The Sun. — London, England, 1860-06-23 00:00:00

sesseee--. Squitabl. no. wer which they were competent to administer but Corr wi.- %ais they were not satisfied. Th e C ommon L aw u. -ems' sioners, in thei r secon d repor t, as k e d f or a ll th e Aisrli.ction which it was proposed to confer by this bill ; Ad the Legislature hitherto had only given them that which they could fairly exercise. Parliament would now lave to decide whether it would give them a jurisdiction which it had denied them before, and whether it would in lerfesre with a jurisdiction which worked so admirably as that of the courts of equity. In equity there was now no delay; there were six courts, and but seven judges to decide the cases which came before them ; and would Parliament be doing well to take away the jurisdiction of these excel lent judges and give it to the common law judges, who already complained that they had not time to perform their present duties ? He was strongly induced to take their lordships' opinion on the principle of the measure ; but, as it was unusual to do so on a motion for referring the bill to a select committee, he should on this occasion refrain from pressing for a division. Lord BROUGHAM concurred with his noble and learned friend (Lord Lyndhurst) in thinking that, there being a division of opinion between the common law and equity judges, the proper way was to refer the bill to a select com mittee. The design of the bill was to extend still further the equitable jurisdiction which the common law courts now possessed. There could not be a greater mistake than to suppose that a general fusion, as it was called, of law and equity was possible in this country ; and any attempt to effect such general fusion would only be productive of mis chief. But what the noble and learned lord on the woolsack said was that in many instances a certain equitable juris diction had been given to the courts of common law, par ticularly of late years. Now, the principle of the present bill, as he understood it, declared that where there was a legal right, and where that right was sought to be obtained in a court of common law, it was better that that court, should be empowered to dealwith the whole subject matter, and if in the course of the inquiry any equitable objection should arise on one side or on the other, the parties should not be put to the expense, delay, and vexation consequent en being sent to a court of equity, but that the common law court should have the power of dealing with the equitable matter. His noble and learned friend who opposed the bill stated three objections to the decision to which the common law judges had come on the subject—namely, that the com mon law courts were overworked, that they had not the proper machinery, and that they were not competent for the purpose. From his noble and learned friend he appealed to those judges themselves, who declared that in point of time and labour they had no objection to the proposition now made, that they had abundance of time and were not over worked, but were capable of taking this small fraction of addition to their labours. He could not help referring those who entertained objections to the proposed change in the proceedings of the courts to that report of the Common Law Commissioners, in which the history of amendments in the law was traced with great accuracy, and where it was shown how matters deemed at one time wild and dangerous innovations had gradually, by the improvement of men's knowledge on the sub ject, ,become the law of the land. As a remarkable proof of this, he mentioned the changes effected in the law of evi dence, which had been found to work admirably, and to contribute greatly to the efficient administration of justice. Lord CHELMSFORD hoped that the bill would be very much altered before it was passed into law. There ought, in fad, to be two bills, and, notwithstanding the authority of the common law judges, his objection to many parts of the first portion of the measure was not in the slightest degree lessened. He was bound to say, at the same time, that the opinion of their lordships upon the principle of the bill ought to have been tested when the motion was made for the second reading. That stage had been allowed to pass without opposition, and, inasmuch as there had been a rather sharp encounter between the equity and common law judges, it was impossible for theirlordships to make up their minds on the subject without carefully considering the statements and opinions on both sides. Of course, that could not be done in the house itself. It would be infi nitely better to refer the matter to a select committee, and when the bill came out of the committee their lordships would be able to decide whether it should be passed into law or not. Lord KINGSDOWN said that the observations of the Common Law Commissioners had not removed, or even in the slightest degree effected, the strong objections which he entertained to the present bill. The bill had two objects entirely distinct, which should properly form the subject of two measures, but which, unfortunately, had been united in one. One portion of the bill gave what he believed was in principle an entirely new jurisdiction of the courts of com mon law. The other was confined to amending the pro ceedings which properly belonged to those courts. To the latter, if brought forward in a bill by itself there could be no objection, but the case was very different with respect to the former. If the bill was referred to a select committee, the objections entertained by many noble lords to its first por tion, consisting of no fewer than 30 clauses, would continue to exist in precisely the same force. The only difference would be that those clauses, if the committee should not ap prove them, would be expunged ; or, if the committee should approve them, they would be the subject of a hostile! motion on the third reading of the bill. He could not helpl looking with considerable apprehension to the, course about to be taken. If the bill was referred to a select committee, it must, of necessity, occupy some time in its consideration there. It must occupy some further time in its discussion in the house after it came out of the eommittee ; and, sup posing their lordships should ultimately give it a third read ing, at what period of the session was it likely to go down to the other house ? What might be its fate there he would not, of course, presume to say ; but at present, at all eventi, the omens were not auspicious. The consequence would be that we should lose, for this session at least, the whole of the bill, the portion which was desirable as well as that to which the strongest objections were entertained. The LORD CHANCELLOR stated, in reply, that there had not been a single observation made to show that any one of the powers sought by the present bill might not be safely conferred upon the courts of common law. The come mon law judges believed that without these additional powers they could not in a satisfactory manner administer justice in their courts. He had no objection to • add to the motion the words "and that the opinions of the learned equity and common law judges be also referred to the seleft committee." He proposed that the committee should coat sist of the same members as those who sat on the consolli dation of the criminal law. The motion as amended, was then agreed to. ENGLISH SHIPWRIGHTS AT CHERBOURG. Viscount DUNGANNON said he had given notice o a question with regard to the report that a large number of English shipwrights were engaged for the dockyard at Cher bourg, at the rate of Bs. a day for eight hours' work, instead of 6s. as the rate was here, for 10 hours' work. Since theca, however, certain circumstances had occurred which rendered it unnecessary for him to press for further information on the subject from the First Lord of the Admiralty. One of the workmen who had gone over to Cherbourg, tempted by the prospect of abundant employment and high remunesa tion, appeared at the Thames Police-court three or fetur days ago, and said he felt it his duty to state, for the se of others, that he had been unable to procure employment in France, had fallen into great distress and destituti n, and had been sent home again by the kindness of the British consul. The Duke of SOMERSET said that he had received an other letter from the British consul at Cherbourg, stating that no British subjects were employed in the dockyard there. Some British shipwrights had gone over to Cher bourg in consequence of the statement which had appeared in the English newspapers ; but not being able to obtain work had fallen into a pitiable condition, and bitterly re pented their credulity. The consul had sent them home again, and told them to warn their countrymen of the real state of the ease. The highest wages given to shipwrights at Cherbourg was 3f. a-day, or not quite 2s. 6d. for 12 hours' works, as the workmen were not allowed to leave the dock yard to take their meals. Besides that, the consul informed him that no additional shipwrights were required at Cher bourg. Some of those in the dockyard had lately been dis • charged, rind the only vessel which was now being con structed there was a transport. (Hear, hear.) -1.11.19111 t MILITIA AND CONSTABULARY. The Alarquieot CLAN RI C ARDE, in moving for cm tain returns with regard to the Irish Militia and Constabu lary, said it was a question deserving consideration whether a large armed force, such as the police of Ireland, ought not to tio brought under the operation of the Mutiny Aete and enlisted for a certain length of time. At present tb might quit the service, he believed, at the shortest notice. He was anxious to know on what system the em bodiment and disembodiment of the militia was conducted. He defied any ono to discover any unifurze principle which regulated the proceedings of the War-office in this respect. It was impossible to make a regiment of militia effective in 28 days' training, and it was therefore unadvisable to leave any regiment too long in a disembodied state. If 20,000 or 25,000 were always kept embodied in rotation, and the staff of the other regiments were) kept up, it was clear that. within a certain number of years there would be a force of 100,000 upon which reliance could be placed on an emer Kelley, and which would be kept up at a cost of only 2.1,000 c 'T 3 ) 00 0 men. The noble marqui s c onc l u d e d b y mov i ng f or thefoliowi" returns :—Return of the number of men as sembled for the last training. of each of the disembodied regiments of Irish Militia, stating also the full amount of the eetabli s h ment of each regiment n; ; also a returti of the M il peri ods itia have bat and a respectively g which e ac h o f th e reg i ments of Irish October, 1854 embodied since the month o f and alsoreturn of the number of police men of the Irish constabularya force who have resigned their employment since the comm encement t ra o encement of the present y ear . The motion was agreedOn the motion of the Duke of N • ) z ß w i c il A w sT a L s E ;e t a n d e a D uc h thirdy of Cornwall (Limitation of Actions time ar.l passed. The Councillors of Burgin , ' and Burgesses (Scotland) Bill passed through committee. The Plea on Indictment Bill wentthrone s committee. The Fisheries (Scotland) Bill was read a third time and passed. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.) The SPY:AKER took the chair shortly.after 12 O'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS, The-North British and Peebles and Jedburo.h Rail. THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 23, 1860. liament. It was then a breach of privilege to publish the Powers of Europe shall be consulted is to be carried into way Companies Bill and the Sovereign Life Assurance Company Bill were considered and ordered for third read• ing. The following bills were read a third time and passed : Auchterarder Common Muir; North British Insurance Company; Portadown, Dungannon, and Omagh Junction Railway ; Symington, Biggar, and Brough on Railway ; Hayling Railways; Mid Sussex and Milurst Junction Railway Deviation; and Petersfield Railw v. MINES REGULATION AND INSPECTION BILL. The house went into committee on this bill, and resumed at clause 2. Mr. KINNAIRD said that on the last occasion the bill was discussed he proposed an amendment to reduce the labour of children to eight hours, but from some statements he had heard, he was induced not to adhere to that term of employment. lie would therefore alter his amendment, and move that in page 2, line 10, after " colliery," that there be inserted " for any hours not exceeding 10 hours per diem." Sir G. C. LEWIS said that the principle of a limitation of the hours of labour for children emplOyel in mines had been already affirmed, though the number of hours of em ployment had not been determined. There were 12 inspec tors of mines, whose mission was to protect the public and to regard with favourable eyes what related to the condition of those employed in mines, and 11 out of these had re ported against an alteration in the present hours of labour. Mr. LIDDELL considered that it would be impossible to regulate the labour of boys in mines without affecting injuriously the labour of adults. Juvenile labour in mines was neither uninterrupted nor severe, and any interference with it would be most prejudicial. Mr. AYRTON said it had not been shown that the alteration in the hours of labour was practically impossible, and that term meant no more than that it might affect coal owners, for it was a mere question of money. The same objections that had been advanced with reference to the question had been fully discussed when the subject of labour in factories was before the house. The same threats and warnings that were then made were identical with those now used, but experience had shown that these were the idle fears arising out of the prejudices of mill owners, who had been brought up under, and practised, a particular system. No person had yet demonstrated that the labour of children in mines could not be reduced to 10 hours, and he called on the house, in the name of humanity, to agree to the amendment. Mr. TAYLOR supported the amendment. Mr. PEASE followed on the same side, and accused the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. A yrton) of not being practically acquainted with the subject, and not having paid attention to the facts developed in the course of the debate on this bill. Mr. CLI VE said, if he had been convinced by the argu ment of the hon. member (Mr. Ayrton), he would vote for the amendment, but he considered that the report of the inspectors of mines was conclusive on the subject, aid it must be remembered that these inspectors were the friends of the labouring class employed in mines. Mr. J. LOCKE considered that the question had been shirked by the opponents of the amendment, and contended that the testimony of mine inspectors was not sufficient to prove there was no inhumanity in compelling children of tender years to work under ground for an indefinite num ber of hours day after day. He supported the amendment. Sir H. VERNEY said that he felt bound to vote in favour of the amendment. Mr. CAYLEY said he was informed by a miner that in the mine where he first worked there were 40 boys em ployed, not one of whom was now living, and in the second mine, out of 37 boys there were only three living. Mr. BRUCE asserted that the sanitary state of the mines and these employed in them had been misrepresented, and opposed the amendment. Mr. KINNAIRD replied, and some further discussion ensued. The house then divided, and the numbers were— For the amendment Against Majority.. The amendment was accordingly negatived. Lord LOVAINE moved an amendment to the effect that for the first six months after the Ist of next year boys under ten years of age should be admitted to work in mines with out a certificate of their ability to read or write. After a few words from Sir G. C. LEWIS, the amend ment was withdrawn, with an understanding that the clause would be altered in accordance with the wishes of the hon. member. Mr. PAGET moved the following amendment :—Leave out lines 11 to 19 inclusive, and insert " In the second and every subsequent week during which such boy is employed in such mine or colliery, the owner shall obtain a certificate under the hand of a competent schoolmaster that such boy has attended school for not less than five hours in each of two days (not being consecutive days, and on which he shall not have worked in the mine or colliery), during the week immediately preceding, between the hours of eight o'clock in the morning and five o'clock in the evening, ex clusive of any attendance on Sundays." He trusted that the committee would assist him in establishing a rule that two days in the week boys alternately should not enter the mines under any circumstances. By his proposal the mine owners could have double the command of labour they would have under the provisions of the bill. Three boys could do what two boys would do provided the latter were continually employed. One boy could then have schooling, and rest on Monday and Thurs day, another on Tuesday and Friday, and the third on Wednesday and Saturday. No doubt some inconvenience might be experienced by coal owners at first in the adoption of the alteration proposed, but he trusted the amendment would not be rejected on that ground, when it was calculated to confer so much benefit on the boys em ployed in mines. Mr. EVANS seconded the amendment. Mr. CLIVE could not accede to the amendment. The house had already reduced the number of persons employed in mining, and they wanted now to reduce the amount of that labour. The hon. member (Mr. Paget) seemed to consider that the supply of labour for mines was indefinite, but that was not the case, and any further interference in diminish ing the amount of labour applied to mining •perations might be productive of very serious consequences. The hon. member quoted a report in reference to factories to show the difficulty that was experienced in obtaining an adequate supply of labour in that department of indwery. Mr. ADDERLEY considered that the hon. member (Mr. Paget) should be content with one day in the week appropriated to educational purposes for each boy, and he would support the amendment if it were limited to that extent. Mr. INGHAM coincided with the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Adderley). Mr. JACKSON said that in Derbyshire several thou sands were expended in the erection and mainte nance of schools, and every opportunity was afforded to children employed in mines in thqt district to obtain education. He believed that the hours of labour in mines were not on an average more than eight a day, and ha believed also that for their own interest the coalowners were in favour of the education of those in their employ meat. Sir G. C. LEWIS said that, in order to meet the views of hon. members, he would consent to modify the clause to the extent that for every subsequent week to that in which the boy was employed any such boy must produce a certi ficate of attendance at school for five hours in one day during such week, irrespective of attendance at schools on Sundays. Mr. PAGET, on that understanding, withdrew his amendment. Some discussion ensued, in the course of which Mr. MONSELL moved the omission of certain portions of the clause haying reference to the educational tests required of children before their admission to work in mines. Mr. NE WDEGATE considered that compulsory enact ments would not promote education, and the clause would be practically inoperative so far as education was concerned. In many cases parents were unable to provide education for their children, and it was most arbitrary and