, who had given Notice that he would move as an Amendment that the Bill be re-committed, said before he made his Motion he would like to offer a few observations upon the Bill generally. The Bill was confessedly not founded on principle, but belonged to a class of measures which was becoming exceedingly common in their legislation, and was based upon a compromise between the varied interests of those affected by it. The Bill had been very much altered in Committee. In fact, hon. Members had been entirely bewildered by the course of the Government in the conduct of the Bill. He had heard Amendments which, in his opinion, were logical and clear, repelled and rejected; while others, which were illogical and confused, were accepted. The result of this kind of legislation would be that when the Bill became complete it would present the appearance, not so much of a law, as of a treaty. It was couched, not in the clear and accurate language which laws ought to be expressed in, but in the less accurate language which was the characteristic of treaties. The advocates of the workmen understood it in one sense, the employers in another. The Government understood it in a third sense; and when questions were raised for the consideration of the Courts of Law, they would, probably, understand it in a fourth sense. That being the character of the Bill, he was not surprised that the last stage in Committee should have been taken at 3 o'clock in the morning, when the public would not be able to learn of the extremely illogical arguments that were used. That Bill, as introduced, was intended to apply only to persons engaged in manual labour, domestic servants, clerks, timekeepers, watchmen, and other persons not actually engaged in manual labour, though associated with manual labourers, being thrown over as a sop to the employers of labour. Their exclusion arose from the fact of their not being sufficiently powerful to induce the Government to include them in the Bill. But when the stage of Report was arrived at, the powerful class of railway employés, who were not employed in accordance with the original intention and scope of the measure, procured the assistance of certain Members of the House, and brought so much influence to bear upon the Government as secured the making of certain concessions in their favour. The first concession they obtained was upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley); and that was that, in the case of railway servants, the employers should be liable, not only for the class of servants for whose acts the employers in other industrial occupations were liable, but that they should be liable for persons having charge or control of signals, points, locomotive engines, and trains—which arrangement, he contended, was imposing upon the Railway Companies a special and peculiar liability in the interests of the railway servants. The second concession was obtained at 3 o'clock on Saturday morning last, by which the Bill was extended not only to railway manual labourers, but to clerks, watchmen, guards, and others, who were excluded in the case of other employments. He was glad that this concession had been made to the railway servants; but it was very doubtful what was the effect of the change. In the first place, a Court would have to define what was a "railway servant." Were station-masters, for instance, to be left out in the cold? He wished also to point out that this concession would not apply solely to the great Railway Companies; it would apply equally to colliery owners, dock companies, and other persons who used private railways and sidings for the purposes of their business, and was, therefore, in his view, a defect in legislation which could not be allowed to pass without protest. Those hon. Members with whom he generally acted took a very independent view of the Bill; they did not represent any particular class or interest, but were contending for even-handed justice. As far as he and his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) were concerned, they certainly did to an extent represent the Dockyard and Arsenal employés; but his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) and his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. Balfour) were, to a large extent; the Representatives of the agricultural interests, and their sole object was to prevent the passing of a defective measure. He could not conceive on what principle of justice persons associated, as errand-boys, timekeepers, clerks, and in other capacities, with the manual labourers should not be entitled to compensation for injuries received in the same accident that would entitle the manual labourer to make a claim upon his employer. There were many cases in which injustice would be done by the Bill as it stood. In a theatre, for instance, where most dangerous work was carried on, the stage-carpenter and scene shifter would be in a position to claim compensation for injuries caused by the negligence of the manager; but the actors and ballet-dancers would have no such claim, although the cause of their injuries was precisely the same. Having made these general observations upon the Bill, he came to one class of persons of workmen who were omitted by the Government deliberately from the Bill; he meant the workmen in the Dockyards and Arsenals throughout the country, and upon his Motion on their behalf he meant to take a division. He would like to call attention to what had happened. In Committee he moved a new clause upon this subject for the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms), who was prevented by illness from moving it himself; and had he not been ruled out of Order by the Chairman, he believed he should have had a majority in his favour. As it was, the Chairman ruled that he could not put the new clause, and he had to submit, as he had no right of appeal, though, in his opinion, the ruling was wrong. Therefore, he was doing now what he should have done at an earlier stage; and for this the Government were alone to blame. In resisting the extension of this Bill to the workmen in Dockyards, the Government had recourse to the old argument of the Prerogative that the Crown could do no wrong; but could that principle be seriously allowed in this case? Under the Merchant Shipping Act the Government was liable to pay compensation to a powerful and wealthy shipowner, if he sustained injury by reason of the negligence of one of the Crown officials in reference to the detention of a ship. If the Government were to be liable to a shipowner for the wrong done by a Board of Trade Surveyor, why should they not be equally responsible to the Dockyard labourer for the wrong done by a shipwright? If the Government proceeded on the idea that the Crown could do no wrong, and denied the workmen their rights under this Bill, they would establish a flagrant instance of applying one principle to the rich and another principle to the poor. If the Dockyard labourer had been as powerful in that House as the shipowner he would have received consideration. It had been urged that the workmen in the employ of the Government Departments were at present compensated by the charity of the Government to a larger extent for injuries than they would be entitled to if included in the Bill. This might, or might not, be the case; but it did not affect the question. The workmen in Dockyards, however, did not ask for charity, but for justice. What they asked for was not that they should be dependent upon the charitable action of the Government concerning them, but that they should have conferred upon them the same legal right to compensation which it was proposed to give to workmen in the employ of private individuals and firms. In conclusion, he begged to move that the Bill be re-committed, in order that the Amendment, which stood in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, and who was absent from illness, might be added to the Bill.

considered that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was quite correct in saying that his criticisms on the Bill were impartial: but his impartiality had gone the length of raising every possible objection, reasonable and unreasonable, which could by any possibility hinder the House from passing this Bill. The hon. and learned Member was wrong in saying that this Bill would not apply to boys. It applied to everyone, whether under or over 21 years of age, who had made any contract of service, because the definition clause of the present Bill included the definition clause of the Employers' Liability Act of 1875. [Mr. GORST dissented.] The hon. and learned Member shook his head, but that was no refutation of what the statute contained; and he (Mr. Bradlaugh) had seen the hon. and learned Member so often wrong in the course of this discussion that he would adhere to his own view of the matter. He entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Member that Dockyard labourers in Government employ should, when injured through the negligence of those exercising superintendence over them, be entitled to compensation; and if he could believe that the hon. and learned Member was bringing forward this proposal in the interest of those persons, and not for the purpose of defeating the Bill, he should be prepared to vote for the Amendment. As, however, he believed that the hon. and learned Gentleman was actuated solely by the feeling of preventing legislation on this subject, he should vote against the Amendment.

said, he was at a loss to understand why hon. Members should indulge in uncharitable observations with regard to each other. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh) was going to vote against an Amendment which he believed to be right in principle, because he had a notion that another hon. Member was acting against his conscience. The Bill itself was a most peculiar one; but he and those who sat with him had honestly striven to improve it. Yet, after all the labour which had been bestowed upon it, and all the time devoted to its consideration, the Bill would stand as a monument of extraordinary English, in consequence of the Government fearing to adopt any Amendment which had proceeded from the Opposition Benches. He considered the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham was founded on justice, and he should vote in its favour.

remarked, that the Government had no wish to stop further discussion on the Bill, and he had no complaint to make of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham in moving his Amendment. He must, however, remind the House that the same topics relied upon by the hon. and learned Member had been urged against the Bill on its second reading, on going into Committee upon it, and upon the Report; and the arguments of the hon. and learned Member had been answered over and over again. The hon. and learned Member said that he objected to the Bill because it was evidently the result of a compromise. Of course it was, because the Government had endeavoured to follow the middle course between maintaining the law as it now stood and adopting the Bill of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald). It was asked what the Government intended by this Bill. Well, certainly they did not intend to accept the principle laid down in the Bill of the hon. Member for Stafford. What they did intend to do was to apply the principle of this Bill to the great industrial trades in which the workmen ran great risks, and that principle had received the sanction of the great majority of that House. The second principle involved in the Bill was that the employer should be liable for the negligence of those whom he appointed in his own place to superintend the work in which the workmen were engaged. The right to compensation conferred by the Bill was exceptionally extended to the case of railway servants who were injured by the negligence of those who were engaged in different work, although in the same employment. That was no compromise, as it had been called, but a simple act of justice to a class of men peculiarly circumstanced. With regard to the case of the Dockyard labourers, the Government would have gladly accepted the proposal of the hon. and learned Member had they felt themselves in a position to do so. The hon. and learned Member was wrong in saying that the Government had excused themselves from accepting the principle of his Amendment on the ground that they gave more in charity to the injured labourers than the latter would obtain if they were included in this Bill. Government workmen received benefits which no other workmen received; but these were regulated not by the charity of the Government, but by the contract which they themselves made when going on the Establishment, as it was termed. The labourers, who formed the large proportion of the workmen engaged in the Dockyards, received pension by compensation in case of disability caused by their own negligence or the negligence of their fellow workmen, and those workmen who were not engaged on the Establishment received life-pensions in such cases. That was a matter of contract, and, therefore, if they carrried the Amendment, they would have to alter and re-adjust the whole of the contract; under which the labourers in the Dockyards were now employed. Not only so, but the pensions and compensations to which they were now entitled would be taken away. The Dockyard labourers received no charity from the Government. They received so much weekly wages, and so much in case of injury, and the Government would not dare to take away the contract and promises without re-adjusting the wages of the men. Therefore, he protested against the hon. and learned Member saying that he appeared there on behalf of the workmen to ask for justice. A stronger ground of objection to his Amendment was that if the Dockyard labourers were included in this Bill they would obtain nothing at all in case of injury, for the scope of the Bill was simply to place the workman in the same position with regard to compensation for injury as if he were a member of the outside public; and it was a principle of the Constitution that not even a stranger could recover compensation for injuries sustained through the negligence of the Crown or its servants. The hon. and learned Member, however, sought to place the Government Dockyard labourer in an exceptional position, more favourable than even that of a stranger, and to give him statutory rights against the Crown which nobody else would possess. He was not going on that occasion to discuss the soundness of the wide principle that the Crown could do no wrong; but if that principle were to be modified it should be modified generally, and not merely as regarded a particular class of Government servants. On the grounds he had stated he must oppose the Amendment.

thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had fallen into one or two errors. He doubted whether the Established hands formed anything like so large a proportion as the hon. and learned Gentleman stated of the men employed in the Government Service. He doubted, in fact, whether they constituted more than one-third of the whole number employed, and the remaining two-thirds were deserving of consideration. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the workmen entered the Service under a contract. There was no contract entered into by them; but they entered the Service on the understanding that Established hands would be entitled to superannuation. What he had to complain of might be illustrated by a well-known case which he had brought before the House. On the 9th of August, 1875, on the third reading of the Appropriation Bill, he brought forward a claim for compensation for the relatives of two unfortunate men who were killed through the consequences of the explosion of a Palliser shell. The shell was being filled, and the place chosen for the operation was the Cap Factory—a place filled with men, women, and children. One of the men killed had been for 20 years in the Arsenal; he was 40 years of age, and was a good hand. At the time of his death he was receiving 47s. a-week as a foreman, and had he retired the day before the accident occurred he would have been entitled to a pension of 14s. 5d. a-week. His widow received a gratuity of £49 and a compassionate allowance of 7s. 10d. a-week. The other man was 42 years of age, and had been 25 years in Government employ, and his widow received a gratuity of £40 and an allowance of 5s. a-week for the maintenance of three children. In each case the allowance was about half that which they would have been entitled to if they had retired the day before the explosion took place. Had they been under the clause now proposed, he found, as the result of a calculation he had made, that the foreman's widow would have been entitled to £450 instead of £40, and the widow of the other sufferer would have received £260. Now, that was the grievance they had to provide against. The grievance was admitted, and they complained that the Government, having the opportunity in their hands, refused to deal with it. He thought that was the more to be deplored, because what they asked for could be conceded without detriment to the Service. He should vote for the Amendment.

