at a former stage of this measure by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board against that part of the country with which he (Mr. Bentinck) had the honour to be connected, reading from the remarkable Report from which it appeared the right hon. Gentleman had received his information.

I got my figures from the Agricultural Society of Norfolk.

Wherever the right hon. Gentleman obtained his information, the statements he had made in respect to the county of Norfolk were as inaccurate as those contained in the Report relating to the county of Oxford. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman that both the population and the number of houses in his county were much on the increase. He was glad in having this opportunity of exculpating his part of the country from the unfounded charges which had been brought against it, and which ought never to have been made. His strong objection to this Bill was its hypocritical character. Its professed object was to benefit the poor, and yet they had not had one word from the right hon. Gentleman in reference to that object, with the exception of the allegation of the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill would no longer allow the continuance of the inducement to landed proprietors to pull down the houses of the poor and to get rid of the inmates. Now he thought that they ought to have had some statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to how the poor were to he benefited by this Bill. The opinion to which he (Mr. Bentinck) had arrived after all he had heard and seen was this, that so far from the poor deriving any benefit from the measure, in many cases it would occasion a large amount of suffering. It appeared to him that amongst the aged and unskilled labourers a vast amount of hardship would arise from the operation of this measure. He, therefore, contended that the Bill was one of a hypocritical character, professing to benefit the poor and yet containing clauses which in their operation would materially damage their position. He concurred with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) in thinking that there was something extremely suspicious in the character of this Bill. It was remarkable that just immediately preceding the general election a Bill should be framed by the Government which, upon close investigation, was shown to be a measure obviously framed to confer a peculiar benefit upon boroughs and towns, and, at the same time, to damage the position of the rural districts surrounding them. The circumstances alluded to by his right hon. Friend tended to show that the Bill was certainly of a somewhat exceptionable character. In whatever light they viewed it, one result at all events would arise from its operation—namely, that it would benefit in a pecuniary sense a large number of towns, whilst it would inevitably prejudice to the same amount the rural districts surrounding them. Now it was well to understand what the nature of the Bill was, and how it would operate before they went to the country. It should be known that under this Bill the interests of the rural population would be sacrificed to benefit those of the towns. At an earlier stage of the Bill he ventured to ask the sanction of the House to a proposal which he believed would tend to counteract the injustice which this Bill in its present shape would inevitably occasion to the rural districts. That proposal was to give power for the re-distribution of the rating areas. That proposal, however, was negatived by a majority of the House. He would make no further opposition to the measure. In conclusion, he would only express a hope that the change which he had failed to make in the Bill would he effected in another place, and that the provisions of the measure would be so modified as to render it one of less injustice to the rural districts of this country.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. P. Villiers) by his Bill, instead of settling matters, was unsettling everything. The right hon. Gentleman had gone back to the large areas which were tried in the time of Elizabeth, but were reduced again; which were again tried in the time of Charles II. and again reduced. They were likewise tried in Ireland, but were subsequently reduced because it was found impossible to work them. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed great sympathy for the rural poor, but it was not known to him perhaps that the rural population were the longest lived of the whole community. He (Mr. Knight) had applied to the Registrar General for some statistics upon this subject, when that functionary placed in his hand the following ^information—namely, that the rural population were 15 per cent longer lived than the urban population. Of the rural population 33 per cent were the labouring population. Now that 33 per cent were much longer lived than the remaining 55 per cent of the rural population generally. That was to say, a man of twenty years of age of the labouring population of a rural district might reasonably expect to live two years and nine months longer than one of the remaining classes of the rural population. The right hon. Gentleman said it was for the good of the working classes he had brought forward this Bill, but he had made admissions as to some of its provisions, that he did not expect they would gain anything by it. The right hon. Gentleman said that the farmers would be benefited by this measure because they would not be obliged to employ partially infirm labourers, and their rates would be reduced. Now, how those two things were consistent with an increased benefit to the poor, to him (Mr. Knight, did not appear. Mr. Chadwick and those other gentlemen with whom the right hon. Gentleman was connected in 1837, at the time of the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act, stated that their object was to reduce the rates to the lowest possible amount for the relief of the poor; and in order to effect that object they endeavoured to lessen, year by year, the numbers receiving out-door relief, and to oblige the poor to go into the union workhouse. The consequence was, there was not a town in the country that was not full of chartists; great discontent arose, the whole kingdom was almost in a state of rebellion, and the people were levying arms in every town in England, which culminated in Frost's outbreak in South Wales. That state of things was only remedied by the great alterations made in the Poor Law Act, which tended to enlarge the classes of poor persons who had a claim to out-door relief. The great argument used in this House in connection with the present Bill was what was called the close parish case. The right hon. Gentleman had it in his power, if any such cases existed within his knowledge, to bring forward such cases and to probe them, but he had done nothing of the sort. If such places existed, nothing could have been easier for him than to have laid before the House specific information as to the counties in which they were to be found, and the persons who had reduced the number of houses on their properties. That, nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman had not done. The first time the close parish cry was raised was in the examination of the evidence taken before the Committee of 1847. But the only evidence heard on that subject was of a hearsay character, no specific instances were brought forward. The late Mr. Charles Buller appointed Commissioners to investigate the close parish question, and to discover the parishes in which the demolitions occurred. Those Commissioners produced by name a great number of alleged cases of that character. A reference, however, to the census, showed that those allegations were wholly unfounded, that the number of houses instead of having diminished had largely increased, and Mr. Baines in bringing in his Bill for union rating in 1854 thought it wiser to drop that part of his case. The subject was not again renewed until the right hon. Gentleman was appointed Chairman of the Irremovable Poor Committee. The charge was once more made of houses and cottages in certain districts having been pulled down, and the poor inmates driven away. An application again to the census, however, proved the groundlessness of such charge, and thus that argument failed again. Another Committee, which the right hon. Gentleman presided over, had been called the Whitewashing Committee. It was appointed to consider the state of the Poor Law Board—whether it had properly conducted itself, and whether its orders were beneficial to the public—before it could be allowed a renewal of its lease. The evidence taken before that Committee, however, was so craftily managed that the constant increase of infanticide, the disgraceful state of medical relief to the poor, the deaths by starvation, and the way in which the medical relief of the poor was put up, as it were, for sale at a sort of Dutch auction—all those questions were quietly got over by this Whitewashing Committee. Nor was there one word of evidence taken about the close parish case or the pulling down cottages. Yet a Member of the Committee newly appointed, and who had not sat or heard the evidence for the previous three years, proposed a Resolution in favour of union rating, and it was carried unanimously. They had had now with reference to the present Bill before the House two sets of arguments—namely, the arguments of the House and the arguments of the lobby. The arguments used in the House were the close parish case and the good results to the poor. Those arguments had been answered over and over again. The arguments of the lobby resolved themselves into this, "My borough will gain £1,000, £2,000 or £3,000 a year by this Bill, and, therefore, I must vote for it. At the general election, that argument will have due effect in securing town voters." Now there were about 330 borough Members in that House, to 160 county Members, so that the latter had no power to prevent this transfer of property. The fact was that the Bill was one to take the property of the counties and to give it to the towns and boroughs. He had hoped that the Return moved for by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire, would have been made before this, as it would have enabled the House to calculate how much every borough would gain at the expense of the county. In its absence they might assume that they were voting away millions of property on the eve of a general election. He knew it was useless to reply further to any of the arguments used in favour of the present measure.

said, that he had supported the Bill, but felt that in the case of strikes or other extraordinary circumstances it would cast heavy burdens on rural parishes adjoining great towns. He had opposed the Amendment for the redistribution of unions, because the power to effect this already existed, and in hopes that the President of the Poor Law Board would give some pledge as to the exercise of this power. He (Mr. Mitford) had waited till the eleventh hour in hopes that this would be given, but the right hon. Gentleman had throughout evaded that question. In the debate on Mr. Baines' Bill the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) said that an alteration of the boundaries of unions would be necessary in some cases where rural parishes were included in the same union as populous towns. This is what he (Mr. Mitford) said now. The President of the Poor Law Board had promised to bring in a Bill to abolish Gilbert unions, when a favourable opportunity would be afforded to go into the whole question of re-distribution. He (Mr. Mitford) hoped to see shortly the end of the present cumbersome and costly system of making and collecting poor rates, and that for this purpose all the parishes of a union should be deemed to be one parish. He lived in a union of twenty-seven parishes which ran very much into each other. The practice was to call upon the overseers to make and collect a separate rate in each parish. Fees were paid to Justices Clerks, and much trouble and travelling resulted. Moreover, these functionaries were not always very competent for this work. He thought that the Board of Guardians should be empowered to make and collect these rates.

said, he rose, in conformity with his notice, to move that the Order for the Third Reading be discharged, and that the Bill be re-committed for a certain limited purpose. It had been his intention, in accordance with an established practice, after the re-committal of the Bill and the adoption of his Amendment, to proceed at once with the third reading. But having understood from the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker that, inasmuch as there was a notice given of an intention to move the rejection of the Bill upon the third reading, it would be more regular and becoming to postpone the third reading to a future day; be should acquiesce in that suggestion, and would therefore postpone his Motion for the third reading until next week. He now moved the re-committal of the Bill for the purpose of asking the House in Committee to insert certain words in the preamble. There were other notices of Motion given by hon. Members, one of which, by the hon. Member for Leicester, he should not object to. The notice of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Heygate) was one affecting the eighth clause. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought, as some hon. Members might object to it, that it would be more convenient to combine the two notices together. He should therefore now move—

"That the Order for Third Reading be read and discharged, and the Bill re-committed for the purpose of inserting in the Preamble, after the word "mentioned," the following words; 'And to fix by Law a time whereat the present statutory right of issue on the part of Hankers obtaining such exemption shall determine, in order that either their issues may become subject to the enactments of the Bank Act of 1814 hereinafter mentioned in respect to lapsed issues of Bank Notes, or that Parliament may make further provision concerning them as it shall think fit upon grounds of public policy,' and for the purpose of making Amendments in Clause 8."

