The Sun. — London, England, 1861-04-09 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock. The following bills were considered and ordered for third reading :—Belfast and County Down Railway, Exeter and Exmouth Railway, Gainsburgh Bridge to East Retford, &c., Great Northern and Western (of Ireland) Railway, Great Western Railway (Capital), Kilrush and Kilkee Railway and Poulnasherry Reclamation, Morayshire Railway, Nantwich and Market Drayton Rail - way, Gawestry and Newtown Railway (Branches, &c.) ; Portadown, Dungannon, and Omagh Junction Railway ; Preston Markets, &c., Shrewsbury and Welchpool Rail way, Stratford-upon-Avon Railway; and Wallasey Im provement. PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented in favour of Parliamen tary Reform, from the inhabitants of Whitby and other places ; against the Harbours Bill, and praying to be heard before the house by counsel ; against legalising marriage with a deceased wife's sister; in favour of the Highways Bill ; from the inhabitants of Greenwich and the proprie tary of the Phoenix Gas Company against the Greenwich Hospital Works Bill, &c. THE KOSSUTH NOTE. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE asked the Home Secretary the question of which he had given notice previous to the recess, relative to the Kossuth note. He wished to be informed what was the number as well as the letter of the policeman who, as the right hon. gentleman the Home Secretary stated, had delivered one of those notes to Sir Richard Mayne. Ho wished also to be informed whether the policeman in question was still in the metro politan police force, and if not, when he left it ? Sir G. C. LEWIS repeated the statement he had pre viously made, to the effect that neither Sir Richard Mayne aor himself had given any directions relative to obtaining any information on the subject of those notes previous to the one in question being given to Sir Richard Mayne. He did not think that, under the circumstances of the case, it was proper for him to give the information required by his hon. friend the member for Finsbury. He would, however, state that no steps had been taken for the removal of the policeman referred to from the metropolitan force. THE DOCKYARDS. Sir F. SMITH gave notice that next week he would call the attention of the house to the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the state of the Government dock yards. BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL. After a few words from Mr. VANCE, This bill was read a third time and passed amid the cheers of the house. POST-OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS BILL. The house went into committee on this bill. Mr. S. ESTCOURT, ontthe reading of the Ist clause, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some informa tion on the details of the bill. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, said that it would be an objectionable course to adopt for the house to discuss the principle of the bill at present, when it had already been amply discussed and affirmed. Generally speaking, however, the plan proposed by this bill was, that the local postmasters were entitled to receive deposits, which they were bound to transmit to the Postmaster-General in London, and this operation would be transacted without the introduction of any new principle in the savings bank system. The depositor would take his security from the postmaster in charge of the local office where he lodged his money ; and in order to give him every security, the Postmaster-General would adopt the same course in reference to such transactions as he did with regard to other business between him and local postmasters, and increase the amount of secu rity required from the latter should the deposits be augmented to an extent that would render such neces sary for the safety of the depositor. The Post-office system with regard to the transmission of money worked so well that it would scarcely be believed how trifling was the loss incurred since its adoption. He would mention that the loss on £33,000,000 of money transmitted from one part of the country to the other by the medium of the post-office order system was only £6,000. He considered that the bill would not neutralise the principle of the savings banks system, by allowing persons to deposit larger amounts in the banks than was permitted by the existing law, by the increased facilities for deposits which it afforded. There was provision quite adequate to prevent the law being infringed in this particular. With regard to an objection brought against the measure, viz., that it brought Government into rivalry with private enterprise, he con tended that it was entirely unfounded. In support of his assertion he would state that the Government would ask the House to limit the interest they were to receive to £2 10s. per cent., so that they would offer no attraction to de positors to invest their money with them by the amount of interest they proposed to give. The clause was ultimately agreed to. On clause 2, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated that he had made some amendments to this clause, which would give additional security to the depositors against any defalcation on the part of the local postmasters and render the bill more effectual. Mr. AYRTON opposed the scheme proposed by the Government, which he contended would fail in ,realising the expectations held forth by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the house and to the country. In the first place, he believed, from the experience of the past, that this plan, like other Government schemes, would not be found self-supporting when it came into operation, but that it would be found most expensive. He believed also that instead of the inte • rest being limited as stated by the Chancellor of ;the Ex chequer to £2 10s. it would rise to £3 ss. per cent. Ho contended further that the experiment now proposed was an innovation of a system that had hitherto worked satisfac torily to a considerable extent, and might operate most injnriously on a very important social movement which held forth encouragement to the humbler classes to habits of prudence. :After some further observations he ex pressed a hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would inform the house what would be the probable cost of remitting money from the different bsnking institutions, and what would be the cost of these institutions. Mr. HANKEY said that the sill did not propose to alter the existing system of savings banks, but to afford increased facilities for still further developing that system. He re ferred to the details of the bill, and said that he felt bound to give the measure his entire support. Alderman SIDNEY, while he approved generally of the object proposed by the bill, still considered that the expense of the working of the system would be enor mous, and that the measure was founded in error. The result would be that the country would be called on to pay depositors the highest interest, and would be saddled with the expense of this institution. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he must be excused from the task of offering a full reply to the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets, who had given the house such a specimen of his discursive force on the present occa sion. He would confine his reply to that portion of the hon. member's speech which seemed to be practically on the working of this bill. It might, however, be observed that both his speech, and that of the hon. member who had just sat down,. as they were directed entirqy against the prin ciple of the bill, could hardly be quite in place on this occa sion in committee, when they were discussing the question whether the depositor's book should be conclusive evidence of title 'for ten days or for a longer period. But the hon. member for Peterborough had already given an answer to part of their objections. He (Mr. Gladstone) would at once admit that the consideration of expense was one vital to this measure. It would be absurd for the Government and Par liament, even for the purpose of encouraging provident habits among the poor, to make the working classes of this country pensioners on the Exchequer. To such a principle he should be altogether opposed. If such were found to be the operation of the bill, it would be their duty to check and limit the operation of it, so as effectually to prevent so enormous an evil. But the hon. member had said that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) showed some disinclina tion to produce returtie from the departments of the Post office, giving the calculations, statements, and figures by which the officers of that department had satisfied the Go vernment that this would boa self -working and self-support ing system. Although it was undoubtedly in the power of the House of Commons to call for the most minute statements from every permanent officer of the Government as well as from the Ministers of the Crown, yet such was not the prac .tice of the House of Commons, and if the house were to alter its practice in that respect the effect of it must be to divest the responsible Ministers of all responsibility, and placing it whore it ought not to be. (Hear.) He begged the house to bear in mind that this was an experimental system. It was objected by the same hon. gentleman who had just sat down that it would rise to such an enormous magnitude that it would require in time an establishment as large as t he Bank of England to carry it out, and that it would e a,_te a great deal of patronage. Now, with regard to any r t ° natee under the bill, the chancellor of the Exchequer eer f' 4l have nothing to do. He would not appoint a single k, not a half -dozen clerks would be appointed for a length ot tine after the passing of the bill. If the system were to m,~+er_grOW~ the appointments