The Sun. — London, England, 1850-04-30 00:00:00

T 11 1 4 , 1 pot,ePr,chated altegether an annuity of 301. A further ee, aill to be given under the Act would be that of per cltefF4a..!lica to be paid to a party at the leur -100..s s dl• The Government would no doubt have etite;'acantainst the risk of bad lives, which, in the case au_ h one, f ee ".seotnpanies, notwithstanding all their p ert) ahc:piie,ntly caused a loss; but he proposed t P h r a P t e the . beit y. ~,1 1,n at the same time purchase a deferred an pr of+ at proposed, therefore, that if a party wished should ho e ti:e'l,ltohuity for his widow or children he shou, of 1 44 . Pulver to convert the payment upon ' death into , 0 . IV, H e _ any ii,f would be very happy to avail . hiine.o tiers` he ?relation that could be furnished He be blin, been ese Nve , !ad acted On the suggestions that had The que,t(ef:_to hitnfrora various parts of the country. i cste r; ail s', l ? one into which no party feeling ccrald stithee„o4". !timbers were actuated by one . feeling w;io was teeJeet--that which would be best for thos. - esii s 11 deeply intereetei. He should be ready to re 11111'ae4:144dszi'lgs'egions, therefore, which would tend to soe t i e tot of the measure. For the interest o . f th . _e . ktist u f b el u ftBB es sa . vings banks Acre roost valuab.e ins 2 i 14 tao ' llllll3 opieion the establishment of annuities tt % (lifer° valuable still. He had d.ne his hest to meet el hceiv'uthilies of the case; and ho was sincerely anxious, thet efr i _s silte w as every Member in the House, to meet k r, i rate of those concerned —(Hear.) 'het 'edetiMihtl, said he had directed his attention to the lt li fo r t , 0 rettee of the House for the last 30 years, q t h e ob oe last 12 years he had directed the . at • ti, / `/ 4 • 1 est anc ellor of the Exchequer to the subject. _ll .O 4 14 be shrprited at the amouut of the loss stated . tttbllloebegiiataedrtetshde; but he vet. • much regretted to sty eoti e t o ear 0 Right tII Geatlernan would not ~a t t l tr x, h _ , , e • - 7 u. )12 p an. . Hon- The 4 4 t tir e , 41 h ee deludtd by the Savings . Banks Act;, people of the %N I , .otltr pledged to the safe keeping 4Y of the depot 4 qo,e. s. -Dee Act of . of the Oefer4., Qteent answerable for the sum invested in ksb ese ' s e et a ecatities. This left the depositors, liable e h tle test er „,414 r obberies of all kinds. At Tralee, '", hi % r - ,,,'' at for years the dune of one of the trustees ; ;05.,?,...0,:rt• J . luya . a'-9 opinion' the Government shout iik j . r alon e ",-; 131 Pga—either leave the es oio ,ot O3ura to the depositors the w • Ltui ravings of the Ih4t lli ii " Y * / 10 (Mr Hum-) had always rt gretfed cipio ",ktosteninent, * had delta; ed from the prlt i l n - 11°4 10ti c : t : fil o first savings bank established cola ell e ,44 11813 —the We tern Provident Institution 1 11 tt4 Y * ' ' " , tee 1) . , v ery pound deposited ern into Zt,,41511r t'latieSto::kl; itself l hi. t s he op t iw a n s ai k osn o 'c f o Inhveer Gt buyingeody into 41111"..11‘45 or ken dts'l;ol .tD it e and save him the expense 1: 1t . ipalf°:tfi,el:- whicti he sl Zn i would incur ' if he did so him ,"44 to th r ', 4 e.y had not done so long since a great was the de ''itois- es‘l4rrnment while it was no gain to ;°t°o„oool.'lti,lirty ye i a . rs the Government . had paid ,•t IY • 14, 0 than it had received, which was ce ll,. Win, t • i . „. 11 I N h ii... , 0 the mismanagement of the savings banks. i"` l 'oti - al it :!ortied from the difference in the rate of I.j"4lietep'ctuletl;,:s.was certain that if the . Government had : -*1 to "iolf the responsibility, it would not have 4 tell lll ,l 11 ' llf so much. •The Act of 1844 had taken 10;•..er:al?.(moiliility on the part tl e ,„ lie If , 'a therefore, no security f of . the_ or Government. t ette 4 (1 53 `sorry that the Right Honourable Gen the doposi ;',.ics b., ta nothing about ra , :lting the losses good . ,___. IN 4,1 1 s , ti B • i b depositors, because ne oa l-T,_ I L it af - ustoane . y „. 4 Pti io the" Tn'y penny so lost was lost through c r il l- Nt alfs, liove ament. In his opinion, the . 