said, he advocated the recommittal of the Bill, for the purpose of substituting the word "may" for "shall" in the eighth clause, in conformity with an agreement arrived at between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Association of Bankers on the 11th inst. As that course might seem at first sight inconsistent with the part which he had taken in Committee on the Bill, when he expressed opinions hostile to the whole scope and policy of the measure, he begged the indulgence of the House while he endeavoured to explain the reasons inducing him to propose an Amendment having for its object the carrying out of the compromise to which he had just referred, and which, bad he considered himself perfectly free to act, he should certainly not have submitted to the House. It was doubtless within the knowledge of most hon. Members that the introduction of the Bill was regarded with suspicion and dislike by many classes throughout the country, and certainly met with little favour from the community of bankers. The Association of Bankers, originally formed for the purpose of watching the proceedings of a Committee appointed in 1857 to inquire into the operation of the Bank Act of 1844, took measures for the protection of its own and the public interests, and the result was that after various negotiations between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and a Committee appointed to conduct those negotiations, several alterations were agreed to by the former, and at a full meeting of members of the association on the 19th of April, it was resolved that all future opposition to the measure should be withdrawn. Unfortunately, the compromise thus effected was not adhered to in every particular, for this eighth clause, upon the wording of which a great deal turned and which was a principal question in the discussions, was not only not submitted to the Committee of the House in the terms agreed upon between the two contending parties, but the clause underwent still further alteration in the House in a sense more than ever inimical to the banking interest. A second series of discussions and renewed opposition to the Bill was the natural consequence of this departure from the agreement; and not to weary the House with details fresh negotiations took place between the Committee appointed by the Country Bankers' Association and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the result was that new proposals less friendly to the country issue than the former were submitted for the consideration of the bankers. Before dealing with them, the Committee of Hankers very properly issued an urgent summons to every member of the Association on the 9th of May, explaining fully the nature of these proposals and earnestly inviting their attendance on the 11th "for the purpose of considering and deciding upon their adoption or otherwise." In spite, however, of that urgent summons the meeting on the 12th was but thinly attended, and it was then and there resolved (though by a small majority only, fifteen voting one way and thirteen another) to "authorize the Committee to accept these last proposals with such modifications (if any) as they could effect." Whereupon and under such express authority, the Committee after suggesting modifications without success, did actually conclude the negotiation by accepting unconditionally the Chancellor of the Exchequer's terms, and left nothing unsettled except the manner in which the arrangement should be carried out on the third reading of the Bill. Under these circumstances, as was probably known to the House, various banking firms, some of whom voted in the minority referred to, but most of whom did not attend the last meeting, resolved to take separate action for themselves, and oppose the further progress of the Bill. But when he remembered that the Association now comprised every bank of issue in England among its subscribing members, and having regard to the urgent summons they each and all received, and the full notice of the terms they were then invited either to accept or to refuse, he could not resist the conclusion that there was but one course open to the members of the Association—namely, to carry out in their integrity the terms of the last agreement. It was urged, he knew, that the right hon. Gentleman not having rigidly adhered to his former agreement in reference to the eighth clause, it was competent for the bankers to do what they liked on this occasion; but he was not aware that a departure from the terms of one contract justified a breach of faith in return with respect to another contract. Indeed it appeared to him that by the acceptance of the last proposals of the right hon. Gentleman his conduct in reference to the former was condoned, so that nothing now remained for them but to fulfil the terms of an honourable engagement.

said, there was considerable opposition to the Bill in Sheffield and the neighbourhood, and although they did not approve of the understanding that was come to between the Committee of the Bankers' Association and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, yet they would have abided by it. They objected on principle, and believing it to be a matter that required further consideration they wished to have the Bill referred to a Select Committee of that House, where they could be heard. It was a most important subject involving no less than six millions of capital, and he should propose that in referring the Bill to a Select Committee that the Committee should not sit until after the Whitsuntide holidays. It was contended by the bankers of Sheffield and the neighbourhood that their interests and those of the public had not been considered to the extent it ought to have been from the hasty manner in which the Bill had been brought forward. Many country people, tradesmen and others, from their personal knowledge of provincial bankers, considered it safer to deal with the country bank notes than with those issued by the Bank of England. With regard to the Amendment that was introduced into the Bill, he believed it was carried against the will of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it was generally disapproved of by the country bankers. He moved the re-consideration of the Bill in a Select Committee, and that it be postponed until after the holidays.

said, the hon. Gentleman could not then make the Motion. The question before the House was that the order for the third reading should be discharged.

said, he wished to second the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield.

reminded the gallant Colonel that the Motion was not then before the House.

said, he did not oppose the re-committal of the Bill. He would make his Motion at a subsequent period of the proceedings.

said, he would like to hear a more satisfactory explanation of the principle of the Bill than had yet been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Was it framed on the principle that the Government had a right to stop the issue of these private notes unless the banks paid for the privilege, or did it assume that the banks had a perpetual right of issue, and that the right hon. Gentleman wished to induce them to give up the right by securing its exercise for a limited term, and by offering them other advantages? It was clear to him that these banks had an undeniable right to continue their issue, and that they had a right to compensation if the privilege were taken from them. The late Sir Robert Peel was stated to have assured a deputation of bankers in 1844 that the privilege of issue would be continued to them. The definition of a bank note was a note payable to the bearer on demand, and the 9th of Queen Anne gave everybody the right to issue them. Then came the Bank Charter Act. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day having ascertained the injurious effects which arose from an unlimited right of issue, restricted the privilege; but now it was proposed to go much further, and to deprive individuals who had invested large capital in their business of the right which they had hitherto enjoyed, of issuing notes to a limited amount. He should like to hear from his right hon. Friend whether he meant to say that the Government were justified in depriving those hanks of that right without giving them any compensation, for if so he was prepared to join issue with him, and would endeavour to defeat the Bill.

said, it was not his intention then to enter into the merits of the Bill, because he should have ample time for doing it on the third reading. He wished, however, to set himself right in one matter. In the recent discussion which took place on this Bill he considered it his duty to oppose it, and he stated at that time that it was the universal opinion of the country bankers that the Bill was inimical to their interests, and ought not to pass the House of Commons. He was then told that a majority of the bankers had decided in favour of the Bill, and to a certain extent that might be true. There was a meeting of bankers in London, as had been referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Heygate), and on a division there was a majority of two in favour of proceeding with the Bill, but the promoters consisted of persons deeply interested in the Bill, and Members of the National Bank of Issue, and they were supported, in a great measure, by persons interested in the Bank of England, who no doubt were favourable to the Bill, because they would be glad to see six millions of floating capital absorbed at once. That would not satisfy the country, and he ventured to assert that if the Bill passed it would entail most serious consequences upon its trade, more especially in small towns and their neighbourhoods where district banks circulated their own notes, and where country hank notes were taken with as much confidence as Bank of England paper. Another important meeting of the Bankers' Association had been held that day. All the most important firms in the Kingdom were represented, and he regretted to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer declined to receive a deputation that afternoon, and that he avoided meeting them to discuss the subject. He trusted, however, that in a short time the right hon. Gentleman would find an opportunity of doing so, because the opinion of so large and influential a body of men ought to be listened to upon a question which so materially affected their interests. He would read to the House the Resolution that had been agreed to at the meeting held that day—

"That the Committee, accompanied by any Members of the House of Commons who will attend with Mr. Beckett Denison, Mr. Bayley, Mr. John Jobson Smith, be requested to solicit an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to inform him that at a meeting of bankers held this morning, more numerous than any previous one, it was resolved by a large majority that in deference to the very general feeling entertained by the country bankers, he be respectfully requested to withdraw the Bank Issues Bill. Failing this, that this meeting is of opinion that the Amendment of Mr. Salomons should be supported."

And if no other Member would support the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Alderman Salomons) on that occasion he would, for a more dangerous Bill for the banking interest had never been concocted by the Treasury Bench. It was a confiscation of property, for the issue of private banks was, and always had been, a chief source of profit; and now without compensation it was proposed to deprive this great interest of that privilege. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, before the third reading of the Bill, reconsider the matter, and do an act of justice to the country by withdrawing the Bill.

said, he thought the discussion at present was not precisely to the purpose. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to put off proceeding any further with the measure for a week. His hon. Friend (Mr. Hadfield) was of opinion, and in that opinion lie shared, that as a week would bring them within a day or two of the usual holidays, it would be better to defer the Motion for the third reading until after Whitsuntide.