would be made by the Post altoget,,,„ rp earl wisely. He did not think they could be fi ra i aad r u t rid of the system of patronage, but it might made by free , m eat appointments of this kind should be see. As to the ex competition was what he desired to that point must be of 4-4, e system, any calculations on They must depend o n ea . "' l. ° litirt4 -r hypothetical character. Asi nksassuvourdphtiaovie; to t t r o u, the amount o f business the savings Al though he had a sang t& ---'- — peas to the successful'opt: tion of the system he had 11.1 L t],„ —6ll thtest conception as to the amount of business that ve,ouid dose. He did not know whether it would be moderate or eu du gly large, and he felt reluctant to deal withtiger,..ee .4 by anticipation that might be falsified by the result. Wh at lI committee to observe were t hese too thit:gs. pig wi r at the tte operation of the bill would be gradual, and as th e first .. yews expenditure, with the result of the measure, wadd 114 befere the house, the house would be in a position to j,w ce of thole smite, and whether the bill was 801 f-supporting, 0 v had become a charge on the public. The next point was this, ' that whatever was the expense of the systera it would be an expense that would be precisely adjusted to the extension of its operation. It would not begin with an establishment under highly-paid officers. The framework already existed, and everything would fall in with the existing machinery of the Post-office. It might admit of an extension, but that extension would be in precise proportion to the demand. As to the expense, he confessed he attached more weight to the experience of the Post-office authorities than to mere calculations of figures, however plausible. The modern Post-office started upon the assumption, which was not be lieved at the time, that it could carry letters with a profit at a uniform rate of id. (Hear.) To the carriage of letters the Post-office added the book-post, and showed that it could receive and carrymore weighty matter. It then added the money-order office, and although the profit on that was almost infiniteseimal, considering the amount of business done, it still left a profit of £20,000 or £30,000. The Post office authorities had carefully examined all the steps of the process under which deposits would be received, transmit ted, kept, retransmitted, and returned to the depositors when demanded, and calculated the charge at which that could be done. The result at which they had arrived was, that one halfpenny on the receipt and another on the recla mation of each deposit would be ample remuneration for the local postmaster. This was independent of the penny for the transmission of the letter. It was quite true, as the hon. gentleman stated, that deposits of Is. would be unre munerative, but by the bill they were not compelled to take ls. They might do so, but it was not the particular depo sit they must look to, but the average of the deposits. If the hon. gentleman saw from the first balance-sheet that the result of the measure was unsatisfactory, it would be competent for him or for the Government to step in in order to stop the slightest appearance of a charge upon the public for the transaction of this business. ThePosi-office autho- rides adopted two modes of comparison—the cost of the money-order office, and the cost of the existing savings banks ; and in both points of view the result was satisfac tory as to the cost of working the proposed measure. The hon. gentleman who spoke last said that by reducing the interest from £3 ss. to £2 10s. he gained £750 on every million, but he might have made a more favourable ma nagement of his figures, and he Would have at the same time been more accurate if he said he would have gained £7,500. (Hear and alaugh.) It was the opinion of competent persons in the Post-office that they could transact this busi.. ness more cheaply than the money-order office ; and with regard to the existing savings banks the result of the calcu lation was that that which cost the existing savings banks one shilling per transaction would cost sevenpence per transaction under the system about to be established. These were statements on which the committee might venture to rely. These were the views with which he trusted the house would be disposed to make a trial of this experiment, reserving to itself of course the powers and the duty of cor recting any tendency to excess if it should exist ; but on every calculation that was made he believed it would cause no charge to the public at all. He could not agree with the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets that the present sav ings banks inflicted an enormous charge upon the public. It might be that they were far from perfection, but at the same time he did not hesitate to say that they had been of the greatest advantage, and that the deposits had been the, means by which successive governments had effected eco nomy for the public which transcended ten times any charge that the state had been put to by them. (Hear, hear.) Mr. SOTHERN-ESTCOURT said the right hon. gen tleman dealt rather hardly with the two hon. gentlemen who had spoken when he told them that their observations ought to have been made when the second reading of the bill was before the house, seeing that the second reading was proposed at so late an hour that those who took an in terest in the subject could hardly speak upon it. The right hon. gentleman said that very minute and particular inves tigations had been made by the Post-office, and he thought the right hon. gentleman ought to lay such information as he:possessed—he did not expect it to be complete—before the house ere he called upon them to pass the bill ; other wise they would be passing a measure which might involve a large expenditure, without any information on the sub ject. Colonel SYKES hoped the right hon. gentleman would so extend the time of making the deposits as to render it more convenient for working men than the present money hours were—namely, between 10 and 4. Mr. BRISCOE wished to know whether this was an auxiliary measure to the present system of savings banks, or whether it was to supersede them. Ho could scarcely conceive how the Post-office could do this business without a considerable expenditure. It must have a separate ac count for each depositor under the bill. He believed there were 15 counties which had no savings banks. If this mea • sure was intended to be an experiment let it be tried in those counties. He regretted that he had not heard a more satis factory statement from the Government on the subject. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that although the second reading came on late at night, he made no attempt to force it through the house, and would have postponed it if any strong desire had been expressed. With regard to the hours of business, the Post-office would make such arrangements as would suit the convenience of the working classes. With regard to the effect of the measure, whether it would be auxiliary to or supersede the present savings banks, that was too vague a question for him to answer. He could not tell what the effect of the system would be. One class of depositors to whom secrecy would be an object would probably prefer to have their deposits in the Post-office, whilst another class would prefer to have their's under the direct influence of local gentlemen. His object was to give greater facilities for saving than now ex isted, and that was the sum and substance of all he had to say. If his hon. friend looked at the 13 or 15 counties in which no savings banks existed he thought he would not advise him to try the experiment in them. There were a few counties in England, several in Scotland, and some in Ireland, where they did not exist, but these were small in population and insignificant in trade, and therefore not at all fitted to test an experiment of this kind. (Hear.) With regard to the information which the right hon. gentleman opposite asked for, he could only repeat that they could not form any clear or positive estimate of the amount of busi ness that might be done under the new system. They could only see their way with regard to the relations that would prevail between the amount of business done and the cost. He was afraid that no information could be given except in a form more or less hypothetical. This they might assume, that with a given number of deposits the cost of remuneration to the local officer would be so much, and the cost of transmitting the letters backwards and for wards would be so much, and then there would be the cost of the central establishment in London. These, he believed, contained all the elements of the cost. With regard to the amounts in which the deposits would be received, or the time for which they would be left, it would be absurd to I venture at that moment upon any estimate at all. Mr. H. HERBERT could not allow this discussion to does without thanking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for this ;measure. ;He represented a county w here a failure of a savings bank took place some years ago, and a committee of this house reported that a change in the law of savings banks was necessary. So many had been the difficulties in the way that no Chancellor of the Exchequer had dared to grapple with them. His right hon. friend, seeing the difficulty of dealing with the present savings bank system, had adopted the wise course of giving the people a choice between the present system, and that which he proposed to introduce. He sincerely hoped that the ex periment would be successful. In consequence of the failure of the savings bank in his county ten years ago any labour ing man in that district who was asked to put his money into the savings bank would laugh in their face. _ Sir H. WILLOUGHBY was disposed to look with favour on any experiment which had for its object the extension of the savings bank system, but the question always must be, was the experiment a safe one ? They were going to estab lish a bank, of which the Postmaster-General was to be the manager, he being a political officer who was here to-day and gone to-morrow. If the scheme succeeded the transac tions would be numbered by tens of thousands. The measure would have a serious effect on the present savings banks, and would break many of them up. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had already stated that he could not undertake to give any esti mate of the probable number of accounts that would be opened. Those who had the best means of forming an opinion thought that the number of transactions would be considerable. With regard to disputed claims they would, he believed, be disposed of in precisely the same manner as they were now under the existing savings banks, that was to say by the intervention of an intelligent gentleman, Mr. Tidd Pratt, who held an office for the disposal of these claims, and who did dispose of them without considerable difficulty, and very much to the satisfaction of the depo sitors. Mr. PULLER said at present when a disputld claim arose ' the parties went before the manager s an d the matter was generally settled at once, and if some formality had not been complied with, the parties received proper advice and came again another day. If they had to come to town, that would involve an amount of expense and trcuble which was disproportionate to the amount of the deposit. He thought therefore it would be impossible to work the system satis factorily unless there was some trustworthy person on the spot to settle these claims, other than the postmaster. The CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER agreed that the intervention of some person other than the local post master in disputed cases was desirable, and the Postmaster- General was already in possession of a staff of officers ad mirably adapted to that purpose—district surveyors, whose duty it was to itinerate for the purposes of the Post-office, and who could decide in the cases to which the hon. gentle man referred. With regard to the number of offices, it would be the duty of the Postmaster-General to make a selection of the offices in the country with which to begin the working of this measure. There was no intention of absolutely confining them to the money order offices, pro vie- 1 there was a real need of a savings bank, and pro vided that vnstmaster was of a class sufficiently quali fied to conduct the mug— nn the other hand, he h a d n• doubt that the number with whim. 4.1,:v would commence would be copsiderably less than that of the coraw.—e, order offices. Clause 2 was then agreed to, and ordered to stand part o f the bill. On clause 3, SIZ r. tiOLDSMID moved to insert after " part thereof" -; mds " such parts being one shilling, or multiple of a shilling." Mr. AYRTON said, in a previous clause it was stated that the acknowledgment to be given by the Postmaster- General was to be conclusive evidence of payment of the money. He presumed, therefore, that the acknowledgment would have to be surrendered when the money was repaid. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the Postmaster-General's acknowledgment ought to be evidence of the title on the part of the depositor, but the surrender of the document might not be necessary. Mr. AYRTON repeated his objection to the proposed plan of the bill. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it would remain in the power of the postmaster to require pos session of the document if he thought it necessary, but it would not be required except in case of necessity. Mr. AYRTON said if the depositor were to have the power of circulating those two-and-sixpenny vouchers as cash such a system would defeat the very object of savings banks generally, which was to remove from the depositor the temptation of drawing out his money at once. Those vouchers would not, he thought, serve the saving purposes for which they were intended, but would only aggravate the evil of improvidence on the part of the working classes. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought the hon. gentleman was entirely wrong in his impression. They could not prevent at the present moment a man who had money in the savings bank from pledging his book, if he so pleased ; and those acknowledgments would not make them more liable to be pledged. The documents re mained in the possession of the depositor, and were not in any sense capable of circulation. His object in drawing the bill was to insert in it everything in connection with the scheme except the executive details, and to set forth the position and rights of depositors, but reserving everything in regard to the mode in which the opera tions under the bill would be carried on. The general intention of the Post-office department was that a per son who wished to make application for the withdrawal of any portion of his money in the bank should have to apply for a form in which he would have to insert the number of his book, and his name and address, and upon that being forwarded to London the Postmaster-General would deem it sufficient, and would forward immediately a warrant for the payment of the money. Mr. HENLEY thought a good deal of confusion arose from their not having more information as to the details of the plan of the bill. The bill said that "the depositor or anybody legally authorised." They wanted to know who were the parties who were legally authorised, and they also wanted to know in what form the demand was to be made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the number of the ' book was to be sent up. He (Mr. Henley) thought, for one, that the measure would be one of very great convenience to the public, and he should like to see it carried out; yet he thought it might lead to constant attempts at fraud, and therefore he thought they ought to have more information as to the details by which the bill was to be worked out. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, with regard to the question of the party "legally authorised," the construction of these words would be governed by the same principle as under the present state of the savings banks laws. With respect to the danger which the right hon. gentleman apprehended, that those acknowledgments in the ordinary and natural course would not be necessary, and that if there was a number indicating the number of the book there would be no security against fraud except the signature of the depositors, it would be the duty of the local postmaster to see that that signature corresponded with the original one. Mr. HENLEY thought that if people took those deposits from one post-office to another, and moved about, making those deposits from year to year, there'would be a danger that those statutable deposits would get lost. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, with respect to the amendment of his hon. friend the member for Reading (Sir F. Goldsmid), he could not introduce into the bill the words he proposed, because if he did the effect would be to prevent the depositor from ever withdrawing the fraction of a shilling. Sir F. GOLDSMID explained that his amendment would not have any such effect as that stated by the right hon. gentleman. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was not aware of any very great economy of labour that would result from the adoption of such an amendment; but he would make inquiry into the subject. Sir F. GOLDSMID said, under these circumstances he should not press his amendment. The amendment was then withdrawn. Mr. DENT observed that in the savings bank with which he was connected, the bulk of the working people received their interest regularly. He wished to know whether in all cases it would be necessary under this bill for the depositors to give ten days' notice of their intention to withdraw. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied in the negative. After a notice of ten days a depositor would possess an abselute title. He apprehended that the war rant would be sent by return of post in ordinary cases, though it might happen once in a thousand times that some delay might occur. Mr. BRISCOE observed that, unfortunately, a very large portion of the working classes of this country were totally unable to write. How, then, was their mark to be verified ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, in such cases the verification would be made in the usual way, by witnesses. Mr. S. ESTCOURT thought that every care ought to be taken to prevent risk and confusion as regarded those cer- tificates or acknowledgments. The original scheme of Mr. Sykes was that those certificates should bear the value of money and bear interest. He hoped the right hon. gentle man the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reconsider this question. Mr. KINNAIRD thought the Chancellor of the Exche quer had exercised a wise discretion in not referring to al! these small matters of detail in the bill. They ought to trust to the Government and the Postmaster-General to deal with them properly, Mr. AYRTON desired to call attention to the clause in this respect, that it stated the acknowledgment of the money should not be conclusive evidence that the Government had received it, but conclusive evidence of the depositors' claiM to the repayment thereof. The pass-book would be put aside, and the paper acknowledgment was to be the only proof of the right of the depositor. To this double system of documents he had a great objection, believing it would lead to much complexity and many difficulties. The pre sent system of the Post-office in reference to money orders would be wholly inapplicable to deposits. The question required much more consideration, in order that the Go vernment should be prevented from falling into serious difficulties and all sorts of embarrassments. Lord R. MON TAGU said it appeared to him that all the objections which had been pointed out as likely to arise had been met by the language of the clause. Mr. BARROW supported the amendment, although he was not sure that a perfect remedy had been provided to present loss arising. The amendment was agreed to, as were other verbal amendments. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER proposed in line 25 of the same clause that 10 days should be the absolute maximum, without regard to place, for the return of a deposit when demanded. Mr. HENLEY said he at first felt apprehensive that the insertion of these words would not cure the difficulties which he had pointed out, but if the time was to be general he would offer no objection. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said 10days would be the extreme period in all cases, but the general rule would be to send the deposit back by return of post. The amendment was agreed to, and the clause as amended was ordered to stand part of the bill. On clause 4, providing that the names of depositors sheuld not be disclosed, Mr. AYRTON asked why there should be in all cases this peremptory secrecy ? He thought there ought to be some exceptions to it, and especially in tho cases of persnns who became chargeable to the poor-law,' and in those cases the facts relating to deposits ought to be disclosed to the ' guardians. There ought to be some protection against per sons obtaining relief from the parish, and at the same time being depositors in a savings bank. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought the point, though a new one, would be met by leaving the parish authorities to make application to the Postmaster- General, who, be believed, would not be precluded from giving all the information required.' Mr. AYRTON considered that that would not be a cor rect construction of the clause. If a postmaster could not disclose the name, the Postmaster-General would not be able to do so. There ought to be a proviso enabling the Post-office authorities to give proper information in certain cases. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER agreed that on a proper demand being made the names should be disclosed. He would make inquiries upon the subject, and give further information on the bringing up of the report. The clause was agreed to. On clause 5, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in answer to a question from Colonel Sykes, said the moneys deposited would be subject to the same provisions of the law as those which had been deposited under the existing Savings Banks Acts. They would fall into the same channel and be dealt with in the same manner. Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said the point raised was in re ference to the power of the commissioners to buy and sell stock and Exchequer bills—in fact the using of these moneys for other purposes than those authorised by the Savings Banks Acts. Would there be any objection to limit the power of the commissioners to deal with these moneys They ought not, in establishing these new banks, to fall into the system which had prevailed in reference to the de posits in the old savings banks. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was sur prised to hear this objection raised after the repeated de bates which had taken place in that house. If the objection were sustained it would effectually destroy the operation of this bill. 131. K. - WILLOUGHBY said there was no doubt that originally it was not intended that these moneys should be applied to purposes of stock-jobbing. (Hear, hear.) The Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt ought n?t to be permitted to operate upon the money market with funds derived from savings banks without reference to the demands of those who were depositors. The clause was agreed to. Clauses 6 and 7 were also agreed to. I Clause S was omitted from the bill, and Clause 9 was agreed to. On clause 10, Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said he would now propose an amendment to the effect that whatever moneys were depo 4ted by the working classes in the manner proposed should be afterwards invested in the manner required by the shanks Acts, with this excepti on , th a t no sa l e o f th e s t oc k ould be made except for the purposes of the demands made by the depositors. If this amendment were agreed to it would prevent those unpleasant discussions taking place in that house which all had listened to, and there fOre he trusted the committee would agree to it. If it were wise that the commissioners should have the power which they had exercised in operating upon the money market, let the committee openly sanction it. ' Colonel SYKES said that in the principle expressed in the amendment he quite concurred. The object of his pre vious question was to learn whether, in addition to the £40,000,000, which had been dealt with by the Commis sioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, they would have the same power to deal with the £20,000,000 which he anticipated would coma into their hands under the opeia tion of this measure. (Hear, hear.) The amendment pro vided that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have no power of dealing with the deposits. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the introduction of the words. Cases might occur and had occurred in which the privilege sought to be withdrawn had been used with advantage. Last year two millions had been voted for fortifications, but it so happened that only £200,000 hal been used. That sum had been supplied by the Commissioners of the National Debt, and the course was much more convenient than if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been obliged to go into the money market for so small a sum. The only point for the depositor to examine was that his money should be readylor him, with interest, when he required it, and beyond that the less he knew about the details of its investment the better. Mr. AYRT ON supported the amendment. He contended that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have no con trol over the funs in the savings banks. Sir H. WILLOUGBY observed that the National Debt Commission was a very shadowy institution. Nobody ever attended its sittings except the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor and the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. Sir J. PAXTON recommended the hon. baronet to withdraw his amendment. So important a change as he proposed should not be introduced without full and suffi cient notice. Colonel SYKES supported the amendment. Mr. GRIFFITHS took a similar view, and considered that the Chancellor of the Exehequer himself had opened a way for the discussion of the principle. Mr. S. ESTCOURT thought it was undesirable that they should proceed to a division. Ho recommended his hon. friend to withdraw his amendment. Mr. MALINS said the amendment involved a very im portant principle. The Government were to receive the deposits of persons desirous of placing their money in these savings banks, and yet the depositors were to have a con trol over the action of the Government—in fact, a control over their bankers. He should certainly vote for the Chan cellor of the Exchequer if a division were taken. The amendment was negatived without a division. The remaining clauses were agreed to, and the bill was reported to the house. LONDON COAL AND WINE DUES CONTINUANCE BILL. Sir G. C. LEWIS moved the second reading of this bill. The right hon. gentleman said the house was aware that duties were now raised on all coal imported into the city of London and within a radius of 20 miles from some central part of the metropolis. The amount thus raised consisted of three portions. Fourpence a ton was levied for the benefit of the corporation of London, and there were two sums of eightpence and one penny levied under the autho rity of several acts of Parliament, the proceeds of which had been appropriated for works of public utility. During the last session a committee sat to consider the question of the embankment of the Thames, and they unanimously Came to the following resolution :—" That as in 1861 the eightpenny and the one penny duties on coal and the halfpenny duty on wine, which were imposed and continued by Parliament for the purposes of public im provements in the metropolis, would cease, they recom mended that those duties be renewed for a limited period, and that the whole or a part of the probable cost of the Thames embankment be made a first charge on them." The present measure was introduced with the object of carrying that recommendation into effect. The main fea ture of the bill was to continue for ten years the ninepenny duties described in that resolution. With regard to the question of the Thames embankment, the committee re commended that that great and useful work should be exe cuted. Since that time her Majesty's Government had issued a commission composed of persons having a profes sional knowledge on the subject, and others who were likely to be affected by the execution of the work, with a view of selecting the best of the different plans proposed. The deci sion of that commission would be of an engineering cha racter, and when their report was made, the house " ' • would be in a position, if it thought fit, to legislate upon the subject ; and when they agreed to a plan, it would then be in their power to appropriate the produce of the nine penny coal duties towards the expense of the embankment. In addition to the ninepenny duties the bill would likewise continue the:fourpenny now levied by the City. That tax, he understood, had been levied continuously by the city for many years. He was informed by the officers of the cor poration that their books showed it