said, Her Majesty's Ministers had of late years widely extended the sphere of their manufacturing operations. They had largely trenched upon the industry of his constituents in the manufacture of small arms by erecting manufactories of their own; and he would remind the House that before the last great war—the Crimean War-—in which this country was engaged, this House, in opposition to the views of the Government of the day, compelled them to commission his constituents in Birmingham, and the London arms trade, to supply the much-needed weapons for that war, and the Government afterwards admitted their surprise at the manner in which his constituents fulfilled their contracts, both as to the quality of the arms and shortness of time in which the supply was furnished. But the Government had now, by the use of their own factories, largely trenched upon the employment of his constituents in Birmingham, and proportionately extended their exemption from the operation of the Bill which was now before the House. This exemption would extend also to factories employed for supplying clothing for the Army and Navy, and over the foundries and factories for supplying cannon and ammution for both Services—the Naval and the Military. Hitherto he had striven to limit the operation of the Bill by excluding mines of all kinds, particularly coal mines, from its operation. In this and in previous attempts to amend the Bill and to assist its operation, he had supported Amendments proposed by some of the ablest and firmest of the supporters of Her Majesty's present Ministers. They turned a deaf ear to the suggestions of their own supporters connected with mineral property, and ruthlessly urged their compliant majority against them. They would hear nothing, though able arguments were urged by their able supporters, proving that the Bill was ill-adapted to the mineral industries. He, therefore, should now vote for the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham. They, the Representatives of the coalowners, had urged that it was a dangerous employment, and that they were at the mercy of their subordinates, and that the compensation and penalties under this Bill would expose them to undue risks and penalties. Now, what had the House just heard from the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Boord)? That a shell was exploded, and killed two men in the Government manufactory; that the Government awarded the widow of one of these men, whose wages were, he thought the hon. Member said, 50^*. a-week, the sum of some £40; while, if that Government factory had been under the operation of this Bill, the widow would have been entitled to £400, or 10 times the amount which the Government actually awarded to that poor widow. He said not then whether the Bill was a good Bill or a bad Bill; but he asked the House with what truth, with what equity, could the Government affirm that the workmen in their employment were, in a pecuniary sense, the better off for being excluded from the operation of the Bill? Then, much had been said of the different position of the operatives and labourers in Government employment, some of whom were not on what was termed the Establishment. The mineowners contemplated a system analogous to that which was termed the "Establishment" for the operatives employed in the Government factories and arsenals. They desired to effect this by a system of mutual insurance, to comprise employers and workmen, similar to that which provided the means of maintenance for those who had suffered from any accident whatsoever in the collieries of the North of England, where this system had for years worked well. But Her Majesty's Ministers absolutely refused all legislative countenance to that system of insurance, which, by combining the workmen with the employers in its administration, afforded the best security against negligence on the part of either. The right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of this Bill set his face against any recognition of this tried and beneficial system of insurance, but countenanced the idea of coalowners founding a system of insurance among themselves which would exclude the operative miners and colliers from its compass. The right hon. Gentleman had thus countenanced a system of insurance on the part of the mineowners which must defeat in great measure the penalties of this Bill upon neglect on their part, and the operation of which would, in consequence, be adverse to the intention of this Bill, so far as it was directed to the punishment of neglect, of carelessness of the lives of their workmen on the part of the employers—he meant the owners of mines and collieries. The coalowners, who were supporters of the Government in that House, then strove to induce the Government to exclude collieries and mines from the operation of this Bill, because it had become manifest that mines and collieries, and all connected with them, forming as they did a distinct interest, peculiar in its circumstances and necessities, needed specific and separate legislation. But Her Majesty's Ministers used their majority to reject the proposal. If the hon. and learned Member for Chatham divided the House, he should vote with him to include the Government Establishments under the Bill, the operation of which upon other interests, and especially the coalowners, they seemed determined to ignore.

said, it was all very well to find fault with the measure, and he did not think it was a complete measure; but what they had to take into consideration was this—that the Bill was a far more liberal measure than they could have reasonably hoped for six months ago. He had, of course, supported every Amendment that would have extended the scope of the Bill; but the Bill having reached this stage, he could not support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham. The House had made up its mind as to the general lines of the Bill, and it would not go further at present. There was no reason why the House should not in a few years return to this subject and complete the work by abolishing altogether the doctrine of common employment. That House was naturally a timid House when dealing with questions affecting the interests of capital, and they could not expect it to grow into the manhood of liberality all at once. At the same time, he noted with pleasure the change which had come over the feeling of the House of Commons in reference to this question during the last few years. Five years ago there was hardly a score of Members who were prepared to give any kind of justice to the workmen in this matter; and if the marvellous progress it was now making continued, he saw no reason why some Members of the House might not, before this Parliament closed, reasonably ask it to carry out in principle the proposal of the Bill of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Maedonald). Now, however, the lines of a great and important measure were settled, and he thanked the House for the manner in which they had dealt with it. It was full of difficulties from the commencement; and he felt indebted to the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench for the determination they had shown to remain firm to their original proposal in the Bill. He had no fear that this Bill would inflict wrong on capital; and, on the other hand, he had a firm conviction that it would do a great deal of good to the working people of this country. He did not apprehend that workmen would be able to obtain large sums in compensation for injuries they had received; but he did anticipate that the effect of this Bill would be to bring about greater care and supervision on the part of employers. And if that should be the case, then this Bill would have accomplished all the objects which they had in view in promoting it in Parliament.

trusted that he might be allowed to say a very few words upon this Amendment, as the question raised by it was one of great importance and some difficulty, and no opportunity had been hitherto afforded of discussing it. He regretted very much that the Government could not see their way to accepting some change in the direction indicated by this Resolution. At present, some workmen under the Crown were compensated under an Act of Parliament, others under a Treasury Minute. But the Treasury Minute was not a contract entered into with the men. They had no legal rights under it. If it could not be withdrawn without breach of faith towards existing workmen, it certainly might be withdrawn in the case of new engagements. There was no security to the workmen that the Minute would be continued. If the proposed change was made there would be no real difficulty in re-adjusting the terms of the contracts with the men, for this simple reason—that no contracts, so far as regarded compensation, would be needed, if the men were brought under this Bill. The only re-adjustment requisite would be, if thought necessary, a re-adjustment of wages. The hon. and learned Attorney General said, and said truly, that it would not be sufficient merely to bring the men within this Bill as it now stood, because the principle of the Bill was to put workmen on the footing of strangers in respect of recovering compensation against their employers, and strangers could not recover damages against the Crown. But if the principle, which he (Sir Henry Holland) urged upon the Government, was right—namely, that workmen employed by the Crown should be put upon the same footing as other workmen—it would not be difficult to give effect to that principle by altering the Bill; as, for instance, by enlarging the definition of "employer," so as to include the Crown. He was quite aware that no change could now be made in that House; but he trusted that when the Bill came under consideration in "another place," that some alteration would be made, so as to put working men under the Crown on the same footing as other working men.

said, he entirely concurred in the principle of the proposal moved by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), and very much regretted it had not been accepted by the Government. In any case, however, he hoped that before long a measure would be brought in placing workmen under the Crown in the same position in these respects as other workmen. He did not see that any object would be gained by continuing the discussion. The Bill, as it stood, was in one sense a failure, and they had heard again and again that it would only apply to one-fifth of the accidents which happened in employments throughout the country. It was certain that the question would not rest with this Bill; and as it would be necessary at a future time to provide some system of insurance to meet all accidents, he hoped the present debate would not be prolonged.

said, he saw no reason why the Government should exempt themselves from a liability which they wanted to impose on other employers in the country. It was said that if the Government workmen got these rights they would lose other privileges they now possessed; but the same argument used against the Bill in the case of private employers was not received by the Government. He should support the Amendment; but would express the hope that the House would be spared the trouble of dividing by the Government giving some assurance that on some day they would take up the subject of the Amendment.

wished to point out what, as it appeared to him, would be the effect of adopting the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham. He understood that under this Bill a workman, under certain circumstances, but not under all circumstances, would by process of law obtain from his employer compensation in the event of an accident befalling him in his employment, or his widow in the event of his being killed. He wished the House to clearly understand what was the existing state of things as between the Government and the persons who were employed in the manufactories, Arsenals, or Dockyards. The proposal made a short time ago, that the Amendment should not apply to Established men, was now given up, and the proposal now was that the change should apply to all workmen in the Dockyards, whether established or not. The present state of things was this—that an Established man, who might be injured to the extent of total disablement, might obtain from the Treasury, whatever the cause of the accident might be, a pension to the extent of not more than 5–6ths of his emoluments. It would not be at all unreasonable to capitalize that at 15 years' purchase; but even taking it at 12, the value would be equivalent to 10 years' wages; whereas by this Bill he would only obtain compensation which would be an equivalent to three years' wages. Sup- posing he was not an Established man, the condition in that case was that he might get 45–60ths—that was, 3–4ths—of his emoluments for the time being. Taking that in the same way at 12 years' purchase, he would get as a maximum nine years' wages; whereas, if this Bill was applied, he could only get l–3rd of that amount. So again, with respect to the widows. They might get no more than 8–60ths of their husband's pay; and, assuming 15 years as a reasonable value of that pension, it would be equivalent to two years' emoluments; and, in addition to that, they would get an allowance for their children. What they were asked to substitute for those liberal allowances was something much less; and that only in certain cases, and always after an appeal to a Court of Law. There was no question that the workmen in the Government employ, if brought under the operation of the Bill, would be greatly injured. He asked hon. Gentlemen who said they spoke on behalf of their constituents to say if there had been a request on the part of those persons to substitute anything like such a proposition? [Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: They dare not make one.] They were not slow to make requests when they had reason for them, as he knew from experience, and he had not been slow in granting them; but there was no wish at that moment to substitute any such provision for the present existing Treasury Minute. And he said more, that the worst friends the Dockyard men could have would be their present Representatives if they succeeded in carrying this Amendment.

asked whether private employers who now assisted in insuring their workmen in all cases of accident were expected to follow the Government example, and, if the Bill were carried, to withdraw their subscriptions? He most earnestly hoped they would not do so; but, if they did, they would only be following the example which the Government declared they would pursue should this extension of the Bill be carried against them. He contended that under the Bill, as it stood, only 1–10th of the accidents which might occur would be provided for; and he trusted that even yet it was not too late for the Government to say that they would deal with the question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham.

thought the House should now agree to the third reading of the Bill, but hoped the Government would introduce a new clause to meet the case.

said, that the Bill, as it stood, included live stock on a farm, and the people who had stockyards were liable to all the penalties inflicted by the Bill. This was inflicting a very serious injury on the farming interest at the present time. He wished that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) were in his place, or that there were someone more competent than himself to represent the farming interest: but it must be obvious to everyone that a very great injury was being inflicted. The hon. Member had written a letter describing some accidents in which the owner of stock would be liable; and no doubt could be entertained for a moment as to the accuracy of the statements made by so good a supporter of the Government, and so practical a farmer. This course was the more surprising on the part of a Government which professed to support the agricultural interest. He was astonished that a Government which had been always professing that they were so anxious to legislate and bring in measures in the interest of the farmers should have selected the first opportunity they could of dealing what, he believed, would be a very serious blow and injury. He hoped, if not too late, that some Member of the Government would exercise some influence on the supporters of the Government in the House of Lords with a view to an alteration of the Bill.

said, that with reference to live animals, the Bill only dealt with the limited class of cases where defects existed owing to the negligence of certain servants in authority. It did not deal with the class of cases to which the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) and the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) referred, unless it could be shown that there was some defect in the animal which arose from a want of care on the part of some servant in authority who had charge of the animal. Of course, he did not deny that there might be some such cases; but, really, they were very far-fetched cases. They were cases against which anybody could insure at the most insig- nificent rate; and he did not believe that the farmers believed the Government were inflicting the slightest injury upon them by this Bill. The farmers were only in the position of other people who had live stock.