said, he was Chairman of the Bankers' Association, which was first formed in 1857 8—when a Select Committee of that House was appointed to inquire into the general question—for the purpose of defending the issue of both public and private hanks. It was at that time proposed to have two gentlemen appointed on the Committee—one to represent private banks and the other public banks, not for the purpose of influencing the decision of the Committee, but, understanding banking operations, to elicit from the witnesses that information which it was desirable the Committee should obtain. That application was refused by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Bankers' Association confined, their operations to putting before the Select Committee such witnesses as could give most desirable information. No action, however, had been taken upon the Report of the Select Committee, but the Association had continued in existence. He had ceased to be a banker, and had only attended one meeting recently, and he had done that merely for the purpose of transferring to other hands the funds which he had held as trustee. As soon as the present Bill was laid upon the table he went to the gentleman who conducted the proceedings in 1857–8, and urged him to write to all the banks of issue, whether subscribers or not to the Association, naming a certain day and place for them to meet in London to consider what was best to be done for the general interest of bankers with respect to this Bill. Several meetings had in consequence been held, and he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given the Association a great deal of his time and attention with regard to what clauses should be introduced into the Bill, and he believed the result was embodied in the present Bill. He did not consider the Bill so inimical to the interest of bankers as many supposed. He believed that the country bankers were bound in honour, as in interest, to accept the Bill as it stood. It gave them a lease for fifteen years of their privileges; and they were not bound to come within its operations, in which case, according to the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, their interests would not be affected. But before the fifteen years was up the whole subject of the circulation and currency must be inquired into. It was desirable—nay, absolutely necessary—that there should be a Committee, because the present currency laws had broken down, and might break down again. He supported the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

agreed as to the desirability of the Government indicating a distinct principle of policy when they propounded a measure of this kind. He differed, however, entirely from the principles laid down by the hon. Member for Oxford. If it were contended that bankers had undoubted and perpetual rights of issue, this must be established upon natural rights of freedom of commerce or upon rights conferred by legislation. In his view, on neither point could private issuers establish their right. As to the question of the natural freedom of com- merce, it must be recollected that the right contended for was not to make bills of exchange or promises to pay at a future day. Their existed no restraint on that practice. But when they came to bank notes, which meant promissory notes payable on demand, and professing to be at all times the exact equivalent of the coin which they represented, they had to deal with a very different article. It was not a bill of exchange; it was paper money. It would not do to say that because Acts of Queen Anne gave permission to issue certain commercial documents that those Acts conferred perpetual rights. As we advanced in the science of Government we had had to regulate, in the public interest, all such rights. No one ever doubted that the coinage of money was the indefeasible right of the reigning power of the State. It was true that this right had been subjected to many irregularities; but the rule had been maintained. At the early part of the present century there was a great lack of the smaller circulating media of the country, silver and copper. And what was the result? Many individuals issued silver tokens; and in 1813, when a statute was propounded in that House to regulate the issue of silver money there was great agitation in the town of Reading, and a resident received the unanimous thanks of the inhabitants for having created a large amount of silver tokens, which to them were as useful as the notes of private issuers were to their customers. Their remonstrance, however, did not successfully arrest the movement of the Ministers, who passed an Act prohibiting the circulation of silver tokens. Subsequently to this Sheffield, Birmingham, and other towns issued copper tokens, which, of course, were very profitable to the issuers; but in 1818 the Government passed another Act prohibiting entirely the private issue of copper coin. Then what was the difference in principle between paper money and copper and silver money? The only difference, that when copper money was issued the value of the metal was half at least of the value at which the coin circulated, while of paper money the intrinsic value was nothing, so that the very strongest security should be required for the professed value at which the note circulated. If it was a function of the State to give value to coins by stamping them with their authority, much more was it their function to make the issue of paper money a part of their business and make the money safer to the country. When the makers of paper money talked about their indefeasible right, did they consider that they had been sharing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the power of drawing revenue from the pockets of the people? The hon. Member for Oxford said that whenever the State interfered with private enterprize it gave compensation. Well, he had not the least objection to this; and he dared to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have no objection to give compensation to the full value of the paper and the printing presses, which were the only capital engaged in the enterprize. It might be said that the privilege of issue in country places was advantageous to the neighbourhood, by supplying money for agricultural and manufacturing purposes. But did these country bankers supply their customers with money at an interest even a fraction lower than its market value? They did not; and therefore they made not the slightest concession to their customers in return for their monoply. The lapsing of country issues would not cause any deficiency in the circulating medium for the additional Bank of England issue would immediately flow into any district where capital was called for. The existing banks would not cease their banking business because they lost their power of issue; but, if they did, other banks, such as the London and County Bank, would extend their operations and supply capital even in the remotest towns. With regard to the legislation on the subject, up to the year 1821 there was no such thing recognized in this country as the true principle of currency. Nay, up to 1844, legislation had not touched the question of issues, either by the Bank of England or by country banks. The Act of 1844, aiming at the entire absorption, sooner or later, of the whole of the issues of the country into one uniform administration, paved the way for that step by enabling country issuers to compound with the Bank of England for certain annual percentages, hoping that a large portion of them would come under that clause; but the very clause which empowered the Bank of England to give these annual compensations directed that they should cease in twelve years. The measure did not at that period take effect, because it would have been unjust to terminate the interest of the compounding banks, while those who had not compounded were still at liberty to carry on their issues. Then came the Annual Continuance Bill; and thus there was reserved to the Legislature the right of interference at any future time. Sir Robert Peel's Act of 1844 limited, and by limiting affirmed the right of dealing with all private issues. If the country issuers had the indefeasible right to issue bank notes the Government could have no more interfered with that right by limiting its exercise than they could have interfered with the making of bills of exchange. He looked upon that measure as an unequivocal declaration on the part of the Government of the right to interfere with the issue of paper money. He denied entirely the argument of the hon. Member for Oxford, and he affirmed that the Crown, in the interest of the people and for their security, as well as with a regard to the National revenue, had a right to interfere with, limit, restrain, and terminate the whole of the bank issues of the country.

said, he wished to ask when the Committee were to meet.

At once.

said, that as the Amendment still more obscured the Bill, he had hoped that the re-committal would have been agreed to, for the purpose of taking the discussion of the principle on the third reading. When that Motion was made, he intended to move, as an Amendment, that the third reading be deferred for six months.

said, that the recommittal of the Bill was proposed for the purpose of enabling him to fulfil the engagement to a body of appointed representatives of country bankers, but he had thought it right to include other Amendments of which notice had been given. He must oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield, of which notice had not been given, who, objecting to the Bill altogether, moved an Amendment merely dilatory in its effect.

said, that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer sent to the committee of country bankers on the 17th of April a proposed Amendment in the following words for their acceptance:—

"The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury may on, and at any time after, the 1st of January, 1870, by notice in the London Gazette, declare that, unless Parliament otherwise determine, at the expiration of one year from the date of the notice, all issues of banks in respect of which a percentage may be payable under this Act shall cease, and thereupon such issues shall cease accordingly."

On the 19th of April there was a very large meeting of the country bankers, and he believed that there was only one banker who voted against the acceptance of the proposed Amendment, and thereupon the bankers agreed to withdraw their opposition to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, however, in giving notice of his Amendment did not entirely follow the words which were submitted to the committee of bankers. During the discussion of the clause in Committee a most important alteration was made. He admitted that he and many other Members interested in the question were in the House at the time; but the right hon. Gentleman having made a long speech before going into Committee, the alteration was afterwards made in a very hurried manner; at all events in a manner so hurried that he and many Gentlemen who sat beside him did not understand its nature until they saw the Bill in print a few days subsequently. The public were also led, through the usual channels by which they learned what passed in that House, to misconceive the true character of the alteration. In the Report of the discussion given by The Times it was stated that—

"Mr. Hankey proposed that the word 'if' should be omitted from the clause;"

and it was afterwards added that—

"Mr. Hankey withdrew his Amendment, and the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with some verbal amendments, was inserted."

It was quite true that the alteration consisted of a very little word; but a distinguished Master at Eton used to say that if they took care of the litle words the great ones would take care of themselves. In that case the small word "if" bad been omitted, and words declaring absolutely that on or before a certain day notice requiring the termination of these issues should he given were introduced. The clause then stood "on or before a certain day notice shall be given." When it came to the knowledge of the bankers that that important alteration, as they deemed it, bad been made, they remonstrated strongly against it; and he had, therefore, taken the liberty of putting on the paper the notice which stood in his name, and which sought to restore the clause to the shape in which it had been proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, had been accepted by the bankers, and on the faith of which the bankers had been induced to withdraw their opposition. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Amendment.

said, he had heard with great regret the attempt of the hon. Gentleman to disturb the arrangement which had been come to after so much discussion and deliberation. The ground of the present opposition of the hon. Gentleman was, that he did not understand what passed on the occasion to which he had alluded. He could not admit that the alteration of which the hon. Member (Mr. Cobbold) now wished to get rid was adopted in a hurried or unintelligible manner. He had himself pointed out, in no inaudible voice, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the evil tendencies of the Bill as it was originally submitted to the Committee, and the necessity of making some alteration, and the full spirit and character of the Amendment. Another hon. Member (Mr. Hankey) then suggested the mode in which it could be carried out, and it was agreed that the condition should be left out. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then made some alterations in the clause, and read it audibly to the Committee. Everybody must have known that by omitting the word "if" the conditional character of the clause was taken away, and the verbal Amendments suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer merely gave a more grammatical form to the proposal of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey). All this was done in the presence of the Gentlemen who took so much interest in the Bill, not on account of the public interest, but of their own interest. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted the Amendment, in order to get rid of the ostensible opposition, and a still more latent opposition, and when no one rose to protest, and claim the benefit of any previous arrangement, they were bound in honour and in conscience to accept what had been done. The hon. Member, however, claimed the right to revert to the original words of the clause, because of an alleged prior understanding. When besieged by the private bankers and their friends in that House the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have made some suggestions in the hope of making the measure more palatable to them; but those suggestions were surely subject to the condition that the House would accept and ratify them. The right hon. Gentleman knew the extent of the opposition which his Bill had to encounter in that House on the ground of the public interests, and perceived the precarious position in which it stood when they were last in Committee. But the measure having since then been advanced a stage, and the bankers having thus gained the advantage thereby secured to them, without raising their objections at the proper time, it was not competent for them to turn round now and claim to be relieved of the condition on which alone the Committee allowed the measure to proceed. But there was something more grave in the consideration of this question. The pertinacity with which the monopolists desired to introduce this alteration into the Bill showed the object they had in view, and the latent intentions which they entertained in endeavouring to induce the House to acquiesce in their proposition. The country had been greatly tantalized in the matter. First one period and then another had been named for the termination of that monopoly. It was quite clear that what they were now doing they would be certain to do when January, 1880, should arrive. They had now fifteen years within their reach, and proposed to postpone the period indefinitely. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) had given some insight into the course they were now pursuing, lie had put forth the claims of the bankers, not as a banker, but as a lawyer, and said that the effect of legislation had been to give the bankers an indefeasible right in perpetuity to the issue of notes. Now, what was the real character of this legislation? Parliament, in suppressing the issue of £1 notes, made the issue a State matter. The principle of right was asserted. The banker had no individual right. All the community had a right. But in 1844, all the world being at liberty so to do, Parliament decided that no one should do it. The right to issue £5 notes was destroyed in 1844. The power to issue was reserved as a compensation to certain people, but the right was emphatically destroyed, and the words of the statute showed that the power was only to continue as long as Parliament might think fit. Time was allowed them for twelve years, and then they were to have no further claim. Parliament did not abrogate its rights. It only gave to these private bankers, but not of right, the power of going on with their business, in order that when the time came, in twelve years, they should have no possible claim, moral or otherwise, for compensation at the hands of the State. That was the legitimate conclusion of all that had been said and done. The whole discussion that took place left that impression on the mind of every one that read it. But now, hon. Gentlemen got up and claimed a right in fee simple. And what was the value of that right? The value of the paper monopoly to the country was not less than £500,000 a year, and it was monstrous to suppose that a sum equivalent to £17,000,000 was to be given to them in perpetuity. When such monstrous claims were made by private bankers it behoved the Committee to be careful not to admit any continuing right or claim; and so strongly did he feel this that he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would alter the wording of the clause by omitting the words "statutory right," and inserting "statutory power of issue," as it was not a statutory right but only a statutory power. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not agree to the entangling language of the hon. Gentleman opposite. If he did, it would be the duty of the House at the next stage of the Bill to give it every opposition.