had been levied unin terruptedly since the year of the fire of London, at which time many of the archives of the city were destroyed. How long before 1666 the tax had been imposed it could not be ascertained, but that was unimportant as regarded the question. With respect to the 4d. duty on coal he was aware that a great deal of discussion would be raised. (Hear, hear.) It might be said that a corporation ought not to levy for their own purposes this duty of 4d. on all consumers of coal in London and within 20 miles of it. (Hear, hear.) The City, however, maintained that they had a right of property in the impost. He was unwilling, however, to enter into a controversy which he knew from previous experience - was not easily determined in that house, owing to the great differences of opinion which existed upon it. He would propose to the house a plan for abiidging that controversy by inserting in the bill when in committee a clause appropriating the whole of the 4d. to the extinction of the debt created by the corporation for purposes of public utility under the authority of acts of Parliament. If that were done, there would be no discre tion on the part of the corporation, and they would have to apply the money in the manner prescribed. The City, having raised £540,000 for the purposes of forming Cannon street, obtained power under act of Parliament to charge that sum on any of their revenues and the Common Council, by resolution, ordered the charge to be made on the 4d. coal duty. He hoped that both the house and the corpora tion would approve of this proposition, that the whole pro duce of this 4d. for the next ten years should be appro priated to the payment of interest on the £540,000, and the redemption of the principal. The bill would reduce the radius, and therefore somewhat diminish the income arising from the tax. He calculated that the tax would produce £60,000 a year, of which £20,000 would be required for in terest, leaving £40,000 to be applied to the redemption of the debt, which he trusted they would effect in the course of the 10 years. With regard to the 9d. tax, he proposed that it should be applied to the purposes of the Thames em - bankment. He also would propose that the radius of the tax should be reduced from 20 to 10 miles, which was the limit of the metropolitan police district. Before railways were opened the metropolis was almost entirely supplied with sea-borne coals, upon which duty was paid to the City, but no drawback allowed, even though they might have been conveyed beyond the limit of 20 miles. Some years ago the City consented to allow a drawback on coals sent be yond the 20 miles, and thus what was represented as a grasp ing and rapacious act on the part of the City of London, was in truth a concession to the consumer. (Hear.) Under the present bill coals consumed in places beyond thenietro politan police di>trict would be entitled to a drawback. He had entered into this explanation in the hope that it would induce hon. members to abstain from antiquarian or legal discussions on the origin of the 4d. duty, on which his experience led him to anticipate a great deal of irre levant matter, occupying unnecessarily the time of the house. He hoped the house would look at the question not as one of the law, but as one of expediency. (Hear, hear.) He was informed by the chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works that direct taxation on the metropolis had already reached the extent to which the ratepayers were willing to go. (Laughter.) The main drainage scheme had added to their burdens, and be did not think that any gentleman who came forward and proposed to raise a large sum for works of public utility by direct taxation on the metropolis would have a very easy task. (Hear.) Was it then desirable or not that a certain sum should be raised for public purposes within the metro polis ? That was a question which every gentleman could answer for himself. He could only say that he had no per sonal interest in pressing the matter on the consideration of the house, and that the Government were perfectly wil ling to abide by the verdict which the house might pro nounce upon it. He relied on the recommendation of the committee; and his•belief was that unless they continued this tax, which was not found a heavy burden on any class of consumers in the metropolis, there was no other feasible method by which the Thames embankment, or any similar works, could be executed. With regard to the principle of a port duty on coals, he would remind hon. members connected with the coal districts in the north, that there was not a single one of the large ports in the north from which coal was ex ported in which a port duty on coal was not collected. From a return made to the house in 1851, it appeared that at Newcastle, Stockton, and Sunderland, such a duty was levied on coal for municipal purposes, and he believed in all the other ports in the north of England and in Scotland a similar impost was levied. Therefore gentlemen coming from the coal districts would not object to the principle of a mu nicipal duty on c oa l s. Wi t h t h ese exp l an ations, he begged to move the second reading of the bill. Mr. W. WILLIAMS hoped the right hon baronet would consent to postpone the bill, to give the inhabitants of the metropolis, and especially the poorer classes, whom it would seriously affect, an opportunity of considering its provi sions. He had himself only seen the bill cn his return to town after the recess. Sir G. C. LEWIS said be believed the bill was In the hands of members on the 20th of March. Mr. WILLIAMS said that as yet no portion of the me tropolis had expressed any opinion on the measure. In the first place, he thought it moat objectionable to tax coals;, which, next to bread, might be looked upon as almost a necessary of life. He objected to placing in the hands of the Metropolitan Board of 'Works power to tax the metro polis for ten years, involving a sum of two or three mil lions of money, and thought it would be better to entrust that power to some department of the Government. He was opposed to the continuance of this tax except for the embankment of the Thames, without which he knew that the lower portion of the proposed main sewers could not be carried out. He, however, thought that the money ought not to be exclusively applied to embanking the north side of the Thames, as the south side required a similar embank ment quite as much. Mr. ROUPELL, in moving the adjournment of the de bate, expressed his surprise that the Secretary of State for the Home Department should be totally ignorant of the existence of the committee on local taxation and metropo litan self-government. He could not properly refer to the proceedings before that committee, but he might mention that they demanded from the corporation authorities of London certain information, which was at first refused, but was now, he believed, about to be granted. It was said that this tax had been mortgaged to pay certain debts of the corporation ; but what was the nature of the mortgage ? The corporation issued their ordinary bonds for the amount borrowed, which were not charged on any specific source of their revenue but upon the whole property of the corpo ration. (Hear, hear.) He thought the bill ought to be postponed till the committee on the subject had reported. This was a question affecting several millions of people, and involving large sums of money, and it was necessary that, in dealing with it, there should be no undue haste. He concluded by proposing that the debate should be adjourned for six weeks. Sir J. SHELLEY seconded the motion. Viscount HOLMESDALE understood from the right hon. gentleman that the object of the measure was not to extend but to contract the area of the tax; but he found that Gravesend, Northfieet, and Dartford would become liable to it for the first time if the bill passed. Alderman SIDNEY denied that there was any necessity to wait for the report of the committee, for the subject had already been inquired into four times during the last seven years. Neither could it be said that the City had made any improper use of the money which it had raised by the tax. Expensive improvements were needed in the metropolis, which were for the benefit rather of the nation at large than of the citizens ; and he did not know how the money could be raised in a better manner, The hon. gentleman the mem ber for Lambeth said that a tax upon coals was as bad as one upon corn. But the tax upon coals did not affect any poor man beyond 6d. or Is. in the course of the year. (Oh.) He maintained that there were many poor persons who did not consume more than a ton in a twelvemonth. Besides, there was no class more interested in metropolitan improve ments than the labouring population, for it provided them with a great deal of highly remunerative employment. The opposition to the bill proceeded from nothing but a feeling of jealousy which metropolitan members felt towards the City. He could wish that the boroughs which they repre sented had lord mayors and corporations, but the fact that they had not was no reason why the City should give up its ancient rights. (Cheers.) Sir J. SHELLEY felt precluded from entering upon any discussion of the bill, because he was a member of the com mittee, and on that account he should support the amend ment. Indeed, it did seem to him a very extraordinary course for the right hon. bart. to take, to give his support to the appointment of the committee, and then, while it had the subject under its consideration, to bring forward the second reading of this bill. (Hear, hear.) Mr. W. CUBIT,T denied that the object of the ccmmit tee was to inquire into the right of the corporation to the tax. If such had been the avowed purpose of the motion for its appointment he very much doubted whether the house would ever have been induced