unjust to re quire an educational test in order to enable children to get employment. If they imposed that test they should pro vide free education, otherwise they would be depriving the boy of the means not only of livelihood, but actually of ob taining education. The house then divided and there appeared— For the amendment Against Majority On the motion that the amendment of Sir G. C. Lewis stand part of the bill, Mr. BRUCE moved that the words ° in one day" should be omitted, so that the school hours might be spread over five days. The house again divided and the numbers were— For the amendment of Sir G. C. Lewis 106 Against Majority The clause, as amended, was then agreed to. Some other clauses were also agreed to, and the chairman re ported progress. The house suspended ifs sitting shortly before 4 o'clock. The house resumed at 6 o'clock. DEFECTIVE ACCOMMODATION IN THE LAW COURTS. Mr. E. JAMES gave notice that on that day week he should call the attention of the First Commissioner of Works to the defective state of the accommojation provided for the administration of justice in the Courts in Westmin ster Hall. PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE asked the First Lord of the Trea sury whether there would be any objection to the Minutes of Proceedings of the House of Lords being laid daily on the table of the house ; and to obtain the opportunity of making a few observations, moved that the House at its rising ad journ to Monday next - . The production of those papers would not only contribute to the more satisfactory despatch of busi ness, but would prevent a repetition of the absurd farce which . took place about a month ago, when the noble lord moved the appointment of a committee for the purpose of searching the Journals of the House of Lords to see what had been done in reference to the paper duty, when every man, woman, and child in the kingdom knew four days before what had taken place. It was formerly quite right that search should be made in the Journals of the Lords at a time when mys tery surrounded the proceNings of the two Houses of Par-, debates, whereas now the press was officially recognised in that house, and reported the proceedings with an accuracy expedition, and fidelity which were the envy and admiration of surrounding nations. Strangers now were admitted to the galleries, and were no longer removed during divisions. For merly the members did not leave the house, but di vided to right and left of the chair, and were counted by two gentlemen, and it was a breach of privilege to publish anything in relation to the division. But now the votes and proceedings of the House of Commons were published to the world, and the House of Lords had a copy of those proceedings on their table, and openly referred to them—(" hear, hear," from Mr. Bright)—and discussed them in their debates. The House of Commons, or the country, if they wished to know anything that bad taken place in the other house, were obliged to appoint a commit tee to search their journals, tbough it was true the minutes of the Lords' proceedings were in the library, where they were of no use whatever. He thought it would tend mate rially to the despatch of public business if these were offi cially laid on the table of the house, and if bon. members possessed the power of referring to them. Lord PALMER S TON—My hon. friend will recollect that there are two sources from which documents are received on which any action by this house can take place. One of these is from the Crown when papers are presented by com mand or are officially laid on the table; the other source is when they are furnished in obedience to the order of this house for the production of certain documents. The pro ceedings entered in the journals of the House of Lords are not in the possession of the Crown, which has no more cog • nisance of them than we have, and therefore cannot order any responsible Minister to lay these papers on the table of this house. I apprehend it would be contrary to all the re ciprocal usages and mutual privileges of the two houses for either to order the other to furnish its proceedings. (Hear.) Therefore, in neii her of these modes, which I imagine are the only channels by which official records reach us, can the proceedings of the House of Lords be laid on our table. But my hon. friend is probably aware that by reciprocal courtesy the minutes of each house are commu nicated to the other. About 16 copies of the proceed ings of the House of Lords are daily transmitted to this house—one copy for the library and the others for distri- bution to different officers, and it will be perfectly easy if it should be thought more convenient to have one copy laid upon the table, instead of in the library. (Hear, hear.) It is quite true, as my hon. friend says, that the House of Lords have founded resolutions of their own on the records of this house, which were laid upon their table, and we might undoubtedly pursue the same course. But, generally speak ing, I apprehend—and you, Mr. Speaker, will correct me if I am wrong—it is not the habit of the House of Commons to found proceedings except on documents that are officially in our possession. (Hear, hear.) My hon. friend says the proceedings of the House of Lords are well known to every body, from being reported in the newspapers, and that no doubt can exist as to what has taken place. But that re mark applies much more extensively than to the proceedings of the House of Lords. There are various matters of which all of us have personal cognisance, events of public noto riety, which are recorded in the newspapers; but with re gard to these before any formal act of this house can be taken we require to have some written document officially and responsibly put on the table, either in answer to an ad dress from the Crown or by the order of the house, directed to those persons who are bound to obey oar directions. I therefore very much doubt—even if an arrangement could be made by which one copy of the proceedings of the House of Lords would be laid on our table, either indeed of or in addition to that already in the library—whether the house would be disposed to make it a foundation for any serious measure. (Hear, hear.) I think it would be a departure from our ordinary course, and I confess I do not quite per ceive the value of the difference which it would produce on our proceedings. My hon. friend says we ought to dis pense with the formal appointment of a committee to search the journals of the Lords. But that course is a very easy one ; there is no difficulty in the way ; it is a question merely of a short period of time, and I do not see that we should -gain anything in point of expedition by sub stituting for the authentic report of the committee a copy of the journals of the House of Lords. On the contrary, I think the step would lose some portion of its weight ; for, although everybody would know that the printed paper was e-r accurate transcript of the minutes of proceedings in the other house, yet, as a foundation for legislative action, I think it would be more satisfactory to have the extract taken from the journals themselves. Having stated what the practice is, I apprehend, Mr. Speaker, there will be no difficulty, under your directions, in having a copy of the minutes of the House of Lords placed on the table of this house, for the information of members, in addition to that which may be consulted in the library. . I think the house, probably, will be disposed to leave the matter in your hands, and will feel that you will make such an arrangement as may be satisfactory to all. (Hear.) NEAPOLITAN CRUISERS. Mr. D. GRIFFITH. asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any account had been received of a Neapolitan frigate having captured two vessels, presumed to have been carrying reinforcements to Garibaldi, by hoisting English colours, and offering to tow them into Palermo, and, having got them in tow, she then hoisted Neapolitan colours and steered for Gaeta ; and whether, if so, such use of th.Ttritiah flag would be permitted to the Neapolitan Government ? NICE AND SAVOY.—MINISTERIAL POLICY. Sir R. PEEL—Before the noble lord the Foreign Secre tary replies, I shall be very glad to have the opportunity of putting a question to him; and, before doing so, I beg to thank the noble lord for his kind consideration in being pre sent, so as to be able to return an answer; and I hope it is an earnest that for the future the noble lord will endeavour to be present in this house to defend the policy which the Government are following with respect to foreign affairs. I said last night, and I now take the opportunity of reiterating in presence of the noble lord, that in my belief there is a general opinion throughout the country that the noble lord is endeavouring to shirk the re sponsibility vested in him by the office which he has under taken. It may not be the case, but such is my impression. We so seldom receive any information from the noble lord with respect to foreign affairs that when any is obtained the feeling of the house generally, I think, is rather one of commiseration with the noble lord on being any longer un able to conceal the intelligence--(laughter)—than of grati fication at the tidings which he has been obliged to convey. 