said, he was very anxious to narrow, as far as in his power, the ground of the present discussion, and to avoid including many controverted matters it might possibly be their duty to enter on and deal with somewhat largely on a future stage of the Bill. He entirely agreed that very wide issues indeed, and questions of far greater importance than the comparatively limited provisions of this measure, were involved in many of the transactions which had taken place respecting it. But, feeling the importance of these issues, he was very anxious not to anticipate the discussion of them, and thus lead to difficulty or dispute. While he had beard with great satisfaction the speech of his hon. Friends the Members for Warwick (Mr. Greaves) and the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), and others, some things bad been said which it was necessary he should notice. He was bound to repudiate in the strongest terms the declaration of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Heygate)—that he did not conform to the spirit of his arrangement with the private bankers. A more groundless charge had never been made, and if an alteration was made in the form of the Bill, that alteration was much more due to the hon. Gentleman himself than to him. He would now deal with the Motion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobbold), and he must give a very different account of what took place in Committee from the extraordinary narrative of the hon. Member. If ever there was a Committee in which, though the Gentlemen present were comparatively few in number, all were interested in the subject-matter of discussion, paying attention to every word that was uttered, and to all appearance perfectly masters of the whole question, it was that Committee. It was therefore astounding to hear the hon. Gentleman, himself a country banker, and appearing there as the representative of a portion of that most intelligent body of men, declaring that the whole affair was so confused that he did not know what was going on. He was reminded by some who took part in the discussion that he had himself been careful to read every word of the Amendment be fore putting it into the hands of the Chairman. It was of no great length; the words were as clear as they could be, and afterwards it was again read by the Chairman in the clearest manner possible. Now he must say a few words with regard to the history of the substance of this measure. But first of all he must on the part of that House enter a protest which, at some period or another, it might be necessary more largely to explain, with respect to the tone which from circumstances they were obliged to adopt with reference to the country bankers. It might really be supposed that Parliament was a body whose business it was mainly to guide legislation in respect to private issues by considerations of the interest and views of that body of gentlemen. Now, that was an assumption to which he must altogether object. He asserted most unreservedly the supreme authority of Parliament to deal with this question of issue, not as a private right, according to the astonishing doctrine which had been suggested, but simply on principles of public policy and justice tempered, as these were ill the action of Parliament, by regard to the fair and equitable claims of individuals. When this Bill was introduced he found himself at once placed in communication with a body known as the Committee of the Association of Country Bankers; and he found on the part of that body, in the first instance, a very great apprehension with regard partly to the direct and partly to the indirect effects of the measure. He found also, he was bound to say, not only the greatest intelligence and the highest honour, but likewise, as he thought, a spirit of prudence and moderation by which alone in a country like this such questions could be adjusted. There was on their part a great anxiety to avoid the evils which they were inclined to anticipate from the indirect effects of the enactments of this Bill. They said they feared the Bill might be considered as involving a new legislative declaration that private issues were to be extinguished, and that they would be extinguished at the time to which the Bill pointed. He stated with respect to private issues what he believed and what Government believed to be the evident sense and intention of the Act of 1844. He would not repeat it now; it had been several times referred to in the debate; hut he also stated this—that they did not seek to obtain any new legislative declaration on the subject by the present Act, but left the principle of private issues precisely as it stood under that Act. Then he was asked whether it was intended at the close of the term proposed by the Bill that the issues affected by the Bill should necessarily lapse and come under the operation of the Act of 1844. He replied that what appeared to the Government wiser was that they should cease to exist on their present footing—that he did not seek to obtain a declaration from Parliament in 1865 as to whether it would or would not in 1879 allow these issues to pass over to the Bank of England or recognize the continuance of them in the hands of local agents; but what the Government did seek was to put an end, as far as these notes were concerned, to what might be termed a Parliamentary monopoly, under which a privilege was secured to particular parties by a certain statute, for he agreed with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) that it was a statutory power rather than a right, under which paper money passed from hand to hand through the country for the benefit almost exclusively of private individuals, and without that security to the note holders which under any just and sound system ought to exist. There was a perfect understanding between the Committee and himself as to the aim and contemplation of the Bill. It was then requested that he would introduce into the Bill a notice to be given to the parties in order that preparation for the change of the law might be made. It was represented that that notice would be of the greatest convenience to the parties, because if that were not given they would not be aware what the question was in the view of the Government, whereas if it were they could make their own preparations. Words were introduced into the Bill providing for such a notice, and these words were in a conditional form—that if notice should be given then such and such results should follow; and it was perfectly understood that the words were never intended to countenance private issues on their present footing. He would now come to what took place on going into Committee. What took place in the Committee was this. On the eighth clause he stated to the House that the conditional words were not intended to continue private issues on their present footing. Those conditional words were adopted exclusively on the ground that it was not usual to lay down in statutes by authority of Parliament any direct enactment fettering the future discretion of Gvernment. On that occasion Member after Member rose from behind these Benches, from below the gangway, and from the opposite side of the House every one of them agreeing upon the very form of the Amendment then introduced. Among hon. Members opposite who advocated that view he might mention the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard) and the hon. Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote). The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Heygate), himself a country banker, remained silent in his place, and by that very silence consented to the suggested alteration. It would have been totally impossible for him to have resisted the authority of the Whole House of Commons, especially as those who might reasonably be supposed to be most interested remained perfectly silent while this pressure was brought to bear upon him. If he had divided the House, he would not say that he would have gone into the lobby alone, but he would certainly have been accompanied by a minority, and that a reluctant one; and therefore he had deferred to the wishes of the House, in respect to what really amounted to little more than a verbal alteration. In one sense the words might be an improvement, but in another they were not, because it was not usual with the Legislature to put mandatory instructions into a Bill of that kind. He found, however, that in the minds of many with whom he communicated there existed apprehensions, and honestly entertained, as to the effect of the change which had been thus unanimously adopted in the presence and knowledge of Gentlemen themselves connected with country banking, and those apprehensions he felt it his duty to remove. It was stated to him that the alteration conveyed the impression of an absolute declaration on the part of Parliament that at the end of the specified term of years the power of issue should be extinguished so far as those banks were concerned. The words, therefore, which he had now to propose for insertion in the preamble were as follows:—

"And to fix by law a time whereat the present statutory right of issue on the part of bankers obtaining such exemption shall determine, in order that either their issues may become subject to the enactments of the Bank Act of 1844, hereinafter mentioned, in respect to lapsed issues of bank notes, or that Parliament may make further provision concerning them as it shall think fit upon grounds of public policy."

In his opinion it was no part of their duty at that time to enter into any consideration as to what might be right as between those two questions, either as to the mode of placing them in the hands of a central issuer, or giving the right to the public as opposed to monopoly. He had been complimented by an hon. Member in the course of this debate upon the patience which he had exhibited in connection with this question. He might safely say that he grudged no sacrifice of time if such a sacrifice could by any means tend to advance Parliament towards the attainment of a sound system, which they certainly at present did not possess. He had, therefore, trusting to the patience and the indulgence of the House, made it his duty to make or accept any suggestions which might be received without detriment to that object. He must say that the proposal of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cobbold) appeared to him to be made for the express purpose of introducing vagueness and uncertainty into the provisions of the Bill. It was partly the fault of the hon. Member himself that the clause had been altered—for if those Gentlemen who now regretted that alteration had only on the former occasion risen in their places, and said that they preferred the original words, he should have stood by them. He might, however, Bay that if these discussions had led to the disclosure of a latent impression that those conditional words would be the means of utterly nullifying the intentions of the Bill, he could not help feeling that it was exceedingly satisfactory that that impression had been brought to light.

said, he did not rise to support the proposition of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cobbold) because he felt bound in honour to abide by the decision which had been come to on the matter. His recollection of what took place in the Committee differed from that of the right hon. Gentleman, and he must say that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was a most extraordinary representation of very simple facts. Now, what was the history of the clause which had been amended so many times? He would venture to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he had agreed to a certain form of words upon the 10th of April, but that the country bankers and the public found, upon the printing of the clause, that the form so agreed upon had not been adhered to.

said, he must deny that any such agreement had been made.