said, everyone must feel that the enormous value of the interests affected by the Bill was so great that no time occupied in discussing it could be regarded as lost. He believed it would be practically impossible to maintain the distinction which now relieved the Crown from any liability to any action or claim at law for compensation in case of injury. Though Establishment men in the Government Dockyards had a claim to a pension, that claim was usually interpreted by the Treasury. He believed that the discretion of the officers of the Government in those cases had always been wisely and generously exercised; but there was a difference between that which rested on the discretion of Members of the Government and a claim of right which could be taken before a Judge. It was only in accordance with human nature that men generally should prefer to have what they were entitled to by law, rather than what they could only claim as a gratuity from the consideration of their employer. When he himself was at the Treasury and at the Admiralty he did not regard the Treasury Minute which was settled by his right hon. Friend opposite as a contract between the employers and the employed. The hon. and learned Attorney General had, however, laid it down that it was something from which the War Departments or other Departments were not at liberty to depart—that they must act on that Treasury Minute as they would act on a legal instrument. He was glad that that view was insisted upon by the Attorney General; but he thought it would be very misleading to suppose that the amount of compensation given often approached the maximum referred to by the Secretary of State for War. In practice the sum was frequently reduced by two-thirds, or one-half, of the sum specified as the maximum that might be given. The House must remember that after all this was not a final measure, and he regretted that an attempt had not been made to make it final. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Broadhurst) encouraged the idea of revising this legisla- tion within a few years. But it was to be regretted, as a matter gravely affecting the interests of different industries in this country, that they had before them the prospect of further disturbance in the relations between capital and labour, and of further difficulty in regard to the cost at which it would be possible to produce manufactures and materials. Nothing could be more certain than that, if they imposed new burdens on an employer, the price at which articles could be produced must be affected, and his trade must be more or less disturbed. It was therefore desirable, if they approached that question, that they should do so with a view to its settlement for some time to come. He thought it would have been better to have taken the final step now, and to have abolished the doctrine of common employment, leaving employers to make their own contracts with their workmen as best they could. Then they might have arrived at a state of things in which contracts for manufactures could be entered into, and trade carried on. There would be very great difficulty in stopping short of the final development of that principle; and it would, in his judgment, have been wiser to have considered that question as fully as would have enabled them to reach a final settlement, rather than that it should be taken up again next year, or soon afterwards, thereby causing further difficulty and derangement to industry. It was supposed that every person in employment would, under that Bill, have a security for compensation in the event of an accident occurring through the carelessness of a person in authority. But all who were acquainted with trade knew that a vast proportion of the operations in large works were carried on by subcontractors to the principal employer. He did not know whether it was intended to make the principal contractors responsible for the acts of sub-contractors; but he found nothing in the Bill clearly having that effect. A sub-contractor was probably a man without any means of his own, or one whose means passed away when he had been paid for his work. Another point which occurred to him was that risky operations were very largely carried on by Limited Liability Companies in which the whole of the capital was paid up. Take a gunpowder mill, for example, carried on by such a Company, whose shares were all paid up. If there was neglect, and an explosion occurred, the property was destroyed. There was no Company to be sued; there was no one who was liable; and, probably, the book debts were very small indeed. Perhaps there was a neighbouring powder mill which was the property of an individual, and the first step which the owner would take would probably be also to turn his concern into a Limited Liability Company, and thus defeat the object which the Bill had in view. That subject was a very large one. No amount of attention that was bestowed on it would have been lost; and he regretted that it had been taken up at a period of the Session when it was impossible for many Members to give it that careful attention which its great importance deserved.

thought there was a great deal of truth in many of the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. If it were possible for that Bill to be recommitted, it would be a very good thing to do, and it would be a great misfortune if the Bill were not put upon a footing that would be to some degree lasting. In its present form they could hardly hope that the measure would be a permanent one. It was far from perfect; it could only be received as an instalment. He was convinced that until the doctrine of common employment was abolished they could not hope that the question would be finally settled; it would have to come before the House again before very long. That was due, to some extent, to the very inconvenient hour at which an important part of the discussion in Committee had been taken. He regretted very much that more time could not be secured for the full consideration of the Amendment which he had proposed with reference to injuries to children. At the same time, as a matter of practical politics, perhaps they could hardly have expected the Government to postpone other Bills in order that this one might have received a more deliberate consideration.

animadverted on the exceptional legislation applied by that Bill to Railway Companies, expressing the opinion that, by his clause on that subject, the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley) had conferred on railway servants a very doubtful boon. It was to be feared that the benevolent funds and the large sums of money which the Railway Companies now contributed for the benefit of their servants when accidents or misfortunes overtook them would be withdrawn in consequence of this legislation.

did not know whether his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) intended to go to a division on his Amendment; but he wished to say a very few words on the point which had been raised in the same sense as his right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had spoken. They felt that that matter, which was one of the very greatest difficulty, and which had engaged the attention of the late Government for several years, had been very considerably advanced by the discussions on that Bill. At the same time, they felt that the Bill was by no means in the perfect state in which they could have wished it to pass into law. There was still, he hoped, time for a fuller consideration of some of the problems raised in regard to it in "another place," where, no doubt, attention would be given to the legal points it involved; and it was a great object for them to allow the Bill to pass that House as quickly as possible, in order that it might receive "elsewhere" the full consideration that it still required. It might be a question whether it could possibly, even with that assistance, be put into a form that would make it final; but there was no doubt that it could be passed in a very improved shape. The question raised by the present Amendment was certainly one of great importance and interest. In the position which he lately held he had felt, from time to time, very great difficulty in dealing with the question of compensation to workmen who had been injured in Government employment; and he did not think the ease was quite so simple as it was represented by the hon. and learned Attorney General, who took rather a more legal view of Treasury Minutes than had, perhaps, been usually taken. That was a branch of the subject which required further consideration, and one on which it might be desirable that there should be some legislation. But if there was some legislation upon it, it would demand very careful discussion. He did not think it would be possible for them now to devise, in connection with that Bill, any clause or clauses that would meet the difficulties which had been raised; and, therefore, he hoped that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham would not proceed to a division. He hoped, on the contrary, that he would be content with having done good service by the discussion which he had raised and the valuable opinions which he had elicited, and would now allow the Bill to be read a third time.

said, he did not quite understand the position of this Bill.

Clause 1, that this clause be agreed to.

I understood that the discussion on the second reading of this Bill was to be continued.

I am now in the Chair. I do not know what took place previously; but we must go on in the regular way with the Amendments.

I do not know what position I can take. There was a distinct pledge given by the Prime Minister—["Order, order!"] Well, if I cannot do this, it is a breach of faith on the part of the Prime Minister. I understand——

The only way in which the hon. Member can speak is to move to report Progress. He can do that, if he considers it necessary; but if he does not, we must go on with the Amendments in the regular way.

said, he must certainly move to report Progress, because there was a distinct pledge given by the Prime Minister that a "full and fair opportunity," to use his own words, should be given for the discussion of the principle of the measure. The pledge was given in the most emphatic terms, and was perfectly understood by those to whom it was made; and to go on with the clauses of the Bill at the present moment was a direct and absolute breach of faith. ["No, no!"and a laugh.] Some hon. Members might say "No," and others might think it a laughing matter; but he could assure the Committee that that was nothing to laugh at. One of the largest interests in this country—that of the whole working population—and millions of money were involved. If the question were not large enough to discuss, and that, too, after the direct promise of the Prime Minister, he was utterly at a loss to know what Business should be discussed. The Bill had been on the Paper some 15 or 16 times. There used to be an honourable understanding in the House that when measures affecting particular interests were in hand, they should be put on the Paper at convenient times—when hon. Members representing those interests could be present. It used to be an understood thing that Bills dealing with the money interests should not be brought on at Morning Sittings, for the reason that those hon. Members who were interested in money, and understood financial transactions, found it inconvenient to attend early in the day. The hon. Member for South Essex (Mr. Baring) had complained to him (Mr. Magniac) only yesterday, in regard to that very Bill, that it had been put on the Paper, Morning Sitting after Morning Sitting, apparently with the intention of punishing those hon. Members who were interested in the matter by bringing them down morning after morning. He felt himself trammelled by no consideration for the interests of the Government on this subject, because, about two months ago, certainly six weeks ago, late in the evening, he had an opportunity of asking the Prime Minister after what hour he would not bring on the Bill. The reply was somewhat a sharp one, for the right hon. Gentleman had said that be would bring it on at any time the Forms of the House would allow. Night after night, and day after day, he and other hon. Members had attended in their places to discuss the principle of the measure; and he could not help thinking that the course which had been adopted that day was one that would not commend itself to the sense of justice of the House, and certainly one which would not be found conducive to the satisfactory conduct of Public Business. He, for one, should take advantage of every form the House allowed to protest against the measure being gone on with. He should not have dreamt of taking this extreme course if he had been treated fairly that evening. He would put himself in the hands of the Committee, and ask whether, after a direct pledge had been given to him by the Prime Minister that the principle of the Bill would be discussed, he had not a right to take the course he had described? He felt certain that if the Prime Minister had been in his place the Government would not have insisted upon going on with the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would have known what had taken place with regard to it. There seemed to be an idea in some circles in connection with the Government, he did not know whether in circles permanent or moveable, but, at any rate, somewhere or other, there was an idea that those who wished to have a full discussion upon the principle of the Bill were opposed to its passing. That, however, was contrary to the fact. He did not wish to oppose the Bill; but he did desire to impress upon the Government that it was of the utmost importance that it should be thoroughly well discussed, especially when one remembered that there had been no debate upon the subject for 16 years. Sixteen years ago there was a discussion upon the subject of the Bill—namely, as to the Trustee Savings Banks. The principle of Savings Banks was beginning to be thoroughly understood in Europe, and England was held up as the author and originator of Savings Banks on the present lines. He held, therefore, that it was in the highest degree reprehensible to endeavour, on the 18th of August, to slip through a measure, dealing with Savings Banks, in the noise and confusion of the passing of another Bill on another subject. The course which had been taken by the Government was in direct contravention of the pledge given by the Prime Minister, and was contrary to anything that he (Mr. Magniac) had ever seen in that Souse before; and he, for one, would not allow the Bill to pass without a strong protest.

said, the hon. Member had spoken with considerable warmth; but what really had occurred? His noble Friend the Leader of the House (the Marquess of Hartington) had stated most distinctly, on more than one occasion yesterday and on Monday, amongst other occasions, that the Savings Banks Bill would be taken that morning after the Employers' Liability Bill. He had said that the Employers' Liability Bill was a measure which he hoped would be got rid of in a very short time, so that there would be ample time this morning to discuss the Savings Banks Bill. It was impossible for a more complete and full notice to be given than that which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had afforded to the hon. Member as to when the Bill was to be taken. The hon. Member had said that there was an honourable understanding that Bills having reference to money should not be taken at a Morning Sitting.

I made no such objection as that.

The hon. Member certainly did. He spoke with such warmth that I think he must have forgotten what he did say.

said, he would distinctly assert that he did not say that Bills affecting money should not be brought on at a Morning Sitting. What he had said was, that, as a matter of courtesy, it was understood that in Ways and Means measures' affecting money would not be taken at Morning Sittings.

said, that was what he had stated. Everyone knew that the Bill was to be taken that morning. When the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) rose just now, every hon. Member must have been aware that the Bill then under discussion was coming to a conclusion. After he had spoken, the Bill was read a third time, and the Motion was then put" That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." He (Sir William Harcourt) was present in the House when that occurred, and he was sure other hon. Members also were in the House at the time, and would bear witness that there never was a Motion more deliberately put, because, owing to the accidental absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, there was some delay, much more than was usually the case. Therefore, the statement that this was an attempt to slip the Bill through the House was entirely unfounded. The question was put with much more than usual deliberation. There were two Notices of Motion on the Paper on going into Committee on the Bill; and if the hon. Member (Mr. Magniac) was so very anxious to have a discussion on the principle of the measure, it was surprising that he had not put down a Motion for this stage too. The two hon. Members who had Motions down were in their places when the question for going into Committee was put; but they remained inactive and had not challenged the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." The hon. Member who was now complaining did not do it, as he might have done; and, as there had been no attempt made to hurry the Bill through, he could not see what it was the hon. Gentleman had to complain of.

said, he was not surprised at the course the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) was now taking, for the last time the Bill was brought forward he (Mr. Harcourt) had the honour of speaking to the Prime Minister about it, and of receiving from him a distinct pledge that ample time would be afforded for the discussion of the principle of the measure. More especially was it necessary, because the depositors who were legislated for by the Prime Minister were those who did not so much require assistance. There was a poorer class of depositors which really did require facilities given to it, and opportunities afforded to it by beneficent legislation, and that class was entirely ignored by the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. He supposed, under the circumstances, it would be open to him to discuss the question of the principle of the Bill, and unless the Chairman ruled him out of Order he should proceed to do so.