'Ye have had some experience of the policy of the noble lord and I am sorry to say I conceive it to be far from satisfac tory. For many months the noble lord has had charge of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and I am bound to de clare in my place in Parliament that I believe that policy to be both weak and vacillating. I recollect the noble lord was sometimes very indignant with other Ministers when they did not pursue a straightforward policy. I remember per fectly well, when the noble lord sat on these benches, with what indignation, and how, with the mein of an exasperated patriot, he fulminated against my noble friend the Prime Minister for what he called his mean and humiliating policy. I do not know whether the noble lord recollects the expres sions which he then made use of against the Prime Minis ter—(a laugh)—but, if he does not, I will recall them to his memory. The house will recollect that in 1858 the noble lord now at the head of the Government introduced into this house a measure kuown as the Conspiracy Bill, which a large number of members, of whom I was one, from the first resisted most strenuously. The noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was then sitting on the back benches and, in a spirit of strong indignation—he was then, no' doubt, anxious to replace his noble friend—(a laugh)—de nounced the measure. The noble lord, on that occasion to which I am alluding (Feb. 9, 1858), said-4er the noble lord at that time was very violent against the Primo Minister, although matters have since been made up between them—(a laugh)—that the Government yielded to a demand front France ; that it was not a strong Government ; that it was about to introduce a bill which he should feel it a shame and a degradation to support. " Let those who will support it," said the noble lord, "in that humiliation I, for one, will not share." Loud cheers followed that announcement, and of course the noble lord obtained credit throughout the country for being a very spirited and exasperated patriot. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) I must, however, say that I am afraid the noble lord's present policy is very shameful and humi liating to the nation. The despatch which, if the newspapers be correct, has just reached the Government from M. Thou venel I look upon as an insult to us and our councils in the eyes of the nations of Europe, and as degrading to the pres tige and character of England. M. Thouvenel appeals to the good faith of the policy of France, and says that, although the Court of France asks Europe to sanction the act of annexation which has just received its final consum mation, yet that the Court of the Tuileries will not consent to any lessening of the Savoyard territory in favour of Switzerland. Now, I regard this, after the repeated decla rations which have been made on the subject by the French Emperor, as a most serious and dangerous position of affairs. (Hear.) Upon three separate occasions—the 10th February, the Ist March, and then on the Gth of the same month— the Powers of Europe would be consulted before the con templated annexation was carried into effect. (Hear, hear.) February Secretary last w for as Foreign made Now, if any faith i s t o b o placed in the statements of public by Affairs, Lord men, some importan ce ought to be attached to the report C w e h w ic l h ey on te t t h h e e n l o O b t l h e o o e r d eb ther -when he wrote as follows : "I saw the Emperor yesterday, and bad some conversat ion with him on the subject of the annexati on o f Savoy. The Emperor entirely disclaimed all intention of proceeding to make the annexation without consulting the great Powers. (Hear, hear.) I asked his Majesty if I might repeat this assurance to your lordship, and permission to do so was most graciously and cordially given." (Hear, hear.) Now, that word "cordially" seems to me to possess a charming piquancy, because the Emperor of the French must have known perfectly well that when he gave the assurance in question he did not mean to act upon it. (Hear.) There is also another despatch, No. 17 in the books, in which Lord Cowley says that M. Thouvenel had again assured him that the Emperor had intended to abide by the statement which I have just mentioned. On the 6th March the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs wrote to Lord Cowley in the following terms : "I wish your lordship would ascertain from M. Thouvenel in what manner the promise of the Emperor that the great effect." Now, I wish the house to bear in mind that from the date of that despatch—the 6th of March—to the 21st of June, no answer to that question, with respect to which the noble lord expressed a wish an explanation should bo obtained by Lord Cowley, has been returned. (Hear.) That is, I con tend, a very lax way of conducting the foreign affairs of the country—(cheers)—particularly in reference to a ques tion affecting in so important a degree a State whose neu trality England as well as the six other great Powers of Europe had guaranteed. (Hear, hear.) I will not at the present moment enter into a full consideration of this ques tion, because I believe we shall at a future time be fur nished with an opportunity of having with respect to it ample discussion. I cannot, however, allow this day to pass without entering, in the name, I will not say of Swit zerland, but of every man who is desirous of seeing the principles of honour observed in the conduct of public affairs, my protest against the policy which the Emperor of the French has in this matter pursued. (Hear, hear.) Wo must recollect that not only was the neutrality of Switzerland guaranteed by the great Powers, but that it was distinctly laid down no troops whatever should enter into the neutralised province of Savoy, whereas, under pre- sent circumstances, not only are there troops at Chambery, but the Pont Beauvoisin, St. Jean de Maurienne, Albert ville, and Moutiers will forthwith receive detachments. (Hear.) On the other hand, troops are going to Annecy, which is situated in the neutralised provinces. The garrison of Annecy will furnish detachments to Thonoli and Evian, on the Lake of Geneva, in the Chablais, at Bonneville in Faucigny, end St. Julien in the Genevois, so that you will have troops in that very district in which their maintenance is strictly opposed to treaty engagements and inconsistent with the due protection of Switzerland. (Cheers.) I would ask the house, in dealing with this question, not to lose sight of the important fact that the King of Sardinia, when the treaty of Turin was framed, base and iniquitous as it was on his part to sacrifice what I may call the berceau of of his family, distinctly stated that, although he assented to the cession of Savoy to France, yet Sardinia reserved to Switzerland her co .operation in the steps to be taken on the subject of the neutralised provinces. (Hear.) Now, without entering more at length into the question, I main- tain that Switzerland has not been consulted in this matter, and that if the Government of this country have been eon suited they have given an opinion with respect to it without the consent of the House of Commons. I believe I am in a position to state positively, end upon high and important authority, that in the month of February an offer was made to tho Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the effect that France was prepared to cede those portions of territory adjoining the Lake of Geneva, in the hope that by means of that pro posal arrangements might he quietly made for the cession of the rest " Now, the cession of Nice and Lower Savoy to France is a matter which perhaps does not materially affect us. One Power may cede to another, there being a mutual understanding on the subject, a portion of her ter ritory without an irfringement of the law of nations, but when such a course is taken with respect t territory whose neutrality has been guaranteed by seven lit wers of Europe, in a most sacred and solemn manner, as is the case with Faucigny, Chablais, and Genevois—l say it is degrading to the councils of this country, and an insult to the charac ter of England, to allow such a policy to be carried out without entering against it a determined protest in the name of the English people. (Cheers.) I hope the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs will be able to stand up in his place to-night and to state that he has received no communication such as that to which I have alluded— but, in order to refresh his memory on the matter—(a laugh)—l would refer him to a despatch written by Lord Cowley on the 9th of February, in which he distinctly tells the noble lord that the Emperor of the French is prepared to cede the territory in question, in the hope that the an nexation of Savoy and Nice might be amicably arranged. I regret that I have felt it to be my duty to trouble the house with these observations—(hear)—but, as hon. mem bers are probably aware, I have been recently in the loca lity of which I am speaking, and I can assure those who have not, that we in this country can scarcely realise the feeling of the inhabitants of those provinces when they see an enemy at their gates, and their rights and libertiesbeing wrested from their grasp. (Hear, hear.) Those people are bravo and love freedom. They are anxious to enjoy the popular institutions which they have, but they know perfectly well, from the teachings and experience of his tory, that the progress of France on that side of Geneva is fatal to their aspirations, and that if she once obtains pos session of the Lake of Geneva the independence and in tegrity of the Confederation will be greatly endangered, if not absolutely and permanently annihilated. (Hear, hear.) It was only last night that I saw at a meeting in the city of London the whole colony of Swiss over here, I myself perhaps being the only Englishman who was present on the occasion, and I can assure the house I could not help responding from my heart to the sentiments which ani mated those men when they saw the standard of Switzer land floating over the chair of the presideit, and heard from the lips of their Minister that the greatest danger threatened their country. (Cheers.) I could not, I repeat, help feeling from my soul the greatest sympathy with those men—Savoyards and Swiss—whose rights are now, to my mind permanently menaced by the cruel hypocrisy of France. (Loud cheers.) Mr. SCULLY, referring to the proclamation or police notice, wLioho,or it