said, he had a printed tasement to the effect that such on agree- ment was arrived at. Upon May 1 the House went into Committee upon this Bill, and for his silence upon that occasion he wished to give some explanation. He was at that time ignorant of his position as a country banker in reference to this Bill. He had taken no part in the discussions of the country bankers when they proposed a modification to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer assented, but he disliked the Bill from the first, and felt himself to be free to oppose it. The feeling of the country was not, as the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) seemed to think, hostile to the bank issues, and in that House, beyond the hon. Gentlemen who were called "the Members for the Bank of England" (Mr. Goschen, Mr. Thompson Hankey, Mr. K. Hodgson, &c), who sat behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard), and a few currency doctors, he did not believe that this measure for extinguishing those issues had any supporters. The first result of the agreement between the bankers generally and the right hon. Gentleman was the issue of a circular announcing the withdrawal of all further opposition. He, believing himself to be free to act as he pleased, came down to the House and made some observations on the scope of the measure before going into Committee, but when the Bill had got into Committee he did not care what was done with it, as he regarded the proposed legislation uncalled for and of no advantage to the public. He did not feel himself called upon to keep the Chancellor of the Exchequer to his engagement. The right hon. Gentleman upon that occasion ought to have told the Committee that his was an important Amendment, part of a solemn arrangement, upon the faith of which opposition to the Bill had been withdrawn. That, however, was not done, and the Bill passed into Committee. He admitted that he had been culpable in one respect, that he had not previously exactly ascertained the extent to which he was bound by the Bankers' Association; but feeling now that, although not present, nor taking part in the arrangement, he was bound by it, he should not seek to repudiate it. He would remark, however, that the modification proposed in this clause must be an important alteration, whatever might be the exact meaning to be put upon the words, or the opponents of the country issues would not be so eager for the clause in its altered form, and in any case the Association of Bankers were entitled to the letter of their bond upon the faith of which they withdrew their opposition. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) he must say that he had never claimed for the country issuers an indefeasible right to issue notes. All he had ever said was that he believed it was a privilege which had endured for a long time, which had not been abused, which was appreciated by the public, and which it was not necessary to destroy. The question was one surrounded by difficulties, and before the system was disturbed the whole subject should be fully and maturely considered, and not dealt with in the present fragmentary manner. He repudiated the doctrine that this privilege gave the issuers the power to tax the public, and was strongly of opinion that the Bill was an unnecessary unsettlement of a state of things which was beneficial to and approved by the public.

said, he wished to say a word or two to vindicate himself from a charge of having broken faith.

said, he assured the right hon. Gentleman he did not intend to impute to him any breach of faith. What he had stated was that somehow or other, accidentally or otherwise, the clause was not printed in the shape it was agreed on between the committee of bankers and the right hon. Gentleman.

said, the hon. Gentleman might not have meant it, but in a former speech he made the charge. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) ought to have told the Committee that this was an important Amendment and alteration proposed in consequence of a solemn compact, and that if it were not agreed to he must withdraw the Bill. But his own distinct opinion when the Bill was in Committee was, that there was no difference substantially between the form of words urged by the majority of hon. Members and that agreed on with the Bankers' Association, and for that reason he had not felt it right to insist upon the latter.

said, the House had some reason for not being quite satisfied with the way in which this question had been dealt with, for the Bill in a great degree had been worked outside the House. They were placed in this position, that a certain kind of engagement had been come to of which the House knew nothing. The House, of course, had a perfect right to deal with that agreement as it pleased, and it was for the Government to abide or not by the agreement as it thought fit. It was clear from the alterations now proposed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had some such feeling.

said, he proposed the alteration to satisfy apprehensions honestly entertained by many respectable gentlemen.

said, he presumed that the Bill was re-committed in order to make some alteration in the construction of the Bill. It appeared to be purely a struggle between the bankers on the one side and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) on the other to try whether they could get some curious sort of word in or out of the Bill which might in some way or other fetter the action of Parliament fourteen or fifteen years hence. It would be much better to let the Chancellor of the Exchequer cook the Bill that night as he chose, and then let it be printed, that the country might see what it was like. The "sons of Zeruiah" were quite strong enough to take care of themselves. The House, of course, had nothing to do with the negotiations which had taken place, and was perfectly free to do what it thought best for the country; and it might be a matter for grave consideration whether it would not be the best thing to kick the concern out altogether.

said, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had taken the House rather by surprise. It was not within the memory of man that a great interest like the banking interest should be dealt with so suddenly without some sort of previous inquiry. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether so large an interest as the bankers issuing private notes should be dealt with without inquiry by that House. He knew the great power of the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not think the people of England would be perfectly satisfied with his power or his intelligence without full evidence and information being given about this matter. He was told that the sudden restriction of the issues of the private banks at the end of fifteen years would act as a restriction on the mercantile and manufacturing interests of the country. In the town which he represented there were three banking establishments, and at the end of fifteen years there would be an end of them. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER made a gesture of dissent.] The right hon. Gentleman might shake his head, but he had seen a great many heads shaken on the Treasury Bench. For instance, Sir Robert Peel shook his head when he told him that the increased tax which he was imposing would last his lifetime. At the end of fifteen years the issue of these banks would be at an end. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Certainly; but you said the banking establishments.] The issues, of course, was what he meant. These banks did their business among people whom they knew, and on a different system from that of the Bank of England, which the right hon. Gentleman wished to introduce. He knew the centralizing propensities of the right hon. Gentleman, and his wish to get rid of the private banks. The measure would give power to the central Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman hoped to be a Member for a long time hereafter, and he hoped he might be. Such a great change as this ought not to be made without inquiry, on the mere authority of the right hon. Gentleman. The great majority of the banks were against the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had had communications with the Bankers' Committee, the remnant of the Committee appointed in 1844 consisting of four bankers, but that Committee was repudiated by the bankers, and that very day the bankers of the North had held a meeting, at which they had come to a unanimous resolution to oppose the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had no authority to pass such a Bill, and he hoped it would not be passed without inquiry.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to have overlooked altogether the fact that this was a permissive Bill. If the bankers of the North thought it was not for their interest they might reject it, and leave the bankers of the South to reap all the advantages of it. If the right hon. Gentleman had introduced a compulsory general measure then there might have been some force in the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments that it ought to be preceded by a most careful inquiry. It was said that this Bill was intended to abolish private issues altogether, but there was a great deal of confusion between putting an end altogether to private issues and putting an end to them on the footing on which they were at present. Many Members on both sides of the House believed that the footing on which the private issues stood was unsound and might be very much improved, and there was no reproach in wishing to improve what was unsound. He did not wish to pledge himself to the opinion that private issues ought to be altogether abolished; that would be a fair subject for future consideration; but he saw no reason why they should not in the meantime endeavour to remedy an acknowledged evil. Many people seemed to labour under the impression that by that Bill some special advantage was to be secured to the Bank of England. But he believed that was an entire misapprehension. The Bank of England would derive no benefit, either present or prospective, from the operation of the measure. It should be remembered that there existed this difference between the Bank of England and private issuers, that the Bank issued on the security of deposits; that it paid a portion of its profits to the State, and that it published a weekly statement of its accounts. He would ask the representatives of the bankers whether they would submit to the same conditions; and if they did, then he would be prepared to say that their business was conducted upon a sound footing. At present, however, they enjoyed a monopoly, and that monopoly, he thought, ought to be abolished in order that the entire system should be recast. What object was to be achieved by substituting the word "may" for "shall" he could not see. Foreigners never could understand the distinction between our "shall" and "will," and now the House was to be told that "may" and "shall" was practically the same.

said, he thought the Bill had got into that unfortunate state which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) was in the habit of calling a "brangle." He was opposed to interfering with the complicated machinery of the banking of this country unless he heard of a proved grievance, and in this case he had heard of none. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of the negotiations between himself and a committee which he said he had every reason to believe represented every country bank in England. It appeared, however, that the majority of the bankers, as soon as they heard of the agreement come to between the committee and the right hon. Gentleman, said that in coming to that agreement the committee had acted ultra vires, as it had not been authorized to make any terms, but simply to see the right hon. Gentleman with the view of inducing him to withdraw the Bill. However, that was now beside the question, for the agreement entered into with the committee had not been kept. If he were to offer any advice to the hon. Gentlemen who were taking an active part in opposing this Bill, he would tell them not to be introducing a new difficulty by moving an alteration of "shall" into "may" but to move the rejection of the Bill on the third reading.

said, he wished to correct a mistake into which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) had fallen with regard to the Bankers' Committee which had negotiated with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The remnant of the Committee of 1844, to which he had referred, had resigned, a new Committee had been formed, and he believed that that Committee which had been in communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in no way exceeded the powers with which they had been invested. The history of that Committee was as follows:—At the general meeting of the country bankers a Committee was appointed, consisting of six gentlemen who represented the private banking interest, and of six others who represented the joint-stock interest, and he did not think it would be possible to constitute a Committee with more formality and regularity. The meeting consisted of between seventy and eighty country bankers, and the Committee was empowered to communicate with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to obtain certain Amendments in the preamble of the Bill, and the substitution of the word "may" for the word "shall." So desirous was the Committee to discharge its duty and arrogate no power to itself that notice was sent to the country bankers, which gave them time to appear in person or to state by letter whether, in their opinion, the proposed Amendments ought or ought not to be adopted. The Resolution was formally carried, though by a small majority no doubt; but it had the authority of the Association, and it was as binding as if all the members of the Association had been present. Therefore, the Committee, having been appointed to discharge certain duties, entered into an engagement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the majority having passed that Resolution, they ought to abide by the engagement with the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Members for Warwick and Leicester (Mr. Greaves and Mr. Heygate) had stated that they felt bound to abide by that engagement. He thought that if any attempt were made to defeat the Bill on the third reading every hon. Member ought to know what had taken place on the occasion to which so much reference had been made.

said, he wished to ask whether he should be in order in calling the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Clause 5, which assumed that as the law now stood there could be but six partners in a bank of issue. In point of fact, by an alteration in the law two or three years ago, the number of partners permitted in a bank of issue or not of issue was increased to ten.

said, that as the Bill had been re-committed on Clause 8 and the preamble only, the hon. Member could not refer to any other clause.