to accede to it. (Hear.) Neither did he agree that there was no need for proceeding at once with the bill. In times like these six weeks was a long period. A great deal had been said about the right of the City to collect the 4d. and to do what it liked with it. That no doubt was the fact; but the corporation took far higher ground. They asserted not only that they had pro perly expended the proceeds of the tax, but that they had also laid out a great deal more upon objects of public be nefit. (Hear, hear.) Every one that ever went through the City must be aware how pressing a demand there was for improvements ; and the only mode in which money could be raised for them was by taxation. The only ques tion, therefore, was whether that taxation should be con tinued in a form to which the public had been long accus tomed, and which pressed very lightly upon them, or whether they should attempt to frame some untried scheme for raising the money by means which they might fancy would press upon the inhabitants with less weight ? He did not think himself that there was any 'possibility of finding a better tax. (Hear.) Cannon-street they knew had cost half a million; and the corporation had been compelled by ' clamour to spend a scarcely smaller amount in the removal of Smithfield market. They had also had to spend £lOO,OOO in building a prison, for which a far less sum would have sufficed if it had been intended for the criminals of the City alone. There were many other special circumstances in the case of the City which took it out of the category of ordinary towns. It was, for instance, seated on the .bank of a broad river, and it had several bridges, each of which cost a million. It was absurd to suppose that a town of 130,000 inhabitants could itself bear all these expenses. 'With the increasing traffic of the City, it would be as impossible to go on without further im provements as it would be to find an easier mode of raising the necessary funds. There was no tax collected with less expense. Whfin a collier came into the river a clerk had merely to go on board and ask for the money, and it was paid without any detention or personal inconvenience. He should not like to see the town surrounded with walls and a hundred gates, at thirty of which no commodity was al lowed to enter, and at the remaining seventy octroi was taken on all that came in. But it was absolutely necessary to devise some means of indirect taxation, for they had already carried direct taxation to its utmost limit. Depend upon it, if they threw away this impost on coals they would involve themselves in difficulties from which they would find it no easy matter to extricate themselves. Mr. HANKEY could not help expressing a feeling of deep regret that the amendment should have been moved ; for he could not understand at what period of the session the bill :could be more conveniently discussed. (Hear.) It might be very true that the City was only now a small portion of the metropolis, but still it was the nucleus by which action was taken in matters that were required for the general advantage. It had always appeared to him that a constitution more or less resembling that of the city of Paris would have been much preferable to the adoption of a mere Board of Works. The precedent of establishing a number of smaller municipalities around the ancient corpo ration had not, however, been followed, and the City re mained the only portion of London which possessed the prestige and the facilities which were conferred on it by its municipal institutions. It was not a question whether some better tax might not have been devised, but the coal tax was as near a house tax as could be contrived. The only other question was as to the area. He thought it would have been better to have confined the area to that of the Metropolitan Board of Works. There were two other _ _ larger areas of taxation, and he thought it highly objet • tionable that it was so. But when they came to the smallest of the three areas, it was found that smuggling must ;necessarily be very common, without the institution of something like an octroi, which would be ex tremely unpopular. They were compelled, therefore, to adopt tho intermediate area, that of the metropolitan police. He then came to the body whose duty it was to distribute these funds, and he thought no better body would be found for this purpose than the corporation of the City of London. Mr. CRAWFORD said the motion before the house was for an adjournment. He hoped the house would proceed to the second reading at once. Mr. ME said, on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works, that they were not anxious to have the control of these works, but when the amount of taxation was so high as it was at present, it was impossible that his poorer neigh bours in the parish where he resided could bear a further amount of direst taxation. One of the features of the Thames embankment scheme was the construction of a road along the banks of the river, and how much would the traffic of the main thoroughfares be relieved by such a process. It had been said that it was hard this expense should be borne by the coal-hole ; but it was the fact that what largely contributed to fill up the streets were the heavy waggons of the coal traders. (Hear.) Mr. G. PULLER said he supposed no one wished to diminish the ancient right of the City of London, if it existed, to 4d. a ton on sea-borne coal; but they could scarcely contend that the City had an ancient right to 4d. a ton on coals brought in by railways and canals. (Hear.) The advantage to the houseowners would really be this, that the burthen on them would be diminished, but it would rather be placed an the gre it manufacturers, who used much coal in their business. It was a matter of little importance whether this amount should be raised by a coal tax or a tax on houses; but the area of taxation ought to be justly de fined, and it should not extend beyond the district which was to share in the administration, and to be benefited by the outlay. He did not see on what grounds the inhabitants of those parishes included in the police district should be made subject to this bill—taking, for instance, such a' place as Hatfield, which was 20 miles from Charing-cross. Un less the right hon. gentleman would alter the proposed area of taxation, he must vote against the bill. Mr. AYRTON, as he was chairman of the select com mittee appointed to inquire into the local taxation, must repel the accusation made by the Lord Mayor that it had been moved for without giving any notice to the Corporation of London as to what its objects were. The fact was, that last year, when the Secretary of State wrought in a bill for the reform o f the Corporation, he (Mr. Ayrton) put a notice on the book s 0 Awe fora select committee to inquire into the local taxation and government of the metropolis and in the notice given this year this coal tax was distinctly • mentioned among the subjects to be inquired into by the select committee. He would also take it upon himself to assure the house that before no committee upon this ques tion had the Corporation of London ever claimed, as its right, that tax which the right hon. gentleman was now about to give them by law, though he was not at liberty to say what they did claim now before the select committee. He thought the house ought not to stultify itself by pro , ceeding with this discussion, without having received the information that it required. He would, however,•make one suggestion. Under the present law not only was the 13d. levied, but the City of London was to pay into a fund • into which the coal tax was paid a sum exceeding £12,000 a year. That was the condition on which it continued at present to receive its 4d. But now the right hon. gentleman would gratuitously make them a present of that £12,000 a year. The act of Parliament had provided that those dues should continue till July 13, 1862. But a question of con struction had arisen, as to whether, if there were no public improvements or other objects to which that fund could be applied during two or three months, the power to levy those dues would not expire then, instead of in July, 1862. The Corporation had always thought it might get this tax until 1862. He would, therefore, suggest to the right honourable gentleman to pass a short bill now, to con tinue the present state of things. By doing that, no opinion would be expressed by the house on any single question, but all would remaia just as it was, and there would be no compromise of these claims. He thought it was never before known that a Minister of the Crown should come down there and impose taxation for ten years, amounting to £260,000 a year without having settled in his own mind what was going to be done with that money, and withmit any specific appropriation of it. The house ought first to be supplied with an estimate of the proposed work. Mr. NORRIS said it would be unwise to postpone the question any longer. If they did, the embankment of the Thames and other great improvements projected by the Corporation and the Metropolitan Board of Works, would have to be abandoned sine die. The coal tax was easily col lected, in no way oppressive, and the purposes to which it was applied were of great advantage, not merely to London proper, bat to the metropolitan districts generally. Gen. PEEL objected to the area proposed by the bill, but in most other respects approved of it. Sir G. C. LEWIS said he would not persist in retaining the town of Greenwich. The boundary question, however, might be considered with more advantage in committee. The motion for delay went in his opinion to the merits of the question, although that had been denied. The motion virtually was equivalent to postponing it, not for six weeks, but for six months. It was quite evident that it 'would be uncertain when the committee