sor.ight hr, which had been recently issued by the Government in Ireland, said he had been asked whether it was illegal to subscribe for certain pur poses, and he had mentioned the name of the noble lord at head of the Government as an authority that the best way to obey the law was to break it, inasmuch as he had heard the noble lord state that he had formerly subscribed to wards the prosecution of a revolutionary movement in a foreign State—Greece—a proceeding which the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, after what fell from him in that house, must regard as a breach of the law. (A laugh.) When he was lately applied to in Ireland for advice in a similar instance, he said he never advised a breach of the law ; but as the noble lord had stated that he had broken the law without being prose cuted, perhaps they would follow his example. (A laugh.) He told the parties, however, to be sure not to quote him as their adviser. (Laughter and cries of " Question I") He had a question on the paper which he wished to put to the Attorney-General for Ireland. Before putting it, how ever, he would say, with reference to the question of the hon. member for Finsbury, that he could see no possible objection to the proceedings of the House of Lords being laid on the table daily. He wished, in the next place, to know how the Rag Committee were getting on. (Oh, oh.) They did not seem alive at all. (Question.) They were very mate ; they had now been appointed four or five weeks, and they had heard nothing of their proceedings. (Ques tion.) His question related to the transfer of laud in Ire land. That was perhaps the most important matter that had been or could be discussed this session. (Question, ques ti on .) While he made jokes for the amusement of the house honourable members gave him a very atten tive hearing, but the moment he began to talk rational common sense he was met with cries of "Question." He would not trouble the house further. (Go on, go on.) He was in the hands of the house. (Question.) lie would, then, defer discussion till the Attorney-General for Ireland brought forward his bill. The notice with refer ence to that bill had been on the paper twenty times at least. (Question.) He did not say this in any unfriendly spirit to the Attorney-General for Ireland. He knew the difficulties he had to contend with, having regard to the business of the Government. (Question.) He would not ask any question. (Laughter.) He would sit down. (A laugh, and Hear.) Sir J. ACTON wished to know when there would be pro duced copies or extracts from the despatches of Mr. Lyons in 1855, 1856, and 1857, respecting the Government and condition of the Roman States ? Mr. B. COCHRANE wished to put another question to the noble lord. On the 16th of February he understood the noble lord to say that " the Government of which he was a member would be prepared to maintain the neutrality of Switzerland ;" and, he added, that the districts of Chablais and Faucigny were guaranteed under the treaty of Vienna, and, in fact, he said, " they form part of the guarantees of the neutrality of Switzerland." He wished to know whether the noble lord was now prepared to carry out the assurance he gave on that occasion ? (Hear, hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL—The first question that has been asked me was put by the hon. gentleman the member for Devises (Mr. Griffith) with respect to the accounts which he supposes have been received that a Neapolitan frigate had captured two vessels presumed to be carrying reinforce ments to Garibaldi. So far the Government has received intelligence that two vessels, supposed to be carrying re inforcements to Garibaldi, were captured by a Neapolitan vessel and carried into Gaeta. But with regard to the fur ther question, I can- of say whether that capture was effected by the hoisting of English colours and offering to tow them into Palermo. I have seen another statement in the newspapers that it was by hoisting French colours ; but her Majesty's Government have not received any corrobora tion of either statement. Of course, if the Neapolitan frigate used English colours the act was a wholly unjusti fiable one. I now, sir, come to the question put by the hon. baronet (Sir R. Peel). And first, as to his statement, that I was not here last night to answer questions. I believe I am generally in the house almost every day at a quarter past 4 o'clock. (Hear, hear.) Perhaps the hon. baronet himself is not here quite so frequently or so punctually as I am. (Hear, hear.) Every one at all acquainted with the Foreign Office must know that there are at times questions of con siderable urgency, and which take up time at the very mo ment one is preparing to do some other business. (Hear.) It se happened yesterday, just as I was about to leave the Foreign-office to come down to the house, I was consulted by the Under-Secretary of State on a question of great im portance respecting papers to be laid before Parliament, and I remained discussing the matter with him till past the hour when questions are generally answered. (Hear.) The only question that was on the notice paper was that of the hon. baronet the member for Carlow (Sir J. Acton) who has just spoken with respect to the correspondence of 1856 and W. That was not a very urgent matter, and I desired a notice to be sent to the hon. baronet that he might have the papers if he would move an address to the Crows!. The h en . baronet does not seem to have correctly understoood that message; but he may reeve any day for papers. It has taken some time to collect them, beinparts of a correspondence with. a former Secretary of State ; but they are now in order, and the hon. baronet can have them whenever he likee to move for them: With regard to the hon. baronet the mem- her for Tamworth, I can only say, if he has any question to ask which he thinks urgent with reference to foreign affairs, his correct course is to do as other members do, and to give notice of his intention to put such a question. The hon. member might have had the courtesy to send me a note to say that •he was going to ask his question, and then I should certainly have endeavoured to attend in my place to answer it. (Hear.) Well, omitting all matters relating to the Conspiracy Bill, which has hardly any bearing on any subject now before us, it appears that the hon. baronet has seen a report in the newspapers that a note has been trans. witted to us from M. Thouvenel, containing, among other things, a very strong hint that France would not submit to any diminution of the territory of which she is now in possession, viz., Savoy and Nice. Sir, I could not have answered the hon. baronet on that point yesterday, because I had then no knowledge of any note from M. Thouvenel; but at half-past three o'clock to-day I saw the French ambassador, and ho placed in my hands a copy of a French note ; and as to any such intimation as that stated in the newspapers, namely, that France would not consent to any diminution of that territory, there is not a word of that kind in the whole despatch. (Hear, hoar.) The purport of the de- spatch is to this effect :—lt is states in the Treaty of Turin that France will come to an understanding with the other Powers with respect to the neutralised portions of Savoy; and, according to the view of the French Government, that understanding is to be arrived at by endeavouring to recon cile the second article of the Treaty of Turin with the 92d article of the Treaty of Vienna. The French note then pro ceeds to say that this may be done in one of these three modes—either the Powers who signed the Treaty of Vienna may meet in conference with the French Foreign Minister, or identical notes may be exchanged, the French note stating that France is ready to take upon herself the whole of the obligations by which Sardinia has been bound during the time she held Savoy. And here I may mention, in answer to the question put to me by the hon. gentleman who spoke last, that the despatch says that France is ready to make this neutral territory part of the neutral territory of Switzer land in the same manner as Sardinia did. The third mode would be by leaving it to France and Switzer land to effect such a substitution for the former en gagements as France and Switzerland might mutually agree upon. The note then goes on to say that if there should be a conference, most of the Powers have already said they think that Paris would be a convenient place in which to hold it, and that it should meet on the points I have mentioned. Such is the substance of the note we have received only to-day; and of course her Majesty's Govern ment have not yet answered it. It remains for them to answer it in such terms as they may think it requires. But it appears to me the whole question rests upon this—that the Great Powers of Europe were willing to engage upon a guarantee for this portion of Savoy being held, like the other parts of that country, by Sardinia. Sardinia was a State with whom the Allied Powerdwere ready to agreeupon such terms, and they might at all events be quite sure, when they had engaged with Sardinia upon those terms, that Swit zerland was safe, and that these obligations would be binding upon Sardinia. But the case is very much changed when a great Power like France come into possession of the terri tory that was held by Sardinia. (Hear, hear.) And it is not the same thing—although it is so represented by France, and although, indeed the words are the same, the technical engagements exactly the same—for France to say, "We will undertake to fulfil the obligations of Sardinia, and to place this neutralised territory in the same position as it stood in before." (Hear.) That is the answer which we have urged more than once to this proposal. Really, the hon. baronet, who speaks frequently and with great ability on these sub jects, should endeavour to be more