On the Motion for reporting Progress considerable la- titude is, no doubt, allowed; an hon. Member cannot discuss the principle of a Bill, but only the reasons why we should not at once proceed with the consideration of the clauses of the Bill in Committee. The Chairman has no power to allow a general discussion on the principle of a Bill, as on the second reading, on the Motion to report Progress.

said, that being the case, he would make his observations under the form pointed out by the Chairman. He would, in the first place, point out that, long before the first Notice was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister of his intention to bring in this Bill, he (Mr. Harcourt) had a Motion down on the same subject. The day fixed for that Motion, he believed, was the very first day that was taken from private Members by the Government for Public Business; therefore, he thought he was entitled to some consideration in the matter. It was a mere accident that he was not in his place at the time the Bill came on, because, in common with many other hon. Members, he had thought that the previous Business would last a much longer time than it had done. And now he would give his reasons for thinking that there ought to be more consideration given to the Bill. When it was first brought forward, he and others interested in the matter were surprised that more notice was not taken of the poorer class of investors. Those investors, who were the least able to take care of themselves, had been entirely ignored by the Prime Minister. The question of raising the maximum deposits was discussed, and a provision was inserted in the Bill to effect that object; but not a word was said about lowering the minimum deposits, which was a thing of the greatest importance to the poorer classes. He knew how anxious the Government were at that time of the year to get through with the Business; but, considering the class of persons interested in the matter, he could not think that it was consonant with the feelings of the House to grudge a discussion on the wants and interests of those members of the community who were least able to help themselves. It was all very well to say that matters of principle could be discussed in Committee, as they were told when the second reading was hurried through the House. The Bill was hurried through two minutes before the adjournment, and he was exceedingly surprised to find that such was the case, for he had heard it said just before that the measure was not to be taken that night. Two minutes after that statement, however, it was hurried through the second reading. A measure of that kind had been very much looked forward to by a large class of persons in the country, who were interested in the matter; and they had been in hopes that when the Bill made its appearance it would be of a much more extensive description than the present scheme of the Prime Minister. Everyone who knew anything at all of the matter was aware that the Post Office required great reforms before it could be said to be adequate to the position which they hoped it would occupy for the encouragement of thrift amongst the labouring classes. He (Mr. Harcourt) believed the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General had the interest of the labouring classes at heart as much as anyone else. The encouragement of thrift amongst these classes was a point of special importance in connection with this Bill. The other questions with regard to the increase of maximum and total deposits were questions more affecting bankers and the better classes.

I must call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that it has been distinctly ruled that no discussion can take place on the subject of clauses and Amendments that will subsequently come before the Committee. I observe that the hon. Member has a clause on the Paper, on which we can fully consider the subject he is now discussing. When we come to that clause he will have an opportunity of discussing the matter at any length he considers necessary. The hon. Gentleman is precluded by previous rulings from considering the subject of Amendments that have yet to come before the Committee.

said, he would obey the Chairman's ruling most implicitly. Hitherto there had been very little difference in the nature of Postmaster Generals, whatever side of politics they might happen to belong to. He had attended deputations which waited on one Postmaster General, and he had in his hand copies of the replies which had been given to such deputa- tions by previous Postmasters General; and there was such a pleasing similarity between them all, that he was forced to believe that a printed form was kept at the Post Office for the use of successive Postmasters General. As it had been ruled that he was not to go into the details of the Amendments on the Paper, he would content himself with saying that he hoped, when they went on with the clauses, that facilities would be given for enlarging the scope of the measure and facilitating investments by the poorer

hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Magniac) would withdraw his Motion. He could assure the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. E. W. Harcourt) that he had carefully considered every one of the suggestions he had made to him. Some of them, he would be able to show, he had already carried out; but he would reserve all observations with regard to them until the clauses came under discussion. All he wished to say with reference to the advantages of the Post Office Savings' Banks, he could say as well when the scheme came on as he could now.

only wished to say one word, and that was with reference to the Motion for reporting Progress. The hon. Member who had moved the Motion complained that time had not been allowed him to bring forward a Motion upon which it would have been competent for him to discuss the principle of the measure. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had corrected him, and had declared that more than the usual time had been given for the bringing forward of such a Motion, owing to the fact that the Chairman of Committees was, unfortunately, not in his place when the Employers' Liability Bill was disposed of. Well, he (Earl Percy) begged to corroborate what the hon. Member who had made the Motion had said, for, not knowing the stage at which the Bill had arrived, he had believed, from the action taken, that the measure was already in Committee. It was true that some delay had occurred in the Chairman of Committees taking the Chair. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that any lapse of time that could occur between the Motion being put—"That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair"—and the discovery, so to speak, of the Chairman of Committees, had nothing in the world to do with the matter. The question was, what length of time was there before Mr. Speaker declared, "The Ayes have it?" Mr. Speaker having made the declaration, it did not matter whether the Chairman of Committees was present or not. Nothing could alter the statement from the Chair.

said, he had been referring to the delay that took place before the Motion was made, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." Mr. Speaker himself had remarked upon the delay, for he had put the Question to the Treasury Bench—"Is no one going to make the Motion that I do leave the Chair?"

said, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the delay which the hon. Member (Mr. Magniac) could have made use of for bringing on his Motion occurred through the difficulty in finding the Chairman of Committees. He could only speak from his own recollection; but having come fresh into the House, he had thought, from what had occurred, that the Bill was already in Committee. If the Government would take important measures at that period of the Session, they must necessarily get into this state of confusion—confusion which was complained of quite as much on their own as on the Conservative side of the House, and which could not tend to the promotion of Business.

said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Magniac) had thought he (Mr. Monk) was rather amused at the tone in which his hon Friend had spoken, and he certainly was, because he could confirm most distinctly what the right hon. and learned Home Secretary had said—namely, that Mr. Speaker, when he put the Question, paused a considerable time, and looked round him, before he said, "The Ayes have it." It was, therefore, perfectly clear that neither the hon. Member for South Essex (Mr. Baring), nor the hon. Member for Oxfordshire) Mr. E. W. Harcourt), were in their places. It was perfectly competent for the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) to have opposed the Motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the Chair, and he could have spoken as long as he pleased. There was no hurry whatever in the Motion being put by Mr. Speaker, and every Member of the House had an opportunity of speaking, if he chose.

said, he was exceedingly sorry that this Bill had been again brought before the Committee. It had been already considered once, when the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) had made a strong attack upon it on the side of the bankers. It was not, however, at all on the side of the bankers that he (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) would speak. He looked upon this as a great national question, and if he ventured to offer any observations, it was on behalf of the community at large. Looking at the interests of the depositors, and the general character of our financial arrangements, there was no standing ground for the measure.

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman cannot speak against the general principle of the measure on a Motion in regard to our proceedings in Committee.

said, he was speaking to the point. They had not had an opportunity of discussing the principle of the measure. He had been anxious to speak on it in the first instance, and he thought he had a right to speak on it. He was barred from it by the general proceedings of the House. He wished now to say why the Bill ought not to proceed further. Was not that in Order?

The hon. Member would be in Order in moving a Resolution to the effect on Report; but, in Committee, the question is with regard to the clauses of the measure.

would say then, at once, that some of the clauses and Amendments that were proposed he did not agree to, and on that he would base his observations. He would begin with this—there were two points involved in the measure; one was—["Order, order!"]—he was speaking, not as a Party man at all, but on behalf of the character of our legislation; and if the Members of the Administration would not hear him, he had no remedy but to sit down. If the Government would not listen to argument and fact, and would allow legislation to be carried on in that way, he was condemned to a silent seat in the Committee. That was not the purpose for which he was sent there. He had thought he was sent there to take part in the work of legisla- tion. If the Government would hear hear him, he would speak; if not, he would remain silent. Well, there were two or three points he wished to refer to on that Bill—one having reference to the National Debt. The measure was not warranted by the facts; but it had been assumed in its introduction that there was a deficiency in regard to the Trustee Savings Banks of £3,500,000. ["No, no !"] A certain Return had given the amount as £2,800,000, and he wished the Government to give further information on the subject.

rose to Order. He was very sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. G. Hubbard); but he did not think he could be aware of the actual proposal before the Committee.

I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the time to make a Motion to discuss the general principle of the Bill is on Report. I have not the power, as Chairman, to permit a general discussion as to the principle of the measure in Committee. Already the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. E. W. Harcourt) has assented to the ruling of the Chair, that any discussion on Amendments or clauses must be taken when the Amendments and clauses come on.

I will resign myself to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I will say what I can when I can.

said, that every hon. Member was aware, and no doubt the Government were perfectly aware, that the Prime Minister had made a distinct pledge to him. Everybody was aware that, for the past two months, there had been Motions on the Paper by two hon. Members; one by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. E. W. Harcourt), and the other by the hon. Member for South Essex (Mr. Baring). When the Employers' Liability Bill was declared to have been read a third time, there was considerable confusion. As to that, he was sure no one would contradict him. There was considerable movement on the Treasury Bench; some were standing, others were sitting. As soon as the Motion was made, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," he (Mr. Magniac) got upon his legs ready with a Motion; but the confusion on the Treasury Bench was such that Mr. Speaker did not see him. The Motion was made from the Treasury Bench by an hon. Member sitting in his place, and, as far as he knew, that was not a proper way for the thing to be done. Any hon. Member might have been doubtful as to what was being done; but if the Motion had been made by an hon. Gentleman standing, it would have been a signal to hon. Members that new Business was coming on. He must protest against the way in which he and others had been treated with regard to this Bill. But, as the conduct of the Business of the House must be the first consideration, he would ask leave to withdraw the Motion. That, however, did not alter his opinion as to the conduct of the Government in the matter. A distinct pledge had been given to him, and that pledge had been broken.

said, he was present when the incident referred to took place, and he would venture to suggest a reason for the misapprehension which existed. He thought the title of the Bill—that was to say, the Order of the Day—was not read by the Clerk at the Table in the usual course. There was a little confusion at the time, and he (Mr. W. H. Smith) had addressed himself to the opposite Bench, asking what Bill was to be taken. He was then informed that it was to be the "Savings Banks (No. 1) Bill." No doubt, there was a considerable confusion; but if hon. Members had been watching as carefully as he was at the time, they would have known that this Bill was coming on. Clearly, there was no intention on the part of the Government to take the Bill by way of surprise on Gentlemen who were anxious to oppose it. After one Bill had been disposed of, it was the usual course to read the next Order of the Day. The Clerk, however, omitted to read it in the ordinary way.

said, he was sorry to contradict the right hon. Gentleman; but he, as well as his hon. Friends on his left and on his right, had heard the Clerk at the Table read the Order of the Day.

Does the hon. Member withdraw the Motion?

Yes, Sir; I asked leave to withdraw it.

moved, as an Amendment, to insert the Words "perannum," after "per centum," in page 2, line 12. The Amendment was merely a verbal one.

said, it would be convenient here to ask what the liability was in respect of which this provision was to be made. The clause contained the words—

"In pursuance of the Savings Bank Investment Act, 1863, the National Debt Commissioners annually prepare a balance sheet showing the assets and liabilities of the Commissioners in respect of Trustee Savings Banks on the previous twentieth day of November, and the said balance sheet has annually shown a deficiency of the said assets to meet the liabilities, and such deficiency has, in pursuance of the said Act, been declared by the Treasury to be a charge on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

said, the deficiency had been estimated hitherto by taking Government Stock at the market price of the day. Prices, of course, varied from year to year, consequently the deficiency fluctuated from time to time; but he thought the amount was really between £2,500,000 and £2,600,000. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had thought that this was not a satisfactory way of dealing with the deficiency, and that the best way of treating it would be to take a fair average price. It was, therefore, proposed, for the future, to reckon Consols at £92 6s.—that was to say, at a rate that would give 3¼ per cent. Looking back over the past 20 years, that was not very far off the average rate. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) had said that there was no authentic information as to how £3,500,000 of a deficiency occurred.