now sitting would make its report. (Hear.) He could not admit that the appointment of the committee could at all influence the decision of the house. When the hon. member moved for a committee, he (Sir G. C. Lewis) specially guarded himself from being precluded from bringing the subject before the house. Neither was any member precluded from entering on the subject because he was a member of the committee, or from using any information he had obtained aliunde on the sub ject. He hoped that as the bill was only for imposing the tax for a limited period that the house would not object to read it a second time. The house then divided, when there appeared— For the adjournment Against it Majority —lls On the motion that the bill be read a second time, Mr. AYRTON moved that the bill should only be con tinued until July 1862. He wished to state the reason why he made this amendment. In the first place the bill related exclusively to the coal and wine duties. If the present bill were passed it would exclude the city of London from con tributing its share of taxation in respect to a portion of these duties which had existed for upwards of 150 years. That question had already been decided by that house, for on a former occasion it had resolved that the whole of the funds derived out of these duties should be continued, on the ground that the city of London ought not to be relieved from the payment of £12,000, which it contributed to those funds. There were Ministers representing constituencies deeply interested in the sense in which the bill was framed, and no justice was done to the great bulk of the population of the metropolitan district. It behoved the house, there fore, to be very cautious ere it acceded to a bill of such a nature. He wanted the whole subject to be carefully con sidered, as the resolution would provide for, with the view of bringing the bill back within the limits of justice. The position of the matter then was, that justice was openly set at defiance because the population interested in the question could only depend upon some dozen votes in that house to enforce its views. Sir G. C. LEWIS wished to remind the house that the bill was founded upon the recommendations of a committee which sat last session, and in which the metropolis was duly represented. The hon. members for Lambeth and Westminster were upon that committee, and did not object to the resolution that was come to by it. If they had proposed to continue the coal duties only for one year, the house could not have applied the produce of them to the purpose recommended, namely, the Thames Embankment, as the time would be too short. If ten years were too long a period it might be reduced in committee, and they therefore thought they were not asking too much. For that reason he could not assent to the limitation to one year, which was proposed by the resolution of the hon. gentleman. With respect to the London Bridge Ap proaches Fund of £ll,OOO, it involved something more than the coal duties, and being therefore beside the coal duties altogether, he did not propose to deal with it. The SPEAKER here observed that he thought the amendment was irrelevant, because he could find nothing in the bill relative to the London Bridge Approaches Fund. In his opinion, therefore, those words should not be in cluded in the amendment. Mr. AYRTON explained that the act recited in the bill directed taxes to be levied and applied under the act which constituted the London Bridge Approaches Fund. Sir G. C. LEWIS observed that the act in question was only recited in the preamble, but not in the enacting part of the bill. Mr. AYRTON then expressed his readiness to omit from the amendment the reference to the act, and the same point would still be raised substantially. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Sir G. C. LEWIS observed that if the amendment was so altered, it could be dealt with in committee ; and, there fore, it was either out of order or nugatory. The amendment was then, by leave, withdrawn, and in place of it the following resolution submitted, " That in the opinion of this house the coal and wine duties should be continued till the Ist of July, 1862." Mr. JACKSON said he wished to call the attention of the house to the recommendations of another committee which sat in 1854, and of which he had the honour to be chair man. 1 hat committee recommended that the Metropoli tan Board of Works should take into its consideration the purchase of the various bridges across the river upon which tolls were then levied. Sir J. V. SHELLEY said they had no bill before them for carrying out the Thames embankment, and when they had such a bill before them it would be time enough to know what the expense would be. Certainly he did not see that this bill carried ;out the recommendation of the committee. The question before them was, would they continue the coal tax for another ten years ? He alto gether denied that the City of London had a prescriptive • right in the 4d. tax on coals. (Hear, hear.) Sir M. PETO said the motion of the hon. and learned member (Mr. Ayrton) would simply have the effect of put ting off the question of the embankment for another year. As he understood the matter the Government by this bill had been merely carrying out the recommendation of the committee. They should recollect that these improvements required a great deal of money, and he hoped the Govern ment would act upon the advice which the committee had given. He thought they would be doing far better by sup plying the means than by wasting the time of the house by such discussions as the present. Mr. LOCKE must say he should have been glad to have seen the bill for the embankment of the Thames brought in in the first instance, because he had doubts that such a bill would ever be brought in. The right hon. gentleman the Commissioner of Works had begun at the wrong end, but he, no doubt, thought it would be to the advantage of the electors of Hereford if this bill could be carried out. All he (Mr. Locke) could understand by this measure was, that the metropolis was to be deprived of the saving of X 50,000 by a remission of taxation to that amount. Ought they not, then, to adopt the proposal of the hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets ? He submitted to the house, there fore, that the proposition of the hon. gentleman the member for the Tower Hamlets ought to be agreed to. They ought not to legislate for Hertfordshire on pretence of legislating for the Thames embankment. Let them not throw away the money provided for up to 1862, when there was no neces city for it. Let them not lose needlessly a year's taxation. Mr. COWPER said hon. gentlemen took care to say that they were not against the embankment, but they urged delay, the most effectual means of opp os i ng the embankment. They ought to provide first the money, as the embankment would depend for its main features on the amount of money available. The embankment on the south side of the Thames would be considered as well as that on the opposite side, and the proposition, therefore, ought not to be opposed by hon. gentlemen from that part of the metropolis. The house then divided, when there appeared— For the second reading ll9 Against it .........................• 10 Majority for second reading .. . —lO9 The bill was then read a second time. INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL. Sir G. C. LEWIS, in moving the second reading of this bill, said it was founded on a measure introduced by the hon. member for btaffordshire some time since and passed into a law, except that his bill vested the control of the edu cation of the Children in the Committee of Privy Council, whereas the present measure transferred it to the Home dike. It was with that exception substantially a reproduc tion of the former act. Mr. CAVE was not, going to oppose the second reading of the bill, because he should have an opportunity of pro posing arnenftents in committee. AD AF would gladly support the second read ing, and he believed the country was very much indebted for the establishment of these industrial schools. The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Friday. ELECTION LAW AMENDMENT BILL. Sir G. C. LEWIS said this bill was a mere re-enactment of the law now existing, which would, however, expire in August next. A committee sat on the subject last session and passed a series of resolutions, on which any new por tions of the bill were founded according to their recommen dation. With that exception, it was simply a reconstruction of a former act, and if any amendments were to be proposed, they could be introduced in committee. Mr. H. BERKELEY protested against the bill, as one which would increase bribery in a tenfold degree, and was a counterpart of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Bill. It was the bill that the press and the country denounced as insufficient and incomplete, and he hoped the house would reject it. As a consistent reformer, he for one should raise his voice against this bill—(hear)—and there fore, if the hon. gentleman pressed it to a second reading, he should move that it be read a second time that day si% months. Mr. PEACOCKE did not rise to second the amendment of the hon. member ; but if any hon. gentleman moved the adjournment of the debate, he would support the motion. He found that the 15th clause of the bill made a distinction between boroughs and counties. (Hear.) By that clause of the bill provision was made for the conveyance of voters in counties, but not in boroughs. Now, for his (Mr. Pea cocke's) part, he was willing to give up the payment of ex penses of voters in counties and boroughs ; but if they were to be retained in the one he thought they ought to be so in the other. (Hear.) He begged to give notice that in com mittee he should move the omission of the word" boroughs," and if