said, that as one of the members of the Committee of Bankers he had entered his protest against the Resolution referred to, and therefore he felt himself at liberty, notwithstanding what had been said by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Paull), to adopt any course he might see fit in reference to the question now before the House. He totally dissented from the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what occurred the other night when the alteration was made in Clause 8. He had not been present the other evening during the discussion; but he was informed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had at once assented to the alteration suggested by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) without referring the matter to any other party. Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House had kept silence because they thought themselves safe in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, and therefore it scarcely became him to reproach them with not having stood up in their own defence. The Bill had become greatly involved and inextricably confused, and the country bankers must now oppose it most strenuously. When it came on again for discussion next week he hoped that the country bankers would meet it with one unanimous burst of opposition. At the present moment, however, no purpose would be served by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cobbold) being pressed, which should be withdrawn.

said, he would assent to the suggestion which had been made that he should withdraw his Amendment, but in doing so he would state that because he was present and silent on a former occasion it did not make him an assenting party to the proceedings; and he would also state that he was justified in having given notice of this Amendment. He would take the opportunity of correcting a misunderstanding which appeared to prevail as to the grounds upon which a large proportion of the country bankers opposed the Bill. In no instance had any advocate of their claims put forward those claims as a right, but simply as a matter of public policy. When the Bill again came on he should move the insertion of the words, "Shall be determined."

said, he did not object to the proposed Amendment.

said, he wished to suggest that instead of "shall determine" the words should be "shall be determined."

said, he must decline to accede to the suggestion, because the adoption of that form of words would imply that the rights were not terminable at the present moment.

said, that the words of the preamble were no part of the Act.

said, that according to that argu- ment you might insert words in the preamble which were merely nonsensical. [Mr. ROEBUCK: You may.] With great submission he had understood—[Mr. ROEBUCK: You are wrong,] He had not the prevision or second sight of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who declared that he was wrong before he had heard what he was about to say, but he had always understood that though the words of the preamble are not efficient to alter existing laws the preamble sometimes was consulted in order to arrive at the true construction and intention of a statute.

said, that he spoke as a lawyer, and lawyers always held that the preamble had nothing whatever to do with the enactment.

said, that if the words of a clause were clear and unambiguous it was not necessary to consult the preamble, but if there was any difficulty as to the interpretation of a clause, lawyers invariably resorted to the preamble in order to ascertain its true construction.

, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that in 1862 a Select Committee of that House was appointed to inquire into the existing state of legislation with respect to and into the existing arrangements for the protection of life and property against fire in the metropolis. The Report of the Committee first made it generally known to the public that the London Fire Brigade engines which were to be seen attending all the fires in the metropolis were considered to be connected with the Government, or with the municipal authorities, had, in fact, no official status whatever, but that the Brigade was merely an arrangement originally instituted by one insurance company in the metropolis, and subsequently carried on by other companies for the protection of their own interests; so, however, as also to render assistance in the protection of life and property against fire, without reference to whether it was insured or not. The Select Committee made it clear that this establishment was, as regarded its staff, engines, and stations, wholly inadequate for the efficient protection of the entire metropolis and the suburbs. They said in their Report—

"The present scale of staff engines, and stations is utterly inadequate for the general protection of London and its vicinity from fire. This is admitted by the managers of the brigade, but as they consider it efficient for the protection of that part of London where the largest amount of insured property is located, they have no desire to I add to their expense by placing additional stations in situations where, if a fire occurs, it is I not likely to cause so much injury to the offices as if it occurred in the water-side, or warehouses in the City."

This being so the Committee directed their attention to find a substitute for that state of things. They made three recommendations. First, that a fire brigade should be formed under the Commissioners of Police, on a plan to be approved by the Home Office, and that the Act requiring parishes to maintain engines be repealed; secondly, that an account of the expenditure should be annually laid before Parliament; and thirdly, that the area of the new fire brigade should be the same as the area of the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works. After that Report it became clear that the Government must deal with the matter; and that it was thenceforth impossible that it should be left in the hands of insurance companies, who might at any time abandon their brigade. Indeed, in 1862 the companies gave notice to the Home Secretary of their intention to abandon it. The sum necessary to maintain the brigade had risen from £8,000 to something like £25,000 per annum, and they considered that it might be better for them to abandon the brigade and to raise the rate of insurance if necessary rather than to continue so large an outlay. Negotiations had taken place between that time and the present, between the Home Secretary, the companies who maintained the fire brigade, and the Metropolitan Board of Works, and these negotiations had resulted in the Bill which he now asked the House to read a second time. The Bill was founded upon a very careful estimate of the expense required in order to have a really efficient fire brigade for the district, under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Secretary of State had placed himself in communication with Captain Shaw, the chief officer of the Fire Brigade, and the result of the communication with him and with the insurance companies was that a scheme for the protection of the metropolis from fire, at an expense of £50,000 per annum, was formed, and received the concurrence of the insurance companies. The next point was how the £50,000 per annum should be raised, and the basis of the arrangement contained in the Bill was that a rate not exceeding a half penny in the pound should be raised within the metropolitan district, and at the same time that the Act of 14 Geo. III., under which parishes within the weekly bills of mortality and also some others in the metropolitan district were bound to keep fire-engines in a state of efficiency should be repealed. Most parishes had not complied to the full with the Act. No doubt they relied to a very great extent upon the London Fire Brigade; but if they had complied with the provisions of the Act they would have had to raise their expenditure far above what it was at the present moment. Added to this, it was obvious that a number of detached fire-engine establishments belonging to parishes in different parts of the metropolis must be far less efficient than one establishment, able to concentrate all its force upon anyone fire which should require a great force to extinguish it. The small additional rate which would be put upon parishes would be compensated, therefore, by relieving them from the statutory burden which they now bore. The Committee of 1862 said that one parish—that of Hackney—kept up a very efficient fire engine, in accordance with the statute of George III., and that the cost of that fire-engine was £500 per annum, which was precisely a halfpenny in the pound upon the rating of the parish. The same would happen in other parishes if they carried out the statute, so that they would thus incur a burden of a halfpenny per pound, the same as was proposed to be placed upon them by this Bill. The second source from which the £50,000 per annum would be made up was a rate of £35 per million upon the amount of insurances in London, which sum the insurance companies would pay. The Bill proposed that this rate should be levied upon all the London insurance offices. He believed that there were one or two of these which had not contributed to the maintenance of the brigade; but it seemed to him quite fair that those offices should pay the same as the others. The third source of income for the maintenance of the new fire brigade would be a sum of £10,000 yearly, an amount which the House had already voted out of the Consolidated Fund, as a contribution in aid of the brigade. Some discussion had taken place in Committee upon that Vote; but he thought that the Committee were satisfied that the large amount of Government property in the metropolis made it proper that they should contribute to the fund out of the public revenue. One of the great deficiencies of the present fire brigade was its want of strength upon the river Thames. At present they had only one efficient and one inefficient engine upon the river; but under the new arrangements there would be three efficient engines there, and if the House would consider the amount of Government property upon the banks of the river they would feel that the £10,000 a year was not too much for the Government to contribute. At Deptford there was the Victualling Yard; at the Tower, the War Office Stores; and there were also the Custom House, Somerset House, the Government of India Stores near Hunger-ford Bridge, the buildings at Whitehall, the Houses of Parliament, Millbank, the Clothing Stores at Pimlico, and the Barracks and Hospital at Chelsea. Then as to the property of the Government not upon the banks of the river There would be new fire stations at Woolwich, Greenwich, near the British Museum, Temple Bar, St. James's Palace, Buckingham Palace, Kensington Museum, and Chelsea; so that great protection would be afforded by the new brigade to Government property throughout the metropolis. It was proposed that the Metropolitan Board of Works should undertake the management of the Brigade. It was perfectly true that the Committee of 1862 proposed that the fire brigade should be placed under the Commissioners of Police; but, upon considering the subject, it appeared to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that it would be preferable, as a matter of principle, that the new brigade should be under the Metropolitan Board of Works. The brigade was to be supported by a rate extending over the metropolitan district; and it would seem that the ad vantages of putting the brigade under the control of the Commissioners of Police were not so great as might at first sight appear, for those serving in it required a greater amount of training than the ordinary policeman, as well as training of a different description. It must also be borne in mind that the proposed area was identical with that one over which the Metropolitan Board of Works exercised jurisdiction, while it was not identical with that under the control of the metropolitan police, which did not embrace the City of London, from which representatives were sent to the Metropolitan Board. There was another point alluded to by the Committee upon which he wished to say a word. In the city of Manchester the fire brigade was maintained partly out of the police rate, and partly by fines levied upon persons who had fires upon their property. The Committee considered the propriety of levying these fines, but they came to no conclusion upon it. It appeared to him, however, that as the fire brigade was to be principally maintained by a rate it would be very hard that those whose property happened to be on fire in addition to the rate should pay a further tax, and that at a time when they could perhaps least afford it. There was another strong reason against imposing this fine. A most important thing for securing the extinguishing of fires was that there should be no concealment; that so soon as a fire broke out there should be no scruple in at once calling for the assistance of the brigade to put it out. Imposing a fine, however, gave great inducement to conceal fires in the hope of extinguishing them without calling for aid. He could quite understand that the insurance companies should he anxious that the system of fining should be adopted, because it tended to increase insurances. There was only one other point which he would notice, and that was the clause with reference to fire-escapes. It was proposed to give the Metropolitan Board of Works power to make arrangements for having fire-escapes. He believed that the Royal Society for the Protection of Life from Fire deserved every credit for the manner in which they had placed fire-escapes in different parts of the metropolis. It was far from the object of the Government to interfere with them by the present Bill. Still it was a work which probably could be more efficiently and economically carried out in connection with the fire brigade. Therefore it would have been satisfactory to the Government if they could at the same time have placed fire-escapes under the same management as the brigade, and thus have relieved a volunteer society from the performance of this duty. Unfortunately the £50,000 a year was only sufficient for the maintenance of an efficient fire brigade, and insufficient to make fire escapes part of the system. However, the rateable value of property in the metropolis would of course increase, and possibly the number of insurances would increase in consequence of recent legislation, and, therefore, it might be in the power of the Metropolitan Board of Works, m a few years time, to take fire-escapes under their charge. This being so, power was given by Bill to the Metropolitan Board of Works to purchase or take, in such form as they might agree with the Royal Society, their plant and staff of fire-escapes. He proposed, also, to insert a proviso to enable parishes—as he believed it was the wish of many of them to do so—to continue their contributions in aid of the Royal Society for the Protection of Life from Fire. It would be necessary to add certain words at the end of Clause 30 to enable this to be done. He felt that the object of the Bill was one of very considerable importance. The property in the metropolis was estimated at £900,000,000, and there were over 1,400 fires in the year, or about four every day. This showed the importance of establishing a proper and efficient brigade. There were as many fires in the metropolis as in Paris, St. Petersburgh, Vienna, Berlin, New York, and Philadelphia, put together, and they had increased from 438 in the year 1833 to 1,400 last year. Although, therefore, the existing fire brigade had given the greatest possible satisfaction to the public, although it had been commanded by one so highly respected as Mr. Braidwood, and was at present under the orders of Captain Shaw—an officer who had fully upheld its high position, and whose services he hoped and understood would be continued under the new system—being yet a force which was maintained exclusively by the insurance companies, and might at any moment be dissolved by them, it was of the utmost importance to establish a fire brigade of a permanent character. He hoped the House would agree to the second reading of the Bill.