I said £2,800,000.

said, a Return he held in his hand, dated 31st March, 1880, showed what the deficiency was. Stocks were valued in the way he had stated.

said, that was not an answer to his query. What he wanted was an exact statement, showing how the amount now quoted as a deficiency of £2,800,000 was arrived at. He wished to see that in detail; because he confessed he was doubtful whether it was not got at by inferences from statements which he knew were likely to lead to mistakes. There could be no doubt that serious blunders had taken place as to the way in which these accounts were treated, and he did not wish the Committee to take a step which might involve serious consequences and additional taxation on the people without reasonable grounds. They were told that they must provide for the deficiency; and after having provided for such deficiency, by assuming an amount of which he really saw no evidence, the Government proposed to issue Terminable Annuities, to be paid off in a period not exceeding 28 years. He was of opinion that that was not the proper way of making provision. If they took the deficiency at £3,560,000, and said they would pay for it by Terminable Annuities of three years, they would simply be imposing an extra taxation on the people to the extent of £1,000,000 per annum. That would be intolerable; and he dare say that it was not the intention of the Government and they therefore proposed to meet the difficulty by providing Terminable Annuities for a period not exceeding 28 years, assuming, he supposed, that the amount of the deficiency was what was stated in the Bill—namely, £2,800,000. But he objected to the whole process by which it was proposed to pay off these Annuities. In 1858, a Report was presented to the House at a time when Sir Alexander Spearman was in the Public Service. That exceedingly valuable public officer declared at that time, that there was no necessity whatever for making any provision for the liquidation of the supposed deficiency. The deficiency to be provided, he said, was merely the result of certain complications, and if the affairs of the Savings Banks had been properly managed there would be no deficiency at all, but a surplus. He entirely agreed with the report of Sir Alexander Spearman that, instead of being a deficit, there ought to be a surplus; but, in answer to the declaration of Sir Alexander Spearman, the Prime Minister told the House that there was a constant loss of interest, and that therefore the deficit would go on increasing. Now, he (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) denied that altogether. He was of opinion that there was no necessity for any deficiency in the interest at all, and if the Government did correctly that which they were in the habit of doing incorrectly, there would be no deficiency, but a surplus. He could not understand why they should take money provided by the savings of the people, and lend them again to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, for the purposes of the people, in a way that involved the Imperial Exchequer in a loss. Why should not the money, provided on the one hand by the people, be lent for carrying out public works on terms the same as those upon which it was received? The Prime Minister, in answer to that objection, said it would involve a mixing up of superior and inferior securities. The superior securities were Consols and Exchequer Bonds, and the inferior securities were, he (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) presumed, those which were given by the great Corporations throughout the country, who gave bonds payable with 3, 3½, 3¾, and 4 per cent interest. Whatever the investment of the depositors, the country, in each case, was equally bound and responsible to the depositors; and it made no difference whether the deposits were called inferior or superior securities. The Government would be wanting in the common appreciation of convenience if they were to abrogate these securities as the security for the Savings Banks, and were to hold them in Downing Street against Exchequer Bonds and Treasury Bills. The Bill stated the amount of the deficiency to be £2,800,000. He wished to ask, in regard to that statement, whether the Government had taken into consideration the amount of the Surplus Fund? That Surplus Fund amounted, he believed, to about £400,000; and it ought to be considered in the light of a diminution of the supposed deficit. He desired to know if regard had been had to the amount of the uncalled-for deposits, which were analogous to the unclaimed dividends in the Bank of England, which had accumulated to a very large sum—indeed, even to millions? Perhaps the Committee would not be aware that, 20 years ago, Sir Alexander Spearman estimated the amount of uncalled-for deposits at not much less than £1,000,000 sterling. And if that were the case 20 years ago, the amount of these uncalled-for deposits must have been gradually increasing ever since, so that there would be a very large sum to deduct from the estimated deficit of £2,800,000. He wished to know if these facts had been taken into consideration in the amount of debt that was to be cancelled by the proposed Terminable Annuities? He was sure the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would not infer that he had any desire to treat the question as a Party matter. It was a subject with which he had been familiar for many years; and he must say that he did not see the necessity for this financial operation, which involved additional charges to the taxpayer, for the purpose of paying off a supposed deficiency. With regard to this particular clause, it dealt not only with the question of deficiency, but also with the question of the interest to be paid to the depositors. Perhaps he might be overstating the range of the clause; and it would, therefore, be better to stay where he was, and raise any further question afterwards.

said, his right hon. Friend who had last spoken (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) had alluded to two matters of fact, and had also suggested an amendment of the law in regard to Savings Banks. First of all, his right hon. Friend said that there was no deficiency in reference to the £44,000,000 of liabilities now outstanding and due to the Savings Banks depositors; that, in point of fact, the sum now outstanding in the name of the Trustees of the Savings Banks was the real amount that was due, because, some years ago, Sir Alexander Spearman said that a good many of the depositors had never put in a claim to their deposits. Now, he (Mr. Childers) did not think that that fact at all altered the liability. His right hon. Friend knew that the interest which the Government had being paying upon the Savings Banks deposits had, from year to year, exceeded the amount of interest they had received upon the investment they had made of this money. But it would be a most perilous matter if, in order to make these Accounts square, they were to make any considerable allowance under this head. After all, his right hon. Friend only made an allowance for a portion of the deficiency. His right hon. Friend said, also, that, as a matter of fact, the deficiency was not so great as was supposed; because, in the Account of last year, it was stated as £2,750,000, instead of £2,500,000. That had been explained already. The principle on which, as prudent financiers, they ought to act in dealing with the question, was to take the average value of the securities over a term of years, and not the actual value of the securities at any particular time. It was impossible to rely upon the value of Consols quoted in any given period of only three years. It would be most perilous to take the value of Consols during a few years marked by a great superabundance of money and a want of investment. They must take the value of Consols over a long period, including times of cheap and dear money, and of commercial depression and inflation. His right hon. Friend had drawn a distinction between first-class securities and second-class securities, and said that the Government gave to the Savings Banks Trustees first-class securities—namely, Consols and Exchequer Bonds; while they themselves invested in second-class securities in the loans which they made to municipalities and public bodies, whose security did not stand on the same footing as that of Consols. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman said—for that was what his proposal amounted to—you should give credit to the Savings Banks Trustees at the rate which Government received from their own investments. If they credited interest in that way, the right hon. Gentleman said there would be no loss. But the natural answer to that remark was, what would be the position of the Savings Banks Trustees if the securities they held were only to be regarded as second-class securities? His right hon. Friend met that argument by saying that he apprehended behind these second-class securities would be the security of the Government. But that illustrated the evil effect of the position in which the Government had already been placed, for, as a matter of fact, the investments made by way of loan by the Government during the last 50 years, as shown by a Return moved for by his right hon. Friend himself, after debiting losses, barely returned half their nominal interest—say, 2 per cent. One might thus see that the entire loss would not be small which would fall upon the Imperial Exchequer in respect of these second-class securities; while the whole advantage would be reaped by the Trustees of the Savings Banks, having, behind these, the security of the Government itself. He did not think that that was a species of finance that ought to be accepted and continued by that House; and he was of opinion that it would be much safer to accept the sound plan proposed by the Bill, of wiping off the deficiency by the Annuities which it would create. They would then be able to start fair with the Savings Banks; and if it was found necessary, after they had had some experience of the working of this arrangement, a still more accurate adjustment might be made.

wished to explain. The money received from the Savings Banks did not go direct to the Public Works Loan Commissioners at all, and if they would insist on paying 3 per cent, and then lending the money they received on what really amounted to a less rate of percentage, it was not fair to charge the result as a loss upon the Savings Banks.

said, that was exactly what he had stated, and in the long run they could not expect to be receiving more than 3 per cent.

thought that the present discussion showed the inconvenience of he debate on the second reading having been cut short. At present, they were rather in the dark, and it was necessary to ask for information. Perhaps the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to tell him exactly what the difference was which they were going to pay; because he held a Return in his hand, from which it appeared that the liabilities in 1879 were £44,192,000, while the assets were £40,626,000, leaving a deficiency of between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000. He wished to know if that was the actual deficit which was meant to be met by the Bill?

said, the Return quoted by his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) was made out in great detail for a particular purpose. The deficit in the Savings Banks Account had not arisen from paying too large an amount of interest in recent years; but was solely due to what he might call an original sin—namely, that there was a deficincy of £1,600,000 in 1844, when the rate of interest was reduced. When the elaborate quotations referred to by his hon. Friend were made, anyone who took the trouble to investigate them would find it was absolutely true, and part of the original sin, that they had paid more interest than they could afford. The deficiency which his hon. Friend had mentioned was the one which was dealt with by the Bill. The liabilities amounted to £44,192,000, and the assets to £40,626,000.

said, he was at some difficulty in realizing what the actual liability of the Government was. There was a recognition of the liability of the Government to pay the full amount which the Savings Banks Trustees could properly claim from them. But his difficulty in the case was this, that it appeared to him an interminable arrangement if they once entered into it. It was proposed to set up Terminable Annuities, on the basis that Consols were only to be valued as really worth £92 6s. per cent. He should be the last person to recommend a higher value of property than it would justly bear. But, after all, what was this property? It was an undertaking on the part of the Government to pay to some person or other, not a certain sum of money, but the interest upon that money from year to year. They had already given an undertaking to give to these Savings Banks the sums they could probably claim. It did not seem to him that any additional property was secured to the Trustees of the Savings Banks, or that any additional security was afforded by the transaction now sought to be carried out. But there was this difficulty. They knew that the amount invested in Savings Banks varied from year to year very much. Under this proposal, in the event of there being an increased deposit, amounting, say, to £1,000,000 during the course of next year, the existing deficit, upon the assumption that the Stocks were only worth £92 6s. percent, would be met by a Terminable Annuity. But a new deficit would have been created. Some of the £1,000,000 might be invested in Consols at £98, and the new deficit would be the difference between £98 and £92 6s. Logically, a new deficit would have to be acknowledged in the following year, and, in order to meet that deficit, further provision would have to be made. He thought it would be seen that, if he was correct in this assumption, the transaction would become a very disadvantageous one to the country; and instead of being an expression of its liability, it would simply interpose an obstacle in the way of the fair settlement of the question. If they turned the liability into a Terminable Annuity, he was inclined to believe that, in a time of difficulty, they would find that a Terminable Annuity of this character was absolutely unconvertible. Therefore, it simply became a debt—an expression of an amount due to somebody. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had referred to an argument of the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) in regard to the actual liability. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) did not wish that that sum of money should be written off as a sum of money that should not be claimed under any circumstances; but bankers would recognize the fact that many sums were held which practically could not be claimed under any circumstances by persons having any right to claim them at all. It was estimated that a sum of money amounting to £1,000,000 was lying unclaimed as long ago as 20 years. If that sum of money were never to be paid, it seemed to him a little hard that this generation should have to make provision for it by providing a Fund that would never be required. What his right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London said was, that it was somewhat hard that the present generation should be called upon to pay, as taxes, a sum which was to make up an Account standing somewhere in the names of Trustees which was in excess of the demand that would actually be made upon such Trustees. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) must say, for his own part, that he had some hesitation in agreeing to these Terminable Annuities, because they did not seem to him to be able to settle the question. If the Fund increased next year, there must be another deficiency which they would be bound to meet in some way, and they must know that the business which they were endeavouring to get rid of on this basis must be an unprofitable business.

said, he did not exactly know what the order of Business was; but he should prefer to insert "one-eighth per centum" instead of "per centum," if such an Amendment would meet the wishes of the Committee.