that should not be carried, he would then move as an amendment that the operation of the bill should be confined to an area of two miles from the polling places. (Hear.) Mr. B. JOHNSTONE said the borough which be had the honour to represent extended a distance of seven miles from Canterbury ; and did the house suppose that members of a constituency would be so patriotic as to go seven miles to and fro to ?mord their votes ? Mr. CAVE represented a much larger borough than any of the hon.lmembers who had spoken—(laughter) —and the bill as it stood, would, in its operation, have the effect of preventing many members of the constituency not to put themselves to the inconvenience and expense of coming to record their votes. He hoped the debate would be ad journed, for if the bill was carried, it would have the effect of disfranchising three-fourths of his constituents. Mr. D. GRIFFITH hoped the house would not consent to the motion of the hon. gentleman. The bill was a very mild one. The object of the 15th clause was to prevent payments by candidates ; but that they could not do, unless they made it bribery for a candidate to pay expenses. He entertained a strong objection to the payment of constitu encies by candidates, and regarding it as bribery—(question, question)—he thought that was the question, and that they should not be nice about the choice of terms, but "call a spade, a spade." (Laughter.) He considered such pay ments bribery, and he thanked the hon. member who brought in the bill, and he should certainly support the second reading. (Hear.) Mr. DEEDES had strong objections to the principles of the bill, and entertaining those objections, he hoped the right hon. gentleman would consent to postpone the se• cond reading of the measure. If, however, he should not consent to the postponement, he (Mr. Deedes) should feel it his duty to oppose the second reading. Sir G. C. LEWIS said the course proposed only con firmed him in the opinion that no good could arise from the postponement of the question. If adjourned, those who had spoken could not speak again — (laughter)—whereas, if they now allowed the bill to be read a second time, they could speak again, and make any objections which they might think proper to it in committee. The bill was then read a second time, and Thursday week was appointed for the committee. EXCHEQUER BILLS BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. The Marine Mutiny Bill was read a third time and passed. The Consolidated Fund (£3,000,000) Bill was read a second time. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS. The CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER moved that a select committee be appointed to investigate the public accounts. If that resolution were adopted he would/ at an early day, move that it be a standing order that sack committee should be appointed each session. The motion was agreed to, and the houtie adjourned at 20 minutes to one o'clock. TILE MAIL4S: MAILS DUE. Australia, Ceylon, and Mato itius (via South ampton) ..•• Ap r il 18. Do. (via Marseilles) April 12. Brazil and Cape Verds .. April 6. Buenos Ayres, Monte Video, &O. Cuba and Mexico•• .. Ap r il 29. Canada &c. (via L'derry) • April 17. Cape of' Good Hope, &c. .. • • • • may 3. China, Penang, and Singapore (via S'ampto April 18. Do (via Marseilles) April 12. Gibraltar (via Southampton) .. April 10. India (Calcutta), Ceylon, &c. (via Southampton) April 18. Do. (via Marseilles) April 12. [ndia (Bombay), (via Southampton) .. April 10. v Do. (via Marseilles) .. April 19. Lisbon April 11. Malta, Es2;ypt, and Aden (via Southampton) .. April 10. Do. (via Marseilles) .. April 12. Vigo. and Oporto Ap r il 11. United States, California, &c. April 11. Western Coast of Atrica, Madeira, Teneriffe .. April 10. West Indies an d P ac ifi c , Carthagena, Cuba, &o. April 13. FIRE AND GREAT Loss OF PROPERTY.—Yester day (Sunday) evening a fire of a very alarming and de structive character happened at 93, Long-alley, skinner street, belonging to Mr. B. Sullivan, a furniture broker. The engines of the London brigade and parish were early in arriving, but the fire could not be extinguished until 60 premises and all they contained were nearly destroyed. Tile loss, which is very considerable, will fall upon the Liverpool and London Fire-office. The origin of the catastrophe is unknown. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—The misery, the disappointment, the interminable expense of "physic-taking," are now bar pily superseded by the use of Du Barry's Revalenta Arabic's Food, which, by a pleasing and natural action on the syo - removes chronic and exhausting diseases, and replaces langour and pain by vigour and health. The following ar ° not the least r e mar k a bl e : —C ure 32 , 83 6. " Three years ' excessive nervousness, with pains in my neck and left arm, and general debility, which rendered my life very miser able, has been radically removed by Du Barry's health' restoring Food.—Alex. Stuart, Archdeacon of Ross, nib' bereen." Cure 3,906. Thirteen years' cough, in' digestion, and general debility have been removed by Du Barry's excellent Revalenta Ara bica Food. James Porter, Athol-street, Perth." Avoid Pills and Medicines : they invariably aggravate and perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, disappointment 2 and expense may be avoided by using Du Barry's Food which, at a few pence per day, saves s(` 'times its cost in other remedies, removing effectually, without purging: constipation, indigestion (dyspepsia) nervous, bilious anti liver complaints and all their consequences. Certificate No. 36,418. We find it the safest remedy. Andrew tire, MD., F.R.S., Dr Harvey, Dr. Wurzer, Dr. Shorland, Dr• Campell. Let invalids avoid the fearful dangers of spin rious and injurious imitations offered under a variety of false pretences. Nevill's imitations are prohibited by the high Court of Chancery un d er a penalty of £.5,000 agains t Alfred Hooper Nevill and his agents ; and the pretences that Nevill has a patent for Arabica Food and that 011 Barry's are connected with such patent are utterly false. No canister is genuine without the name Barry Du Be" and Co., 77, R egen t- s t ree t, i n f u ll , ont h eseal and wraPPB''• 1 . Shopkeepers who attempt impositi on i n one article galt, expect to be di s t rus t e d i n a ll o th ers. P ac k ed in tins 11b. 2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s. 6d. ; 51b. lls. ; 121 b. 225. ; 241 b. 40s. Th e 121 b. and 241 b. canisters are sent carriage free on receipt of Post-office order by Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, It ee gent-street, London; Fortnu m M ason, an d Co. ; Abbies 60, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63 and 150, 01. bard-street ; 330 and 451, Strand ; 49 and 60, Bishopega2v" street ; Batty, 16, Finsbury Pavement ; Phillips and us' tea-dealers ; Petty, Wood, a n d Co.. Bing William-street City . at 127 High H olhorn : and all srncers [ADVERTISEMENT.] —Holloway's Ointment and Hopes and Fears —Whatever be the ailment let no one be afraid of meeting with a cure till these searching and purifying remedies have been fairly tried. A vast varier, of chronic complaints, which had baffled the most learned prescriptions, have readily been relieved by the conjoint action of Holloway's curative agents. They act primarilY, in discharging all delet erous dregs f rom t h e blood, an d secondarily in rectifying disordered conditions of the seers' tions caused by unknown or unavoidable impurities exist oi n surprising g afflictingr i n th et dissipatedairh reaps orichdrai scrofulous, fy n ui t lts t oo. h u e tsh, f ce o cu o os dtntaesn;au consumptive r st : vd u eei l soa n t e i fa n ds g e from late bon to cements. fsee Holloway's bsloefry eiac I udewmeth'in t BIRTHS. STONE. —On th e Bth i ns t., a t 11 4, Piccadilly, the wife of John Stone, Esq., of a daughter. TALBOT.—On the 7th inst., at Ballinclea, Kingstown; °°' Dublin, the Hon. Mrs. Talbot, of a daughter. _„ WEBSTER.—On the Bth i ns t., th e w if e of Mr. T h o me' Webster, of St. Martin's-lane, of a daughter. MARRIAGB.S. BOYLE—BOWER.—On the 4th inst., at Norton, near g li t.o l ' ton, Yorkshire, Lieut.-Col. Robert Boyle, Lucy Margaret, eldest daughter of Robert Bower, . 0(1. of Welham. IVILKES—Horr.—On the 6th inst., at St. Martin's.. -111 ; the-Fields, William Shalford, the y ounges t son of Martin's] Wilkes, of 47, Bridge-street. Sout.wark, to Iltr i t l io Jane, the third daughter of Thomas Holt, Esq., 01 Strand. DEATHS. BARDONS.—On the 6th inst., suddenly, at Ash-gr °lret South Hackney, Mr. John Bardons, aged 38. ELms.—On the sth inst., at 15, Bedford-place, square, Thomas Flower Ellis, Esq barrister-at-lavrt aged 65. GRAVES. —On the 4th inst., suddenly, at Woodbine-hill► near Honiton, John Samuel Graves, Esq., barrister -at law, aged 64. hard NUTTER..—On the sth inst., at Wanstead; Essex, TUC- Wnt. Nutter, Esq., aged 55. -ett et" SPIJAER.—On the 2d inst., at 5, Park-terrace, • ,43 . 1 . Artt bourne-park, Colonel 'George Spiller, late Royal lery, aged 70. Russell' LONDON : Printed and Published by MORD° YOITNG , No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TUE SON Otte*, No. 112,Stranu in the Precinct of the SAVOY. in the County of Diiddleaol Tuesday, April 9, 1861. of G City furtl tect' GR) TO. /11,9;1 area, Peen ofticc Marc with eleve Nth mom at Ni ..—___ T) R' to en 3 08 L Bay and ( See , R( Thi Pittat diese l ( Plate its Nv , great 50 0 be 'Host tonal, ayeri Con Man PaYn , itarel Co.; street and ( 1~ Om ee Lo t bou the Thi ?e ven , 41,26( The class tling paella the ki i/ w eb iftry. The aYster at pa i amour the In aerial are in Lorin Annu Is /70 The Every enabb Veniei FIl the 9t T Em El John] Fat Mem Pelle take 9ut 134 1857 Th 4 !met Tw every Jo] vnaii 142 F Is ni E ratii odor Sold the THE SUN, 7 ,I4QNDON, TUESDAY 'EVENING, APRIL 9. 1861.