said, though he approved of the scope of the Bill which had been very clearly stated by the hon. Member, he had doubts upon the manner in which the brigade was to be managed. They were about to cast another tax upon the ratepayers of the metropolis, and to relieve the wealthy and enterprizing body of the insurance companies at the expense of the public. Now, some doubts might arise as to whether there ought not to be some provision introduced into the Bill to make those companies contribute to some extent to the maintenance of that which they themselves had hitherto maintained at their own special cost. The Metropolitan Board of Works were not a body sufficiently long in existence to be intrusted with the management of this brigade. Nothing analogous to such a body had the charge of putting out the fires in any foreign metropolis, hut the Government themselves attended to the matter. The Board of Works acted as a sort of independent and not very businesslike body, which professed to manage its affairs in a manner not known to any Department in the State, and, perhaps, the result of the transfer to them of these new duties would necessitate a series of dejeuners and dinners. Sewers such as they had constructed were no doubt great works, well worthy of admiration, but whether it was desirable or necessary to provide breakfast for 800 persons at £1 5s. or £1 10s. a head on the occasion of the opening of those works—an expense which must eventually be levied on the ratepayers—he felt himself unable to determine. Such a course of conduct made many wish that the Board should become more a part of the local system before fresh powers were placed in its hands.

said, he had to express his satisfaction at the introduction of the Bill. He regretted to find that any person in that House should suggest as a defect in the measure the proposal that the administration of that which was purely a local matter should be confided to those who had been specially charged by Parliament with the conduct of the local affairs of the metropolis. He thought that the reasons assigned by the Under Secretary were conclusive against any attempt to place the administration of the fire establishment in the hands of the police. Formerly, every parish was supposed to provide machinery for extinguishing fires within its own area, but, practically, the parishes were the very worst authorities to whom this duty could be intrusted. The jurisdiction, therefore, had been replaced by another as completely as steam fire-engines replaced the hand-pumps of former times. The re-constitution of the system for putting out fires in the metropolis was a consequence of the re-construction of the body who managed metropolitan affairs. But as they were about to embark on a more efficient and extensive fire brigade, they ought to consider how the great expense was to be raised. The expense was estimated at £50,000 a year, but it must be more than that if the brigade was to be efficient. It was said that there were £900,000,000 of consumable property in the metropolis, but that was an extravagant estimate, and half the amount would probably be nearer the truth. The exact sum insured at £35 per £1,000,000 would not produce more than £10,000 a year, so that they were going to relieve the insurance companies of a sum of £15,000 a year. If the charge were simply put upon the capital insured, the property creating great risk would only be charged at the same rate as that which created no risk at all. The proper mode of computation was by a percentage on the premium paid, and then every person would pay according to the risk he occasioned. But then it was said that by adopting such a principle the provident man alone paid, while the improvident man escaped. He entirely subscribed to this objection. If they wanted to raise a fund by taxing combustible property, it ought to be imposed equally and alike on that which was and that which was not insured. In this point of view the measure was at variance with the views accepted by the House in the last Budget, and which had now become part of their fiscal system. The Under Secretary for the Home Office (Mr. T. G. Baring) objected to a scheme of payment which would include both insured and uninsured property, because he said if a fire broke out in the house of a man who was not insured he would conceal it instead of raising the alarm. It was difficult to say what a man would do under such circumstances, but the House ought to consider what was just to all classes of the community, and if a man were fool enough to let his house burn down rather than communicate with the nearest fire brigade station he ought to be allowed to do as he pleased. Manchester, which had an admirable brigade, had set a wise example, and one which ought to be followed. When a fire took place in that city the person in whose premises it occurred was compelled to pay a considerable sum as a contribution towards the fire brigade, whether he was insured or not. Instead of the Bill having in it a clause imposing a penalty of £1 whenever a chimney was on fire, there should be a well-considered scale of payment to be made in case of fire by the owner or occupier of the property, not as a penalty, but as a sum that he might be legitimately called upon to pay for the assistance he received from the fire brigade. If the rule prevailed in the metropolis the contributions would be repaid by the person in whose premises the fire occurred out of the money paid by the insurance company. [An hon. MEMBER: How can he pay it if his house is burnt down?] He did not know. How could the man rebuild his house? The very fact that he would be called upon to pay a contribution to the fire brigade would induce a man to insure. If 1,400 fires took place every year, a sum of £8,000 or £10,000 might be raised in this way without oppressiveness to any one. He hoped it would be understood that the Parliamentary Vote would not be withdrawn. In making an arrangement of that kind some distinct guarantee ought to be given that this payment was to continue, or otherwise some gentleman from the country might one day raise an objection, the Vote might be dropped, and the metropolis might be left without the money. As to the rate, it must be borne as inevitable, although it was not of the most just character, because it was only on the house and not upon the goods contained in it, so that the valuable goods in a warehouse would pay nothing, although the building was the least feature of the risk, and that for which the fire engines were of the least possible use. That was a difficulty which the House would have to meet sooner or later; but there were besides that several of the details which must be carefully considered when the Bill was in Committee.

said, he did not agree with the idea of relieving those who had no fires at the expense of those who had the misfortune so to suffer. He objected strongly to the proposed payment by the Government of £10,000 a year, as it was a local question, and ought to be met by a local rate. In all these matters relating to the metropolis there appeared to be a vital error. It was thought that because it was the metropolis it ought to have support from the public revenues; but there was not a city in the realm that would not be happy to give something to have the Government establishments there. The Government proposed to contribute one-fifth of the expenses of the new brigade, but the value of the Government buildings in the metropolis was not nearly a fifth of the value of all the buildings in the metropolis. Therefore the Government, at the expense of the country generally, would contribute by far too largely to the support of the brigade. Let the Government property pay this rate like all other buildings in the metropolis, but do nothing more.

said, that as a Member of the Select Committee that sat on the subject of the Fire Brigade, he wished to observe that he did not complain of the scheme which the Government had proposed, though be thought it strange that they should have entirely contravened the Report of the Committee. The Committee unanimously recommended that the brigade should be placed under the control of the police authorities; but though there were two Members of the Government on the Committee, they put no questions, nor examined any witnesses with a view to show that it was desirable that the brigade should be put under the direction of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had alluded to the excellent way in which affairs were managed in Manchester. In Liverpool, also, matters were managed well, and there the fire brigade which worked efficiently was in the hands of the police. He did not complain of the Vote of £10,000 from the public funds; but be would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that in the city which he represented (Dublin) there was a very efficient fire brigade, and there were several important public buildings, and a small contribution would be useful. It had transpired during the investigation of the Committee that it was in the mercantile portion of London that the greater number of fires took place, and it was there that the most numerous stations of the brigade were established. In other parts of the metropolis occupied by the residences of private gentlemen the stations were sparse. It was proved before the Committee that there was no adequate protection for life and property in many parts, such as Belgravia and Tyburnia, and he trusted the Government would give more stations in those districts. He did not oppose the Bill, but must repeat that he thought it strange that upon such slight reasons as those stated by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baring) the Report of the Committee in nearly every point should be entirely contravened. What the House had most to complain of was the delay which had taken place. The Committee reported in 1862—it was not till 1865 that the Government had introduced their scheme, and no adequate reason for the delay had been assigned.

said, that the insurance offices were to make over all the plant, stock, and engine-houses of the fire brigade, as at present constituted, to the new brigade, without any compensation, and that was a very handsome contribution on their part. It would still be their duty, at their own expense, to protect salvage. He approved placing the brigade under the management of the Board of Works, which would have greater facility in collecting the rate. The police ought to be confined to their proper duties—namely, the protection of life and property, and not be obliged to look after fires.

said, the origin of the present Bill was, that the insurance companies had given notice that they would not continue their establishments and staff, and, therefore, the question of what was to be done became imperative. He had had occasion to consider the question very much. He entirely disapproved the employment of the police, and he was not prepared to say that this was not the best scheme that had been proposed; but he was afraid that the control of the Metropolitan Board of Works would not prove satisfactory. That Board consisted only of forty members, and they had undertaken works of the most gigantic character, and been intrusted with the most unlimited powers of taxation. He felt that, looking at the experimental nature of the works they were carrying on, looking at the fact that they already taxed the metropolitan districts to the extent of £6,000,000 a year, and that a good many people believed these experimental works would prove a total failure, they ought not to be intrusted with further taxing powers, being still a comparatively untried body. At all events, the Government ought to look to the constitution of the Board and see whether their number was sufficient for the work. If the forty members of the Board were cut up into several committees, it might be found that they would not be capable of discharging their new duties. He objected to any penalty being imposed upon people who had the calamity of their property being destroyed by fire.