accurate ; because, be it observed, the engagement of the treaty is not that there should be no troops at any time in the neutralised provinces. On the contrary, the specific engagement is that the Sar dinian troops, in the case of war with the neighbouring Powers, shall evacuate this neutralised territory, thereby implying very clearly that during peace the Sardinian troops are at liberty to occupy it.' This, therefore, is the position of the question. We have an opinion—and it is a very decided opinion—as to the 'node in which, supposing France to have obtained, as she has done already, the cession of Savoy, a substitute should be provided which would, as I believe, be an efficient substitute, and one that would be satisfactory to Switzerland, for the engagements which have hitherto subsisted. But lam sorry to say that at no time in any of our discussions has France shown any disposition to adopt that substitute which seems to us to be the only one which would be an equivalent, in point of efficiency, to the security which the treaty of 1815 created. It would be impossible for us, therefore, to state that we ehall be satis fied with or shall accept this treaty as affording an' equi valent security to Switzerland for that which she has pre viously enjoyed. (Hear, hear.) I don't know whether the bon. baronet really means to say that we should not have given any opinion on the subject without obtaining the sanction of this house—(" No, no," from Sir R. Peel) — but that is not the usual way of carrying on such correspon dence. The Cabinet must obtain the consent of the Crown to such despatches and communications as they may feel it their duty to prepare, and on afterwards presenting the papers to this house their authors must submit to any opinion which the house may think fit to pass upon them. In this case the papers are rather voluminous; but I hope very soon to place at least a portion of them, bringing the correspondence down to this time, upon the table. For France having now, according to her own view, accom plished the annexation, and 'French authorities and French troops having taken possession of Savoy and Nice, as far as that point is concerned we have at length reached the stage at which it is fitting to produce to this house the correspon dence which has passed on the subject. With respect to the offer to which the hon. baronet alludes—viz., that the French Government would give up Chablais and Fan cigny if we would consent to the cession of the rest of Savoy to France, I can only say that the French Govern ment has never made any such offer to the British govern ment. (Hear, hear.) Ido not think it would have been becoming in us to accept it if such an offer had been made to us. But what took place was that in the early part of February the Emperor of the French and his Mini sters declared that they were ready to yield Chablais and Faucigny to Switzerland. But in a very short time after- Wards the Emperor declared to a deputation who went to Paris that ho should not consent to what he called the dismemberment of Savoy, and that Chablais and Faucigny could not be separated from the other provinces. Lord Cowley spoke to the French Minister for Foreign Affairs on the subject, and was told that the Emperor had been willing if the population of theso territories had consented to such an arrarigement—to cede them to Switzerland ; but that there had been such a strong disinclination, and repugnance even, evinced to being parted from the rest of Savoy that the Emperor found himself obliged not to proceed with that cession. (A. laugh.) Lord Cowley likewise said, he did not think that the engagement to come to an understanding with the Powers of Europe had been fulfilled. M. Thou venel stated that he thought Lord Cowley was not very reasonable, that all the other Powers of Europe seemed to think the despatches which had been written by France were satisfactory on that point, and that the engagement had been fulfilled. I have now answered the question of the hon. baronet. The hon. baronet, always presuming upon certain facts without ascertaining whether they are correct, goes on to make some comments. He says that, if the French Government have made a communication to us in the terms which he has seen in the newspapers, it is very insulting to the British Government and ought to be pro tested against. But, as he is wrong in his facts, his infer ences fall to the ground with them. The remaining ques tion for the Government to consider I must say amounts to little more than this :—how we can best use our influence to maintain the neutrality of Switzerland, and whether there be any terms which Switzerland is likely to accept —that can now be proposed. But if there bo no such terms if France offers nothing further than that she will under.. take the same engagements towards Switzerland and to wards Europe which were undertaken by Sardinia, her Majesty's Government can only say—and they will say so in the strongest and most formal manner—that they do not think the engagements of the 92d article of the Treaty of Vienna and the 2d article of the Treaty of Turin can in that way be reconciled. (Hear, hear.) CEYLON RAILWAY. Sir W. GALLWEY gave notice that on an early day ho would ask a series of questions respecting the Ceylon Railway. GAME LICENCES. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER intimated that if the price to be paid for game licences was to be con sidered, it must be done on Monday night at eleven o'clock, the Bankruptcy Bill occupying the rest of the evening. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. The motion for the adjournment of the house at its rising until Monday was then agreed to. SAVINGS' BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES INVESTMENTS BILL. On the motion that the house do resolve itself into a committee on this bill, Sir H. WILLGUGHBY called the attention of the house to that portion of the report of the select committee on savings banks, the 19th day of July, 1858, which re lated to the investments of the moneys of the savings banks, and specially to No. 10, p. 21, " That no sales, pur chases, or exchanges of stoeks or securities held by the commission shall be made, except as required for the pur poses of the savings banks, and that no funding of the Exchequer-bills held by the commission, shall in future be made without the authority of a special act of Parliament." The provisions of this bill were in direct opposition to the report of the select committee. The suggestions of the committee were very clear, and might be summed up under two heads, that there should be a bona fide commission of five gentlemen, namely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Governor of the Bank of England, and three other persons appointed by the Crown, of whom one should be paid, and that the whole of the savings' banks money should be treated as a trust, and that the finance minister shculd not have the power of operating upon any portion of the funds without the authority of the act of Parliament. At the present moment the savings' banks money was about £41,800,000, and the deficiency of the assets of the entire fund was three millions and a half. The view which the trustees and managers of banks took of this bill was, that they wished the fund placed in a bona fide condition, and to be treated as trust funds. (tear, hear.) The deficit began in 1828, and had gone or increasing since. H e wished to call the attention of he house to the existing state of the law. It had been stabd that the trustees and managers of banks had no interes in this money after it had found its way to the bank. le (Sir H. Willoughby) could not concur in the statement d the right hon. gentle man that they had no interest in tie good management of their funds. At any rate they hadan interest that the rate of interest should not be lowered. By the provisions of Ulla present bill a very important powt would be given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. re maintained that they should not place such great andaxtensive powers as this bill would place in the hands eithrr of a finance Minister, or of an ex-officio commission. mould anything be more unwise, more contrary to commonsense, than to trust such power to a commission composed cf the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, the Accountant-General of the Court of Chan- cery, and the Master of the Rolls, when it was well known What those financial operations wort carried on by some other party ? He must say , also, it was lot right to place a power over millions of the people's mom) , under the control of a Minister of Finance: He found hat the Chancellor of the Exchequer had bought and sold cut millions of the public stock, for doing which he (Sir H.Willoughby) ventured to say he had no power whatever. Wore they prepared to vote that, the Finance Ministers of the day should have the power to go into the Stock Market secretly and silently and buy and sell to the extent of millbns of the public money, without the house knowing anything of it? But above all, he should advise the house not to entrust that power to such a commission as ho had referred to ; and if it were to be placed in the hands of a commission at all, he,should like to see it placed in one composed of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Governor of the Bank of England, and three others recommended by the Government. The commission which considered the question recommended that. He might refer to former years, as for instance to 1844, when the most extensive operations were carried out on the Stock Exchange in the moneys in the savings banks without any knowledge of them by this house until long after. According to the evidence of Lord Monteagle, extensive transactions to the amount of millions had been carried on in the market, in the money in the funded debt; and it further appeared