The Amendment at present before the Committee must be withdrawn before that can be done.

begged to move, instead of the Amendment which had been withdrawn, that one-eighth per centum" be inserted. He would give his reasons for moving that Amendment. His right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith) had told the Committee that he did not see any reason for creating these Terminable Annuities. Undoubtedly, the argument of his right hon. Friend was logically correct. Terminable Annuities, very probably, would not, under certain circumstances, meet the exigencies of the case. The Committee would do well to remember that, from his (Mr. Magniac's) own side of the House, very strong reproaches were urged against the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman who was formerly Chancellor of the Exchequer in the year 1869 or 1870, because he paid off a large amount of the National Debt, and did not wipe out this amount of deficit upon the Savings Banks. It was represented to be a scandal and a reproach to English finance. That was perfectly true, and the amount must be paid in some way or other, whether they paid it by a sum down or by Terminable Annuities. They must have a certain amount, or an uncertain amount, and the best course was to reduce that uncertainty to a minimum. Now, he did not think that the course proposed by the Government was a course that would reduce that uncertainty to a minimum. The basis of this arrangement was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, on the first afternoon on which he brought in the Bill. He stated that he made the arrangement on the basis of"3¼ per cent, which was the well understood average rate at which the public could borrow." Now, 3¼ per cent was the interest upon Consols at £92 6s., and the meaning of that arrangement was that the Commissioners of the National Debt were to take up the assets of the Savings Banks at £92 6s. per cent, and, on taking them over, they would be bound, out of those Consols and Exchequer Bonds, to pay the principal sum for which the Trustees of Savings Banks were liable. The question was, did £92 6s. per cent represent the average price of Consols? That it did represent the average price of Consols he (Mr. Magniac) admitted at once. Everybody knew that. [An hon. MEMBER: No!] His hon. Friend opposite said "No." He could only say that he had tried to procure information from the most acurate sources he could find—from the records of the Bank of England—and he found that 3¼ per cent, or £92 6s., in the shape of Consuls, was the average price universally conceded. The question, then, was, was it right to take the average price? In the case of a merchant or banker, transacting ordinary business from day to day, it would be right to take the average price; but when they came to take the Savings Banks Funds, it was not safe to take the average price, because it was absolutely certain they would not get the average price; and the reason was a very simple one. In good times Consols were high. In good times, when the Savings Banks depositors deposited largely, securities were high, and the Trustees and the Commissioners of National Debt invested considerably above the average. But then came bad times, when the depositors were much pinched and were driven to withdraw their deposits; and it was equally a matter of certainty that the Trustees would be obliged to sell at a rate below the average. In dealing with the Savings Banks securities, it was not only self-evident that they could not expect to get the average value, but it was a matter of certainty that they must buy above the average and sell below it. To prove this, he should refer to the Parliamentary Paper which the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had circulated. It was a most instructive Paper. He had studied it with great care, and had made a rather curious examination, which he would endeavour to lay before the Committee as clearly as he could in round figures. Having worked out the problem, he found that if the Consuls which were in existence and in the hands of the Commissioners of the National Debt in November, 1844, had been taken at £88 16s., instead of at £92 6s., this would have represented interest at a little over 3⅝ per cent. Then, if the Consuls had been taken at £88 16s., and the interest at the corresponding rate of 3⅝, the result would have been an equilibrium between assets and liabilities; whereas, by valuing the assets in 1844, and taking over the Consols at £92 6s., there was the deficiency shown on the Paper of something like £5,000,000, which a valuation of Consuls at £88 16s. would have been liquidated. The only conclusion they could arrive at was that 3¼ per cent was an insufficient amount at which to take over and accept the Consuls belonging to these Banks. If they took them over at £88 16s., which was equivalent to 3⅝ per cent, they would have an article which they could sell afterwards at a sufficient price to meet their engagements.

said, that the figure, 3⅝ ought to be 3⅜.

said, that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) had intimated that the figure 3⅝ was wrong. He asked the pardon of the Committee for the error, which, perhaps, had been occasioned by the little excitement occurring a short time ago which was not very conducive to arithmetic. The figure 3⅝ ought to be 3⅜; but the amount, £88 16s., was absolutely correct. He should take occasion later on to refer to the very large amounts that were withdrawn from the Savings Banks in bad times, and to the fact that it was at such times that the Banks worked unsatisfactorily. He begged to move to leave out "one-fourth," and insert "three-eighths."

said, he did not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Magniac) into the many ingenious calculations he had made, because, in fact, it seemed to him that he had added the original sum to the compound interest in order to make up the £8,000,000. He desired to say a few words about what the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had happily called the "original sin," because he considered that the whole of the loss arose entirely from that original deficit, and its accumulated interest. Prom the statement which had been presented to the Committee, he found that the accumulated deficit from 1844 up to the present time would be £5,000,000. He found that the actual deficit was made to be £1,507,000; but in order to make up the £5,000,000, there were thrown in some figures from other deficiency colums which ought not to be introduced. Taking Return, No. 200, he found that there could not really have been an accumulating deficit; but there had been an accumulation of interest upon the original deficit. If there were a regular deficit every year on the Savings Banks, it would stand to reason that that deficit would steadily and regularly increase beyond the amount of the accumulative interest on the original sum by which the assets in 1844 were less than the liabilities. But he found they did not regularly increase by that amount. Sometimes they not only did not increase by that amount, but they increased by much less than the amount of the accumulative interest. Taking the years from 1863 to 1867, the increase of the deficit was very much more than the compound interest on the original amount. In one year, it exceeded the compound interest by £53,000; in another year, by £43,000; in another year, by £ 108,000; and another year, by £78,000; but in the seven following years, the deficit was actually less than the accumulative interest. He could not pretend to account for it, but in one year it was £31,000 less; in another, £29,000; in another, £24,000; in another £14,000; in another, £41,000; while coming to 1873, the deficit again exceeded the compound interest by £61,000. It seemed to him perfectly clear that these figures could not have been arrived at, and that these facts could not have occurred, if the working of the Savings Banks must be carried on at a loss. How to account for this he did not pretend to say; he much regretted that the Bill had not gone to a Select Committee, where these points might have been examined and cleared up. It had been said that the deficit arose from Stocks being sold when these prices were low. He did not find anything of the kind; and he did not find, as a rule, that there was any very great pressure at any particular time, or did he find that bad times necessarily produced the low price of Consols. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) had just mentioned that as a necessary effect; but it would be in the recollection of all persons that last year was one of the most unfortunate years we ever had for commerce, manufacture, and, above all, for agriculture; and yet, as a matter of fact, the price of Consols was never so high. It was perfectly true that there were more sales than purchases last year; but these sales being made at a high price, tended rather to the benefit of the Government than to their disadvantage. All this, he thought, showed there was something behind which they did not understand. It was for that reason he, some time ago wanted this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee. That, of course, was quite out of the question now for this Session; but it would be well if they did not proceed further with the Bill this year, because they ought to get at some of the facts which were concealed. He did not suppose they were intentionally concealed; but he confessed that, after an apprenticeship of 25 years in figures, he was unable to get at the cause of some of them. He regretted exceedingly the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone), who had had more to do with the Savings Banks Bills than perhaps any other man. It was stated more than once during the debate in 1861, that had it not been for the use of the Savings Banks it would have been impossible to have effected the conversion of Consols; and he would have liked on the present occasion to have had some explanation why it was that this loss was not progressive, and why it was that sometimes Savings Banks money could be so managed as to bring in more than the interest required? He would like information on these points, because he did not think they had yet sufficient proof that there was any real necessity for reducing the interest. He was sure there was no person in the Committee who wished to reduce the interest unless it was absolutely needed. He did not think there was any less necessity to encourage saving habits in the people than there was in 1844 and 1861. He had conversed with gentlemen who had managed Savings Banks for many years, and the manager of one of the largest banks in England had told him that there was a very great fear if the interest were reduced——

The proposal to reduce the interest comes on in Clause 2. We are now on Clause 1.

said, he would therefore only say that he did not see any reason for taking so low an arbitrary valuation of Consols. He did not think any merchant would do so, however anxious not to value his stock at too high a rate. £92 6s. 3d. was too low a price, and it seemed to him as if the Stocks were valued at that price almost on purpose to bring out the deficit.

said, he sympathized with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baring), when he regretted the unavoidable absence of the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Gladstone). He could assure the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman took so deep an interest in this Bill, that he (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had the greatest difficulty in preventing him attending there that day. He ventured to assure the right hon. Gentleman that, deeply as the House felt his absence, they would, under the circumstances, gladly suffer the inconvenience arising from it rather than he should run any risk. If he (Lord Frederick Cavendish) were not fully equal to his task, the Committee would, he was quite persuaded, extend to him their indulgence. He was asked by the hon. Member (Mr. Baring) for some explanation of the fluctuations on the increment of the deficit as shown in the Return, No. 200. Very little consideration, he thought, would show that this fluctuation was absolutely inevitable in the deficit. It depended, as the hon. Member had said, upon the sales and purchases of Stock, and it was also inevitable, because the prices of Stock changed from year to year. For many years, Chancellors of the Exchequer had been well aware of this, and when they had been negotiating loans, they had taken this fact into account. The Bill did not propose to deal with the past deficit only; but it proposed, having once for all got rid of that deficit, to prevent any new deficit arising, by enabling such a rate of interest to be given as experience showed the State could afford. It had been said, in the course of the debate, that although they might wipe out the present deficit, another one would arise hereafter. That, he thought, would be prevented by an Act passed by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Northcote); for that Act provided that, for the future, every deficiency should be met by the current year. Therefore, if they could once for all put this Account in a satisfactory position, they would have two securities. They would give such a rate of interest as they could with propriety give; and in case any deficit did arise, they could come to Parliament and ask for a Vote to make good the year. They would not then have the deficits amounting to a large sum. Now, with respect to what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the proposal to wipe out the existing deficiency had nothing whatever to do with the depositors in the Savings Banks, their security being perfect. From time to time Chancellors of the Exchequer came down to the House with magnificent programmes for the diminishing of the National Debt. Nothing of that kind was proposed now; but the Government did think that it was suitable to the position of the country that they should not allow debt to remain in this unacknowledged manner, but that the country should take the burden on itself, and, shortly, that was what the measure proposed to do. As to the Amendment of his hon. Friend to lower the valuation at which Consols were taken, he could only say that, if he were to accept that Amendment, the Bill might work in a very injurious manner. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, after full consideration with the financial authorities, had selected a figure slightly lower than it had been on an average during the last 40 years. That lowest average was found to be £93 5s., and the Government had taken £92 6s. He did not apprehend that figure was a vital matter; but, while on their part the Government was anxious to adopt means for wiping out the debt incurred in past years, they did not feel called upon to put an unnecessary burden upon the taxpayers. Therefore, it was that a sum somewhat under the average of past years had been taken, and he hoped the Committee would adopt it.

said, he had listened carefully to both the hon. Members, and he thought the hon. Member for South Essex (Mr. Baring) had the best of it. He could quite appreciate the extreme caution of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac), but he went a little too far. When they considered the amount of money now seeking investment, and the amount, gradually increasing, of Consols held by large banks and by the Government itself, it must be admitted that, in the amount of Consols floating in the market, there was a tendency to diminution rather than to increase. So it might be anticipated that the average price of Consols would be higher than they had been accustomed to. He was disposed to think that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had gone very low in taking his figure, and he should be happy to take it a little higher. He could not, therefore, vote with the hon. Member for Bedford, and he would submit to the Government that £92 6s. was a very low valuation. If there was any error at all, it was in that direction, and he hoped the hon. Member for Bedford would not press his Amendment.

concurred with the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish), when he stated that the Act brought in by his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote) provided that the deficiency should be met year by year. That was true; but that Act required that the deficiency of interest should be met year by year, by a Vote of Parliament, but it did not provide for the deficiency of capital. This Bill proposed to meet the deficiency of Capital Account by substituting one book debt for another, by Terminal Annuities in 28 years or less. His (Mr. W. H. Smith's) contention was, that if there were an increase of deposits, amounting to £1,000,000 during the next year, if that £1,000,000 was invested in Consols at 98, the Government, under the Bill, would have to meet a deficiency of £60,000 on the principal. He did not understand that his right hon. Friend's Act, for which he was responsible, required the Government to provide both the deficiency of interest and capital; but if that was the view of those who brought forward the Bill, they would have a very serious responsibility to meet; not only the payments under the Terminable Annuities which would be, at least, double the deficiency in interest now provided for, but they would have to make annual advances to the Capital Account. It did appear to him that that was an illustration of the extreme difficulty of fixing the exact price for a debt due by the Government of the country. He failed to see what additional advantage anybody had in turning that sum of £4,000,000 or less into a Charge to be annually paid off by a certain sum of money through the Bank of England, to the Trustees of Savings Banks, or the National Debt Commissioners. The deficiency of interest should always be provided for by a Vote of Parliament. Parliament was thus made conscious of the fact that they were paying a higher rate of interest than the security admitted of. There was no additional security by the Account being written out in the books of the Bank of England. He could understand it if the provisions of the Bill created Stock simply. That would be another matter, and it would be simply to take the Stock into the market for sale. But the Government could not—and the Financial Officers would confirm him when he said it—on a demand for money, take these Terminable Annuities into the market. They could not realize £92 6s. per cent. It was nothing more nor less than another expression for the same thing. They chose to call it a Terminable Annuity, and it was a book debt they said they paid off in 28 years. If the Resolution was embodied in the Bill, then £2,800,000 would be paid annually for 28 years to extinguish the debt. They did precisely the same thing as they were doing now. That was the whole of the financial arrangements proposed under the Bill. He should not put opposition in the way of the proposal, after fully stating his view; but he could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac).