said, that no doubt, ere long, the number of the Metropolitan Board would be increased and a more direct mode of election adopted. He should like to ask the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Vance), who wanted a contribution towards the fire brigade of that city, whether the amount raised by licences for public-houses and other similar taxes was not paid into the coffers of the municipality, which thus had a large sum at its command for fire brigades and other municipal purposes. Nothing of that kind was received by the City of London, where the expenses were very great for lighting, watching, paving, and such things, for the benefit of those gentlemen who came from Dublin or the country to enjoy themselves. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary, either that the Government should provide a fire brigade for its own safety or contribute towards one established in the metropolis. He did not think that the sum of £10,000 was at all too much, when they considered the vast amount of property in the metropolis belonging to the country. lie thought the same principle should apply to Dublin, Edinburgh, and any town in which there was a large amount of Government property. He did not think that persons who had the misfortune to have their houses burnt ought to be called upon to contribute largely to the support of the brigade, but it might be advisable to levy a small tax upon them. The Committee, of which he was a Member, found it very difficult to arrive at a definite conclusion on this subject; but the Government had now produced a plan which, he believed, would give general satisfaction to the House.

said, that he had been informed that in Dublin the money for licences to public-houses did not go to the municipal corporation funds. When the question arose in Dublin he was in favour of placing the brigade under the police instead of the municipal Board.

said, the proposition of the Government varied from the Report of the Committee in two respects—as regarded a contribution to the support of the brigade from persons whose houses had been on fire, and as regarded placing the brigade under the Metropolitan Board of Works, instead of the police. The Committee were unanimous in their recommendation that the brigade should he under the control of the police; and the same unanimity pervaded the witnesses, who all rejected the idea of subjecting it to the authority of the Board of Works. With regard to the former point he offered no objection to the Government proposal, as he made some such proposition in the Committee, and it was only lost by the casting vote of the Chairman; but with regard to the second point, he adhered to the unanimous opinion of the Committee and the witnesses, which was in favour of placing the brigade under the police, as in Manchester and Liverpool, where the system had worked well, and not under the Board of Works, which had not the general confidence of the public.

said, he was a member of the Committee, and had always opposed the scheme for placing the brigade in the hands of the Commissioners of Police. There was another matter which took the present Bill entirely away from the arrangements suggested by the Committee. It had been assumed by the Committee that it would not be consistent for them to assume any arrangements with the insurance companies; but if the brigade were placed in the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works they would be able to make the insurance offices, as well as the Government, parties to this measure. In his judgment the proposed scheme would work remarkably well. At present the insurance offices had their chief stations in the heart of London, where most property was accumulated, and one advantage of the Government plan would be that the stations would be more fairly distributed through the metropolis. He believed that the Bill was an excellent one, and that its principle was sound, though its details might perhaps be improved in Committee. He might observe, that under the Fire Act every parish was bound to provide the means of extinguishing fires, but the Committee ascertained that many of the engines belonging to parishes were no larger than garden engines.

And all of them out of order.

, as Chairman of the Committee which had inquired into this subject, said, that though he was of a different opinion, he now thought that the Metropolitan Board of Works would be likely to carry out this arrangement most efficiently. One reason was that the police in London were divided into the Metropolitan and City forces, and the conflicting interests which thus existed would effect the proper working of the force. The scheme was really the same as that existing in Manchester, where the corporation undertook the whole arrangement, just as here the Board of Works managed the affairs: of the metropolis. It was most important that the Government property in the metropolis should be protected, and it was not unreasonable that there should be a contribution from the public funds for the purpose. As to the insurance offices, they were not relieved altogether; and besides, they had offered to give up the whole of their plant. But what Parliament had to do was to see that there was an efficient fire brigade without reference to the insurance offices. The Metropolitan Board of Works were here similar to the bodies which managed the fire brigades in the great provincial cities, and even on the Continent. As to the suggestion to make a permanent provision for the brigade, he would remind the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) that no permanent provision is made for the police or the army.

said, he objected to the mode in which the County Court Judges had been treated. Their work had constantly been increased, and would receive still further additions by this Bill. It was true that an addition to their salaries was proposed in the present measure, but it took the objectionable form of fees instead of a fixed salary; and as the superannuation allowances for County Court Judges were determined on the amounts of their fixed salaries, there appeared to be, as far as he could see, no provision for any increase in their superannuation.

said, he was anxious to take the earliest opportunity of thanking Her Majesty's Government for the introduction of this Bill, which would effect a greater improvement in that branch of the administration of justice which more immediately concerned the labouring and many of the middle classes than any measure which had for a long time been brought before the House. At the same time he entirely agreed with what had been said by his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Craufurd) as to the insufficiency of the remuneration of County Court Judges. Their claims had been on more than one occasion altogether disregarded in that House, though there had been, he believed, a contrary disposition in the House of Lords. Although all the highest authorities had desired to do them justice, objections had always been raised, emanating, as it was supposed, from the Finance Minister, or those who regulated the administration of the finances compromises had been come to, and Bills involving the question of the proper remuneration of these Judges had never had fair play in either House of Parliament. There was within Her Majesty's dominions no more important or more useful, no more hardly worked and badly paid class of men than the County Court Judges, and he hoped that the House would at last be able and be willing to do them justice. He hoped that a sufficient interval would be allowed before the Bill went into Committee to enable the House to receive Returns upon which might be framed Amendments to the system of paying the County Court Judges an additional remuneration out of fees, which, as proposed by this Bill, appeared to him to be the worst that the wit of man could have devised. If no other Member proposed such Amendments, he should himself give notice of them, and he therefore hoped that the House would not be asked to go into Committee until after Whitsuntide.

said, he did not oppose the second reading of the Bill, but objected to the 13th Clause. As that clause was originally framed the Judges were not to receive additions which would raise their salaries to more than £1,600 a year, while as it now stood the additions were not to exceed £300 a year, so that the salaries of those Judges who now received £1,500 a year might be raised to £1,800. He also objected to the equal distribution of the fees among all the Judges, so that the Judge of an agricultural district, upon whom comparatively little extra labour might be imposed by this Bill, would receive as great an addition to his salary as would the Judge of one of the populous districts in Lancashire, upon whom it might impose a very large amount of extra work. He did not concur in the mode proposed of paying additional salaries by fees. It was not desirable that suitors should feel that they were paying the salaries of the Judges, and he should prefer that the amount be charged on the Consolidated Fund.

said, that although he did not intend to oppose the second reading of the Bill, he could not give it so cordial an approval as his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Suffolk (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) had done. He entertained considerable fears as to its working, and grave doubts as to the expediency of having a number of small Courts of Chancery all over the country. It was most important that the County Court Judges should not be overloaded with work, because if they were the whole system would break down. At present they could only try actions at law up to £50, and why their jurisdiction in equity should be extended to £500 he could not understand. The cases involving actions at law were simple indeed compared with those which involved equity. In the former case it was generally a simple question whether a man should or should not pay a debt There were two reasons for the existing limitations—one, that the courts were not of so high a character that they ought to decide questions of great importance, and the other that it was necessary that they should deal only with such cases as could be easily and speedily disposed of. By this Bill it was proposed to give them jurisdiction in all matters of foreclosure and redemption, enforcing liens or charges upon land, and bills for specific performance, without saying anything as to the pleadings to be adopted or the modes of trial to be followed. These classes of cases, espe- cially those for specific performance, were difficult and often lengthy, and he was afraid that if they were to be tried in the County Court by Judges who were often only a single day in one place, they might interfere with the arrangement of business and break down the whole system. He hoped that when the House went into Committee on the Bill his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General) would enter into a careful consideration of the subject. He for one did not think it was desirable that the jurisdiction to be given under the Bill should be so extensive as was proposed. There should be no such jurisdiction, he thought, in those cases in which the property involved amounted to more than £200.

said, that if the Bill were to become law, it would be necessary to consider the position of the registrars of County Courts, with the view of securing that they should possess some legal qualification. They should be either barristers or attorneys. In answer to the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Suffolk (Sir Fitz Roy Kelly), who had laid it down as a doctrine to be universally adopted, that persons ought not to pay fees who had recourse to a court of justice, he would observe that he entirely dissented from that view. Suitors went there for their own benefit, or through their own fault; and when the County Courts were first established, a pledge was given that the fees should be commensurate with the whole expense of those courts.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had misunderstood him if he thought he objected to the imposition of fees. What he had stated on the subject was that the salary of the Judge should not depend on the chance sum taken for fees.

said, he wished to know whether any attempt would be made to establish a scale of fees, as had been suggested by Lord St. Leonards, in another place, for cases of small value in the Court of Chancery.

said, in reply to the remarks which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) in reference to specific performance, that it must be borne in mind that the principle on which County Courts were established at all was that it was better to administer rough justice than none, and to have questions settled—as far as possible—without having the property involved eaten up, as was frequently the case in the Court of Chancery. As to the regulations which should be laid down concerning bills and pleadings, he had no doubt that as many forms as were found to be necessary would be adopted. On the question of payment he might observe that it was not the fact that the County Court Judges were not to be paid upon the principle of equality, though he admitted that the payments for the extra duties were not to be certain, but would depend upon the amount of the additional work done by each Judge.

said, he was surprised to find the Government would not accede to the insertion of a clause (of which he had given notice) to repeal an old act of the Irish Parliament, forbidding the use and possession of certain kinds of dogs, unless the owner had £100 a year real property. He, however, would not divide the House, and left upon the Government the responsibility of retaining such a disgraceful law.

said, he moved to omit Clause 21. It gave an arbritrary, unconstitutional, and inquisitorial power, not only to a magistrate, but to every constable of police in Ireland.

said, the proposal of the hon. Member had been disposed of by a large majority the other evening, and he therefore thought the clause ought not to be objected to now.

said, he thought it unreasonable to press this Motion after the division and majority against it the other night, but the clause, he must admit, was rather loosely worded.

said, the clause was one which would not be tolerated for a moment in England. As it stood any man who kept a dog would be liable, if he were going to a dinner party, to be pounced upon by a policeman with the demand, "Where's your licence?"