that the commission had gone so far as to add anew to the debt an amount exceeding £2,500,000. The funded stock in the country was about 436,000,000, and as he understood the right hon. gentleman the Chan cellor of the Exchequer was going to write off £31,000,000 of stock, and that for that stock he proposed to pay an interest of three per cent. Now, he considered that it was a very arbitrary proceeding to thus seize upon the money in the savings banks. (Hear, hear.) There was also a sum of twelve millions of money which, by the 4th clause, would be in the power of the Finance Minister. The pro visions of that clause gave him power to buy and sell, dealing in that money which was the property of the public creditor. He considered that no such power should be given him as that of selling stock and bills, for the pur pose of buying other stock and bills, and the sooner that power was taken away from the Finance Minister the bet ter it would be for the depositors in savings banks, and for the payers of taxes. (Hear.) There was not a shadow of doubt that a bona fide commission would be the best to be armed with a power to deal with those funds, which were trust funds. (Hear, hear.) He had gone laboriously through the effect of the operations between the years 1828 and 1844, and had come to the conclusion that they had made a loss of £120,000. Mr. HANK EY said that in his opinion this bill was not the proper mode of legislating upon this question, in refer ence to which it unsettled a great deal and settled nothing. The object of the bill was certainly correct enough—to pro vide a fund to secure at all times the payment of deposits. On that score, however, the bill was quite uncalled for, for the deposits were perfectly secure. To carry_the object out the Chancellor of the Exchequer cancelled a certain amount of stock, and then created a book debt. That was certainly a novel proceeding. The only means by which it could be attained was to provide an indisputable security, so that the money should always be forthcoming, and that we should not have to pay too high a rate of interest for it. The great point was to reduce the expenses of management, and to provide for theinterest when due. (Hear.) The can celling of a portion of the debt would no doubt settle it, but the book debt should be equal to it in amount, and not merely to a portion of it. By the bill, as had just been pointed out by the hon. baronet opposite, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have control over the difference, and that was objectionable. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer requested the Commissioners for the Reduction of the Na tional Debt to invest money in the stocks he referred to, they would do so, and a saving might be effected from it, but he did not see where the saving was to come from at present. The creation of a funded debt was objectionable, for it might go on ad infinitum, whereas Exchequer bills must be met at a given time, and so come regularly under the notice of the house. The power which the Chancellor of the Exc , equer retained over those stocks, and his being in a position to " rig the market," was highly objectionable. It would have been far better for him to have gone into the market, and to have borrowed_ money on his Exchequer bills, and pay a little more for his money for a short time. The Chan cellor of the Exchequer appeared to him to be determined to ignore the labours and results of the committee which sat in 1858. Nor did he rigidly fulfil the principle of a trustee. He did not make those remarks in any unkind spirit towards the right hon. gentleman personally, and in deed, though he disapproved of the bill, ho would say that he at least deserved credit for being the first Chancellor of the Exchequer who, for years past, had brought a savings banks bill under discussion. He objected to the bill pro posed because it did not deal with savings as trust pro perty, and because it did nut create a sufficient charge upon the Consolidated Fund to pay the stipulated interests. Mr. S. ESTCOURT said that, having been chairman of a committee on savings banks which sat in 1858, and paid great attention to the subject, he hoped the house would allow him to say a few words upon the subject. He was willing to believe that the right honourable gentleman did not intend any discourtesy to that or the other com mittees, because he said that their recommendations sub stantially received effect in the provisions of the bill. Three or four bills had been introduced on this subject at various times, but they only threw. doubts on what was before clear, and were rather a prejudice than a support to those excellent institutions. He had hoped, therefore, that we might have a good bill, the path to which cer tainly had been in some degree smoothed by the inquiries of the committee to which he had referred. When he saw the present bill, however, he confessed he experienced a considerable disappointment. It contained several serious defects, among which might be mentioned this—that it dealt with only the portion of a subject which ought not to be dealt with piecemeal; for, if they dealt only with invest ments, as was proposed by it, what chance was their of hav ing this question settled by a future bill ? (Hear.) His first and greatest objection to the bill was, that it dealt with the question of investment only, and left entirely untouched all those other important questions in which the managers and trustees of savings banks took so deep an interest. But the right hon. gentleman had said, the committee, of which he (Mr. Estcourt) was the chairman, did not make any recommendations upon these questions in their report. Why, the committee had dealt with them in the only way they could. They suggested the appointment of a commis sion, with pffwer to give assistance and information to the managers of savings banks, upon every point on which there were doubts and difficulties. They proposed that the three commissioners, in addition to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England, should be empowered to frame regulations as to the mode in which accounts should be kept and audited, and generally to introduce a uniform and responsible system of manage ment throughout the country. Among other deeply inte resting questions which had been under their consideration, and which were left wholly untouched by this bill, he might mention the enforcement of an audit, the uniformity of ac counts, the investments by minors, the best means of pre venting defalcations, the determining in what manner the usefulness of savings banks could be extended, by the adop tion, for instance, of such plans as that pt 7 oposed for giving facilities for depositing money in the post offices. These, and others enumerated in the 14th resolution of the committee's report, were omitted in this bill, and believing that if it passed in its present shape they would not have another op.. portunity of dealing with them, he should prefer that the whole question should stand over until it could be fully dealt with. (Hear, hear.) With respect to the main object of the bill, the mode in which it was proposed in future to deal with the funds of the savings banks in the hands of the Government, he fully concurred with the views so ably ex pressed by his hon. friend the member for Evesham. The main principle of the bill was to convert the funds now in vested in various stocks into what the Chancellor of the Ex chequer called a " book debt," upon which a fixed and cer tain amount of interest was to be paid. For his own part, he did not see how that alteratiori would tend to prevent the losses which the Government had experienced under the present system, in consequence of the variation in the price of stocks. When any large demand was made upon them, they would be obliged to sell at the price of the day, and according to that necessity they would either gain or lose. The fact then was, the bill would create a fixed and per manent interest, to be paid by the Government on the debt, while the interest accruing from the investments of the de • posits would be continually varying. He therefore cou l d not see how the Government would gain o ne six p ence b y this. bill. He was sorry that the right hon. gentleman had brought forward the subject in its present shape, and he must give his vote against the bill. It was introducing a new system, it gave no additional security; and it only dealt with a part of the question, whereas it should be dealt with as a whole. If they did not take this opportunity of so dealing with all those matters which had been the subject of complaint by the country for some years past, and by which the operations of the banks had been circumscribed, they would never again have the same chance of settling the question upon this footing—rendering them much more easy to establish, much safer when established, and extending their benefits over a wider area. (Hear, hear.) He said a wider area, for he believed there were only 600 savings banks in the kingdom, whereas, according to hi s v i ew,there should be a bank in every village. (1 - lear.) Colonel SYKES regretted that no attention had been paid to the recommendations of the committee who had investigated and reported upon this subject. Where was the use of having gentlemen making such an inquiry if the house paid no attention to their recommendations r He hoped that something would be done to give effect to their recommendations. Mr. M ALINS thought the savings banks funds should be regarded as trust funds, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not be permitted to use those funds to go into the market and buy up Exchequer Bills there at a dis _ _ count, thereby " rigging" themarketand giving a fictitious value to that description of stock. He would ask the house if it was right to allow those funds to be used for such a purpose ? That which would not be right in private trans actions ought not to be tolerated on the part of a public func tionary. There also, he thought, should be a body of com missioners appointed as trustees to this national fund, who would be able to devoto their time to this important duty. (Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the right hon. gentleman the member for Wiltshire complained that savings banks were ztoi - properly regulated. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) (Omitted this, but the question was as to the mode in which it cc.iuld be done. But on the 22d of June, when the house was overloaded with business, was it fair to ask the Government to solve all the difficult problems connected with this intricate subject. When a committee had been moved for on this subject it was un derstood that the management of savings banks was to be the subject of consideration, but their report referred only to the financial dealings of the money invested in those savings banks, while no reference whatocer was made to the management of those banks, nor was any one of the five Chancellors of the Exchequer summoned to give their opinions before that committee. He, there fora, did not think that the report of the committee was en titled to the respect which an hon. gentleman supposed. Lord Monteagle was Chancellor of the Exchequer 24 years ago, and yet he was not asked by the committee to give any opinion. Sir Alexander SpearmaZibad been referred t o, and although an able man he was not a responsible officer, and the committee should have asked the .opinion of men who held responsible positions in conneetior, with financial mat ters. The question was this, were they ,i-,0 be considered as trustees or bankers. If in the former character they must act with reasonable discretion; but he doubttld if it was pos sible to place themselves in the character of L." 1 10 tees. The sums in the savings banks were by law the prop'er'typrop'er'tyof the Commissioners of the National Debt, and if they" wero to make these funds the property of the depositors, the! deP° - sitors would be liable to the fluctuations of the rise ant. fall of the funds. The assets in the hands of the Commission ors of the National Debt were less than the amount of the liabi lities, and it would be a breach of public faith if they trans ferred the powers of the National Debt Commissioners to a new commission. Further, he would say that the mana gers of the savings banks should not be held liable for the funds in the bank. The present commission was analogous to many other commissions which Parliament had thought fit to constitute, where the responsibility was fixed upon the adviser of the Crown to whose department the matter belonged. There was not a power given by the bill at all, except one or two provisions of which no notice had been taken ; because, in point of fact, they were altogether minor provisions. At the same time, many powers were with drawn from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A large portion of the stocks at present under the control of the Chancellor t f the Exchequer were placed by the bill en tirely beyond his control. He would not enter fur ther into the particulars of the bill except to re mind the house of what were its objeets. At the present moment there was no perfect title in law attached to depositors of savings banks, although they had a perfect and absolute title in all assets held by the com missioners. The bill proposed to give them a perfect title, first of all in all assets in the hands of the commissioners, then in the State deposit account, and thirdly, if necessary, upon the funds of the State itself. The next object of the bill was to give a true account of the national debt and to rectify that account absolutely once in every year. Ho felt quite sure that the bill would continue to receive the fa vourable consideration of the house through its remaining stages. Mr. T. BARING said the right hon. gentleman had stated that this committee was appointed to the exclusion of those whe ought to have been members, and complained that no Chancellor of the Exchequer had been placed on it. (The Chancellor of the Exchequer denied that he had said so.) Tho fact was the committee was appointed by a col league of the right hon. gentleman, and he believed tho Chancellor of the Exchequer was excluded for the reason that the committee should report in accordance with the feelings of the house. It was therefore too much for the right hon. gentleman to throw discredit upon the report of committees of that house. They wanted to know whether these funds were in the hands of the trustees for national purposes, and he was glad to hear that every depositor was secure in the deposit of his money. He had Government security, and that was the best security he could possibly have. The right hon. gentleman had said that this was a. bill to make things more perfectly secure, but he denied that such was the case. Mr. AYRT ON said in paint of fact the commissioner s had not reported very favourably on this bill, and he was of opinion that the right hon. gentleman had made a nail' take. This was scarcely a necessary bill, because, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pledged himself to do what this clause provided for, that would have been 8U cient. Mr. COLLINS said the general opinion of the house was against the bill, and therefore he moved that the house go into committee on the bill that day three months. The house divided, when the umbers were— For the motion _ _ For the amendment Majority Mr. TURNER defended the committee, of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he regretted to say, bed spoken in rather disparaging terms. The report was ap proved of by the leading banks of the country, and there' fore he hoped he would withdraw the bill. Mr. W. WILLIAMS hoped the right hon. gentlemen would not withdraw the bill. The house then went into committee on the bill. Sir H. WILLOUGHBY hoped the point as to the for' oration of the committee would be discussed now. He moYed that clauses 1,2, and 3 should be postponed. The CHANCELLOR of,the EXCHEQUER felt die• inclined to alter the practice of 40 years. He considered that the proper way to proceed with the bill would be to take the clauses in the regular order in which they stood' It had been said that the country owed £800,000,000, but the real fact was not that they owed £Boo,ooo,ooo—for that was not so—but that they owed a much less amount, and the object was to secure interest of 3 per cent. upon that. The course now proposed was only another mode to effect the destruction of the bill. (No, no.) Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said the right hon. gentleman was under a misapprehension in supposing that his object was to effect the destruction of the bill. His object, on the contrary, was to establish such a machinery as would tak e it out of the power of any Chancellor of the Exchequer to meridle with and deal in the funds in the savings bangs without the consent of the depositors. (Hear, hear.) He trusted that the house would support him in his amend ment to postpone the three clauses in question for further consideration and discussion. Sir C. WOOD said the hon. baronet was mistaken in the view which he had taken of the objects of his right hen' friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Sir C: Wood) was of opinion that it was not desirable to postpone the clauses, but to take them in the order in which they stood, and discuss them clause by clause; sad if the course which his right hon. friend proposed was adopted by the house, the depositors in savings banks would have far better seen" rity for their deposit than they had ever hitherto had, namely, the national security for 3 per cent. Mr. S. ESTCOURT was of opinion that the proposal of his hon. friend the member for Evesham was right, and he should support it. After a few words from the CHANCELLOR, of the ExcUE" QUER, Mr. T. BARING said his hon. friend the member for Evesham was quite right in saying he would take the sense of the house on the question of the postponement of the three first clauses, and he hoped his hon. friend would press his motion to a division. After a few words from Sir F. GOLD&M'D and Sir K. WILLOUGHBY, the committed divided-- For the postponement of clause 1 49 Against it Majority against .... *-24 The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then moved that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The house then resumed. UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGE ESTATES BILL. The house went into committee on this bill, the several clauses of which were agreed to with slight verbal amend ments, after which the house resumed, and the bill was reported. RAILWAY CHEAP TRAINS, &c., BILL. This bill was read a second time, and ordered to be cow• mitted. TITHE COMMUTATION BILL. The amendments to this bill were further considered, and the bill ordered to be read a third time. CRIMINAL LUNATIC ASYLUMS BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. VOTES FOR DISQUALIFIED CAN LIDATES BILL. The bill was read a second time. REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENCES (SCOTLAND). The LORD ADVOCATE moved that the resolution re ported from the committee of ways and means on the 15th day of May last be read, and that leave be given to bring in a bill for granting to her Majesty certain duties on wine licences and refreshment houses, and for regulating the licensing of refreshment houses, and the granting of wine licences in Scotland. The motion was agreed to, and the Lord Advocate after wards brought in'the bill, which was read a first time. The house adjourned at a quarter before one oclock. LONDON: Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112 • Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of mimief4o7, Saturday, tune 23, 1860.