hoped the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) would withdraw his Amendment. He did not think that 3¼ per cent was an unreasonable amount to take as the average, and that amount might be left as it stood. But in reference to the observations made by the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish), who laid great stress on the Government not giving a larger interest than they could afford, that was an ambiguous phrase for a Finance Minister to use, and he (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) could attach no definite meaning to it. If they took 3¼ per cent as what they could not afford, and 3 per cent as what they could, the deficiency would be shown by the amount of loss, £70,000. The difference between what they could and could not afford had been raised to a sum which by no means accounted for the enormous deficiency in the deposits. There was one point to which the noble Lord had not alluded. The proceedings of the Savings Bank were not confined to receiving the money of depositors, investing it, and paying it out when wanted. They embraced other and more important transactions. It was the money of the Savings Banks with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer manipulated his financial operations, and in that manipution resided the continued loss which the country had to meet. It had been mentioned by the noble Lord that when the Government borrowed money for fortifications, instead of going into the market, they went to the National Debt Office, and the rate at which these Terminable Annuities were negotiated, expiring as they did at uncertain periods of years, was 3¾ per cent. That meant borrowing on Consols at £80. He did not pretend to say that the National Debt Office sold Stock at£80 to provide the money for the fortifications; but suppose they sold at £88, they would sell out Stock and take up Terminable Annuities. But when again they had to buy Consols, at what price did they re-purchase? Now, the price was £98, and, therefore, let the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury turn his attention to this. Between the price at which the Savings Banks had sold Consols to provide the money for fortifications, and the price at which they had bought in again, there had been a very large difference; and so long as that occurred there must be a considerable deficiency in the Savings Banks Accounts. He did not hesitate to say that the deficiency, whether more or less, was owing to the result of the manipulation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the Savings Banks money rather than to any supposed excess of interest to depositors allowed by the State beyond that which it was assumed they could afford. He hoped the hon. Member for Bedford would withdraw his Motion.

, in reference to what had been said by the hon. Member for Essex, said, that bad times did materially affect the price of Consols as regarded Savings Banks. Take 1866, a memorable year in Savings Bank history, and look at the Accounts of that year. It would be seen that when the operations took place, and there was the deficiency in the balance of the Commissioners in that year to meet liabilities, the price of Consols was 88. It was generally known that the Savings Banks Commissioners had been compelled at that moment to sell £700,000 worth of Consols, and thought themselves fortunate in being able to do so. There were times when even £100,000 Consols could not be sold. The most extraordinary statement he had heard in connection with the Bill was that which he had heard from the Secretary to the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill, said the mode of computation was the average price of Consols, which he took at £92 6s. But now the noble Lord said the average was £93 5s. He did not know on which statement to rely. If the noble Lord altered the average as he pleased, then it removed the ground upon which he was prepared to take up his position, which was on the statement of the Prime Minister. He would not put the Committee to the trouble of a division; and it was idle to attempt to argue on the statement of the Prime Minister, when it was thrown over as it had been by the noble Lord.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 11, to leave out "fifteen" and insert "ten." He was afraid, however, it would not commend itself to the noble Lord the Secretary to Treasury, for it was on the same lines as an Amendment he had already proposed; but it had the high authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and was based upon the principle which he had laid down. He thought it was generally admitted that the attraction to depositors was not the rate of interest. That was amply proved, he was sure, by the fact that the Post Office Savings Bank, which only gave 2½ per cent, attracted depositors in much a larger degree than the Trustee Banks, which gave a higher rate of interest. It was difficult to say why the distinction should be maintained between these two classes of depositors. Why more should be given in the Trustee Banks than in the Post Office Savings Banks, he was unable to understand. The principle was unfair, and worked irregularly, for he found that the average deposit in the Post Office Banks was £16; while, in the Trustee Banks, it was £29. The depositors in the two banks were of different classes; and he was told that, as a rule, the depositors in the Trustee Banks were much more well-to-do than those of the Post Office Banks. A considerable movement was going on at the present moment with regard to Savings Banks, and withdrawals were taking place to a large amount; and from communications he had had with gentlemen who professed to be informed, the Trustee Banks had lost something like £750,000 by withdrawals this year. He had not access to the exact figures; but he would venture to say that some such movement was going on. That proved that the rate of interest was not the incentive to depositors, and was certainly not the moving cause that induced men to place their money there. He could not understand why they should maintain in these great establishments, undertaking great risks, a rate of interest which would entail a charge on the taxes. Some defence of the position of the Trustee Banks had been attempted, on the ground that the expense of management was greater in the Post Office Savings Banks; but there was a fallacy running through that upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General could speak. The cost of management was put down at the rate of 11s. percent; but he believed that the real cost did not amount to so much as that, for there was a considerable profit to the Post Office included in it. Throughout the world Post Office Savings Banks were becoming the rule. They were created to do the duty of receiving the money of depositors, giving only a moderate rate of interest, practically amounting to 2½ per cent. It was larger in some places than in others; but it bore the same relation to the average rate of the country that 2½ per cent did to the average rate here. He was certain the day would come when the country would not be satisfied to pay a larger amount of money to the Trustee Savings Banks depositors than was paid to the depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks. The one class were entitled to no more than their brother depositors; therefore, he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name, which would have the effect of equalizing the amount of interest paid to the two classes of depositors.

regretted he could not accept the Amendment. They had considered it their duty to reduce the interest to an amount which would cause no loss to the Exchequer; and, further than that, it would be unwise to proceed. He thought if the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General were present, he would say that he was not afraid, for the Post Office Savings Banks, of any competition on the part of the Trustee Savings Banks. As had been well pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. G. Hubbard), the Banks appealed to different classes.

could not agree to the proposal to reduce the rate of interest. The fact was, they did not see how the Government could manipulate the interest paid to the Post Office Savings Banks. Though they had only paid 2½ per cent interest, there was another charge on the expenditure of the Post Office Savings Banks, which came to 15s. on an average during the last five years. Taking last year, the amount was 13s., and that made £3 3s. as the amount the Post Office Savings Banks cost the country. That being so, he did not think there should be any allowance made for the Trustees Savings Banks; and if the hon. Member for the London University (Sir John Lubbock) had moved his Amendment he had made up his mind to support him, for his proposition took a middle course. All he could do was to oppose the clause, leaving the rate of interest as it now stood.

said, that with regard to what had been stated in drawing comparison between the Trustee and Post Office Savings Banks during the past 15 years, the increase in the Post Office Banks had been £23,000,000, and in the Trustee Banks £4,000,000, speaking roughly.

pointed out that there was a great deal of trouble and expense, so far as the Government were concerned, in connection with the Post Office Savings Banks which did not occur in connection with the Trustee Savings Banks. He (Mr. D. M'Laren) was a Trustee of a Savings Bank in the City of Edinburgh, in which there was now deposited £1,241,000. In the trouble of paying that money into the Bank of Scotland, and transmitting it to the National Debt Commissioners in considerable sums, the Government had no share and no expense. They did not pay any postages, and they had no trouble with regard to small details, which were very numerous, in the Post Office Banks. With respect to the Post Office, the expenditure was 11s. per cent; whereas the other banks did not cost anything to the Government. It seemed unreasonable, therefore, that the Post Office Savings Banks, which involved so much trouble and expense, should receive £2 10s., and that it should now be proposed that the Trustee Banks should receive only the same sum. He had heard it complained that £2 15s was too great a reduction, and that it ought to be £2 17s. 6d.; but his own opinion was that £2 15s. was a fair sum. In the City of Glasgow there was a Savings Bank which had £2,846,000 invested in it; that made £4,088,000 for these two banks, and that figure, with the deposits in the other Savings Banks in Scotland, was increased to £6,290,000. He believed the parties interested were pretty well satisfied with the state of things as it existed in the Government proposals; but if the great reduction proposed were agreed to, he thought it would be an injustice on the part of the House, and that it would excite great discontent throughout the Kingdom.

said, the hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. Magniac) said there was no reason whatever why the depositors in the Trustee Savings Banks should require more interest than the depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks. There was, however, one obvious reason—namely, that in the Trustee Savings Banks there was not absolute security for the money. Those who had paid attention to the subject must be aware that failures did occur from time to time. They were not frequent; but still they did occur. He knew a gentleman who was a Trustee to a Savings Bank. The bank failed, and this gentleman, feeling that he had not exercised that amount of superintendence over the affairs of the bank that he ought to have exercised, paid out of his own pocket £4,000 to make up the deficiency that had occurred in the bank. Happily these failures, as he had said, were extremely rare; but he ventured to think it was important to bear in mind that in the Post Office Savings Banks no risk of this kind was run by depositors. It was said that £2 10s. was the average rate paid in other countries. Well, in France, with which country he was best acquainted, the interest paid averaged 4 per cent. In Austria, where the Savings Bank system was largely adopted, no less than 5 per cent was paid. In the latter country, there were a large number of depositors, and very large deposits were made. It seemed to him it was of vital importance to give every encouragement to depositors in the Savings Banks, whether they were Trustee Banks or Post Office Banks. He could not help thinking that the hon. Member was mistaken in his description of the large transfer from Trustee Banks to the Post Office Banks, because he found that statistics, in a Paper recently circulated, showed that, during the past year, those transfers had been £40,000 in amount; but that, at the same time, there had been, on the other hand, a transfer from the Post Office to the Trustee Banks of £12,000. Considering the very large amount of depositors in the Trustee Savings Banks, it appeared to him that the transfer of £42,000 out of £44,000,000 was a remarkably small one, considering how conveniently Post Office Savings Banks were to the residences of the depositors. For those reasons, he thought the propositions of the Government should be supported, and the Amendment rejected.

did not think the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) had quite realized the effect of the Amendment he had put on the Paper. He had postponed it after the point at which it ought to have been introduced. In the clause they were now considering they had passed words which assured the Trustees of Savings Banks of £3 per cent per annum. If he wished to reduce the amount allowed to depositors to £2 10s., he should have moved to reduce that allowed to Trustees to £2 15s. He thought that the reason for the proposals made by the Government had teen well given by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish).

said, he was anxious to say a word, because no one seemed to have noticed the particular way in which the Trustee Savings Banks were carried on. His object in now rising was for fear he should be too late, because they were often too late in that House, if they did not take things in the nick of time. The proposition of the Government was to make the rate of interest to depositors £2 15s. That sum was an inconvenient one, as also was that suggested by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. D. M'Laren)—namely, £2 17s. 6d., for the reason that one was at the rate of 6⅗d. in the pound, and the other was 69\10d. It would be more convenient to make it £2 18s. 4d., because that was 7d. in the pound. His proposition, therefore, would be that, instead of £2 15s., it should be £2 18s. 4d. He would move it now, if he could, or when he could; and he would ask the Chairman if he would be in Order in moving it now? He did not wish to be too late. The proposal he had to make would admit of the Accounts being kept in a clear manner, and would save half the staff of clerks.

Order, order! If the Committee determine to leave out the word fifteen," he hon. Member can move his Amendment. If the Committee affirm it, however, he will not be able to move.

said, his desire was, that they should not have to come back to Parliament for grants of money. He would not, however, give the Committee the trouble of dividing.

said, he would now move his Amendment.

The hon. Member may move to omit the word "fifteen," if he wishes.

said, he would move that, and to insert "eighteen shillings and fourpence."

thought it was impossible to accept the Amendment. The Government only paid the Trustees 3 per cent.

said, he had an Amendment which was intended to supply what appeared to him to be an omission in the Bill. There did not seem to be any provisions for investing the accruing interest of the amounts received by the National Debt Commissioners. He begged to move, in page 3, after line 11, to insert—

"The National Debt Commissioners shall invest the accruing difference of interest arising from the securities held by them as assets in respect of Trustee Savings Banks, and the interest payable to the Savings Bank authority, in like manner as other moneys in their hand3 in that behalf."

said, the accruing interest would be invested in future, as it was at present. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had made provision that when there was a surplus, such surplus should be invested, and the present Bill made no alteration in that respect.

did not quite understand whether the amount referred to was to be paid into the Exchequer or not. He did not think it ought to be the case. The Savings Banks money ought to stand upon its own merits, and there ought not to be these deficits in regard to financial arrangements of a confidential nature. His own opinion was, that a different arrangement would even be to the advantage of the Bank depositors themselves. The matter, however, ought to be put beyond all question; and he hoped the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury would quite understand the position on which he (Mr. Magniac) placed it. He was quite willing to leave it to the noble Lord to inquire into the matter, and give an explanation on some future occasion, presuming that the noble Lord was of opinion that the Act made provision for these investments.

said, he could assure his hon. Friend that the investments were quite covered by the provisions of the Bill as they stood.

said, that, under those circumstances, he was quite satisfied.

(for Sir JOHN LUBBOCK) begged to move, as an Amendment, in page 3, at end of clause, to add—

I must call attention to the fact that this is not a new clause, and can only be moved as an Amendment to a clause.

said, he could not go to the full extent of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler). Under the existing Savings Bank Act any surplus was handed over to the National Debt Commissioners, and was invested by them. He could not think that with regard to the past the Trustees had any claim. They had been receiving a larger amount of interest from the Public Exchequer than they had paid to the depositors; and as the Government were now proposing a rate of interest which would cause no loss to the Exchequer, it was only right that the Trustees should receive interest on any surplus. He thought the arrangement had the advantage of being an economical one, and if his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment, he should be ready to move to add at the end of the clause, that—

"Nothing in Section 29 of the Savings Bank Act, 1853, shall require the Trustees of any Savings Bank to ascertain, certify, and pay over annually to the National Debt Commissioners the amount of any surplus, except when required to do so by the said Commissioners."

suggested that it would be necessary to make some provision for the application of the interest which passed over to the Savings Banks, because it was provided by the Bill that depositors should not receive more than £2 15s per cent per annum. Was it to go to the depositors, or to the Trustees of the Savings Bank?

said, the object of the Amendment was to strengthen the position of the Savings Banks. It was not proposed to pay more than £2 15s, but the Trustees would be exempt from all liabilities.

said, the existing Savings Banks Fund accumulated in the possession of the Government would not carry interest; but any future accumulations were to carry interest up to 3 per cent. He thought it would be better that the whole Fund should carry interest. That would settle the question, instead of having it raised every year. As the matter now stood, banks which had managed their affairs successfully were not to receive any profits for having done so. The circumstances of these banks would in future be different from what they had been. The sum of £2 15s per cent was to be the sum given. In many cases, the sum which had been given had been£2 13s. 4d.; but there was likely to be a margin in future of 6s. 8d. per cent, which would be offered in order to give depositors as much as possible, and their effort should be in the direction of giving £2 15s. rather than a less sum. It would be of considerable assistance to the banks which had been managed well, if they could have the addition of interest to the property they had accumulated.

did not think the Amendment suggested by the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would have the effect desired. He thought the Government might be more generous; but if he was to understand clearly that that was the intention of the Government he should have no wish to press the Amendment.

said, the words he had suggested would secure the result the hon. Member desired.

said, he did not think that the clause ought to be passed. He had heard several assertions that there was a steady loss every year, and he had advanced certain figures which he thought showed a peculiar state of things. He now proposed to omit the clause, and that the Government should pay the same interest which it had hitherto paid to the Trustees of Savings Banks, because he conscientiously believed they could afford to pay that sum without incurring any loss whatever. The original deficit, with its own accumulated interest, had been sunk under the 1st clause of the Bill. He had no wish to tire the Committee; but there were figures which he wished to mention. In Paper No. 200 it would be seen that for the last three years the deficit had been over £3,500,000. He need not say that 3¼ per cent on £3,500,000 was certainly over £100,000. He had the authority of the noble Lord for saying that it was over £110,000. And what had been the sum asked for, as estimated both by the late and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the deficit required to be met? In 1877–8, according to page 379 of volume 49, the sum asked for was £77,000, which was certainly not over £100,000; in 1878–9, it was £79.000; in 1879–80, £73,855; and in 1880, this year, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated the deficiency of interest at £72,515. Yet the interest on £3,560,000, as stated in the Paper, would be over £115,000. So that after three years upon the last estimated deficit, they asked in the fourth year for £5,000 less for the year than they asked four years ago. Surely that showed that there must be something wrong in the allegation of a constant deficit. There could not be an increase in the deficit, and a constant loss, if this year they wanted some £5,000 less than they wanted in 1877–8. It was evident that if the deficit had been increasing it must have been from some operations of the Treasury. If the deficit that had to be met in 1877–8 was £77,000, and there had been an accumulated interest for three and a-half years, the figures were dead against the assertion that there had been an increasing deficit. He had handed over the figures for some clerks skilled in accounts to study, and they were certainly unable to make out that there had been a steady deficit. It was proposed now to wipe out the old deficit by the 1st clause of the Bill, and that clause he regarded as a very good one. But when that was once done, he maintained that it would not be fair to cut down the interest they were allowing to depositors until they had given a fair trial to the system, and ascertain that there was an actual loss. Under these circumstances, he begged to move the omission of the clause.

said, the deficit which it was proposed to wipe out was not only that which was described in the Act of 1844, but that which had since accrued. With respect to the annual deficit not having increased, he had already explained that provision had been made for it by making a higher charge than was absolutely necessary to cover the actual outlay. That was, therefore, the reason why the annual deficiency voted by Parliament did not appear to be as large as might have been imagined. The reason had been already pointed out why the Savings Banks were to be self-supporting—the present rate of interest could not be maintained. The interest paid upon the Post Office Savings Banks was only £2 7s. 8d., after allowing 2s. 1d. for the expenses of management. He did not think it would be possible to continue to pay the depositors in Savings Banks an interest, and at the rate of £3 5s.

said, the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had drawn a comparison between the Trustee Savings Banks and the Post Office Savings Banks; but the latter discharged themselves of all obligations in regard to expenditure and management. The Government only paid £2 10s. in regard to the Post Office Savings Banks, because they had themselves to pay the expense of management. Taking the average of five years, from 1875 to 1879, the interest paid averaged £660,000, and the expenses incurred £208,000. That meant £2 10s. in the shape of interest, and 15s. in the shape of expenses; and £2 10s. and 15s. amounted to £3 5s. Therefore, he found that the State had paid as much in regard to the Post Office Savings Banks as they had paid, perhaps unwillingly, to the Trustees of the Savings Banks. He thought the only solution of the difficulty was to drop the clause from the Bill altogether; and, therefore, he heartily supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Essex (Mr. Baring).

said, the proposal of the Government amounted, to the imposition of an Income Tax of 1s. 6d. in the pound on the lowest class of Bank depositors—that was to say, on 500,000 people. It affected a class of persons who, in past years, had been induced to save by the security of a Government guarantee. He warned the Government that the course they were pursuing would have a most prejudicial effect. Hitherto, they had induced this class of persons to believe that, if they saved their money, they would be entitled to a certain rate of interest; and now they proposed, at one blow, to make a material reduction in that rate of interest. Next year, the Trustees of the Savings Banks would have to say to these unfortunate people—"Your interest on your savings, instead of being so much, is so much less." He would defy any of the Gentlemen who were intrusted, with the management of Savings Banks to make the depositors be- lieve that they were not cheating them. They had been told that if they placed their money in the Savings Banks they would have a certain rate of interest under the Government guarantee; and they were now to be told that that rate of interest would be materially reduced. And on what grounds? The Prime Minister had formed one average, and the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury another. But no average was founded on facts. It was the result of a combination of facts. It was a varying calculation, absolutely dependent on the term over which the calculation was taken. They had the highest authorities on that side of the House challenging the figures on the other side. They had, moreover, the opinion of the hon. Member for London University (Sir John Lubbock) in opposition to the Government. And on this doubtful evidence they were going to pass a clause which would affect most materially a very large number of persons, and those the most thrifty portion of the community, not one of whom was able to make his statement in that House or to be heard in opposition to the Bill of the Government.

said, he felt it was necessary to make a protest against the almost perilous doctrine laid down that depositors in Trustee Savings Banks, or in Post Office Savings Banks, had a secured right to receive any particular rate of interest. The Government were not bound to pay for one day longer one more shilling than they could afford to pay. With regard to Post Office Savings Banks, there was no such guarantee to pay one sixpence more interest than they could afford. Suppose Consols rose to a high rate, and the current rate of interest became only £2 10s. per cent, then it would be impossible for the Post Office or the Trustee Banks to continue the rate of interest now paid. There would be a deficit if they did, and that deficit would have to be made good out of the general taxpayer's pocket. Anxious as he was to encourage thrift, it was indefensible that this encouragement should be given in these transactions at the expense of the State. The only obligation was that the deposition should receive the maximum amount of interest that the State could afford to give, but not a shilling of that interest should be thrown upon another section of the community who were not depositors in the Banks. With reference to another remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) he (Mr. Fawcett) had made careful calculations, which he would be glad to show the right hon. Gentleman, but which could not be conveniently gone into now. These calculations showed that, as his noble Friend had said, the expenses of the Post Office Banks were not 15s., but 11s. per cent. One argument which seemed to him conclusive with regard to this clause was that put forward by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury. When Consols were at £98, it was impossible to invest money in Government Stock at 3¼, or anything like 3¼. You must invest in Stock that paid a higher rate of interest. All centred round the one principle that greater interest meant greater risk.

concurred in the protest against the doctrine that the State guaranteed a high rate of interest. He should vote in favour of the clause.

agreed that the country ought never to be called upon to pay more than it could afford without taxing the community; but it was because he still held that the country could pay 3¼ per cent without loss that he persisted with his Amendment. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury had, to a certain extent, confessed that the country could pay this 3¼ per cent without putting their hands in the taxpayers' pockets, and there ought to be a chance of having that fairly tried, when the original sin and its consequences had been swept away by this Bill. If Consols were at 98, he (Mr. Baring) must acknowledge any money put into them would not pay 3¼ per cent; but he did not know distinctly that the average cost of the whole amount of Consols held for accounts of Savings Banks would be too high to pay 3¼ per cent. But if so, there were other funds perfectly safe in which the money might be put, and it would be preferable to place the money there to reducing the rate of interest. There was the Canadian Guaranteed Loan, and there was the Metropolitan Board of Works Loans. Both of those gave more than 3¼ per cent; and he mentioned them because he found there had been money invested in both in 1878. No doubt, the Canadian would in case of large purchases soon command too high a rate; but he thought the Metropolitan Board of Works might be relied on for an unlimited time to provide a field for investment. If he obtained any support he should go to a division.

said, he was unable to support the Motion for the omission of the clause. It was with great regret he faced the necessity of a reduction in the rate of interest in Trustee Savings Banks; but, looking at the price of Consols now, and the rate of money in the open market for a long time past, he could not bring himself to say that the Government could afford to pay, either on existing transactions or on new transactions, so large a rate as £3 5s. per cent. It was, as he had said, with great regret he came to the conclusion, and he did so from the present, not the past, condition of the market. It was not necessary to prove that every Government for the past 40 years would not have paid £3 5s. per cent; what they had to consider was, what they could afford to pay now; and he thought the State must lose if they continued that rate, and it would, therefore, be improper to continue it. While he agreed with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General just now, his own conviction was that, directly and indirectly, the cost of conducting the Post Office Savings Banks was greater than 11s. per cent. He meant, taking into account the charges that indirectly resulted from the employment of a large staff, and in pensions in the future, and other charges, that must be taken into the liabilities of the Department. It was not their duty to tempt people to deposit money, but simply to give them as much as they could honestly afford. That might happen to be £2 10s. in Post Office Savings Banks and £3 in Trustee Banks; and if that was not sufficient to attract depositors, then they were better without them. The State was not justified in holding out inducements which it could not afford. Looking at all the circumstances, he did not think that the clause could be omitted, though it was with great regret he found the reduction necessary, and he felt that it would be taken unpleasantly by a large number of depositors.