111 14 1 " l i'd I cake th • Iresponsible for these losses, N th se c„.. em 4e ITS resp 17f ;,"I all future depo•its• but he doubted . very ! te l:its "t ' l -dd not be better ' to adopt the Scotch / / ,‘'rest f rom 4 l ration since 1818, whereby banks allowed . sill ea , the day ' which money was deposited. ailltilie'sl,s!lcreat command tf means to the commerce e i4tito'citfl",(tures of the country, while it secured t . e t j t e th rl tl l'l Poor To adopt this system would re It;l3(esiebirit(rerernent from all' interference, and remove t ,_l A i, Y' of loss to the State. He (Mr. Hume) ob •'itleis" t , ) the State becoming an insuring body, 14 el that tl i , . ti en telie .re were sufficient oar° % do et . : Ind also that it was quite unnecessa t ry e . In 444111,11; would be tar better to take . off 11 thel e t "Qt,th ari s tY tip to 100/, and thus afford facilities for . b,`149. Ile to 1 ' overt the , / State into an insurance COM_ ~,,"41) . , '',Jlteite agreed however, with the limits pro R t 4l .Plic . at e l e fi ght lion ' . Gentleman. ' The , plan was too ' ll t is , $ ) in his opinion, and he considered it was la Sit ti ,„"'0 Government to adopt it. r ti le ' vtILL OUGI - 11Y said the question to decide nkticseba„t!'leas this—who were to be the responsible . t'ketlaq,;"`Atr the 13111? It was not the fact of ge e tti a n T g i li'eceit 4 number of high names that made th iti ' ll l e ss 4l , llll3 'ion. The Commissioners for the 'r rs —e n': - were all high persons, but they had cos efsPeatuble duties to perform. cos b .t1143 / th Ms 4,,,,, .4 t i , 0 blaster o thewsapseakanerothwears, fßolls The th-e`vatit,tats,3etton of the Exchequer was another, the it h r,s ti d ti. yreneral of the Court of Chancery was ano t,,' lee s 'el Ohaneellor of the Exchequer was another. ( .. -4 tim e ': ° Ms the only working man of the Commission; -Add 1 ; 4 4 e , dg ht arise invvhichthat public functionary . !,,l)ers i'",, he trus ted. —(Laughter.) It appeareci the by 4N ° r° the House that the Commissioners of Pelt 41 , 1 Debt had power to sell ail the savings bank 4 4 , 4 4 t ,': p thayert it into Exohequer-bills, and vice versa, e y e , - atioes of this character which took place in I1, 114 °,001.; 183 2 and 1833, 1833 and 1836, and 1840, Rotet4'ell I * of Thr ee - and-a-Quarter per Coat. stock had saction t ,,iTe ; ,„ 4 4 d 7 .500 000/. bought. This tra° tsPe: se/ not for sa ' vings bank purposes, but for some 7, li: e hea l cinl Y known to the Governruent: 4 ' J e ll ''' - bills t extent of 19,000,000/. were In 1836- t 4 ~taa,o tir.._ ), the tz At z i Bt c , „ it o rt a t ,, o s f the I savin s gs banks, and stock to This involved sold. -o shy t li31 • 1 18 iol the - 01900 was the number of 2,120 -11 latter t f etll.) Il e f ) ,„, C the number t i n le ber of 1,300 or 1,400. Sir H. Willoughby) lit)o'ti),(1:-te:4t4eZulati on l it th()„.1)Ilet transactions( of interest. That involved a loss of 'it t- '„,lie e t -gi lsie of the includingdeficit, te an i d the question that raised 1 ter 5 , 11 , 14 1 4 t 1:1 1, ° „ t Onl y what right had the Government to tel ti !te fhemer interest, but also what right it had to th t Z•th ey Lanegs.banks deposits in the manner in (Sir H. Willoughby) s," es e4 7," 41 been handled. I e ), 0 ,, t % ac l " R ,. ed on the Noble Lord at the head of the b t ‘sin e .. -- e• to consider whether some real, efficient, that s.°l ' o ' sYstom could not be established instead of s ". It tv ti l l t ali-1 41114 dee clear thatldthhee mishandling of the prevented by law; tt i l eti s C 'le et this etr.sits should 13 William IV., _ section should be N or ed. To th , or tk of, 4 15 . L .,... 0 flight Hon. Gentleman the late Chan =eh cessation i tt ps,,,,e7.4oefhtquer was . due and owing savings-bank stock into kid r*ll'4-bills converting b h Ak tia ,„ •t . and vice versa. To . release . trustees ti m Pre 4l . banks Pa 4 "1.3 of savings from liability n of was to set elegy'het , l hol upon carelessness; and the reduction it4erl-,(,:;ll,tts°!_ interest upon deposits would be, he felt many parties. If the 114,!_octioo of sty disagreeable ot de ;a 9th Geo. IV h to ad not been repealed, k'be d " h ave been no loss - at all to the Government ePooltors. k % 5 ol,p %11 64,-"AMFORD expressed the great disappoint ''' 11 - 4eit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ;gave . b445Pe °I the co al depositor of the deposits to those unfortu t . t til 7 e 40 in who been t. tho victims of misplaced In Rochdale no less 11 ;1 11 . , :11,Par?...1...,wits abstracted; though through the exete: tha' 'q.l2 3 '!`"ees of the trustees, • bility of the depositors would . losses 1 4 the pound. The moral responsibility kti„, rested • hthe Government, because the dee % eta, ?ra h tli , . with had Government as 14 1 , ity f or .r!cl that they the There was ref et th e .'_ueir money behind the trustee;. there was none in 44,,ty. ,tlerablance of security, but f re not from " 1 ' els The Dour people euffered,. there e / h G 9. 4 1 4l fault b ' f the law; and t o 1p Al e i, l ..._ , butt from tl.at o it ~,_. waifs' consequently d to mike good the 's 4 whic h as bound act of cruelty ow it th e ad bees sustained. It was an hard-earned 11, 1 ' Iroi i n se Poor people to invest their security. I De allY.wa that did not afford . perfect Rath 6 i orer cies Y i urged by persons . i ik k, li r lY to ityve s t es h 11 ' td 13 ' een in these banks—he him , 1 44 . a o _. ,s t ea: s,sving! h recommendation, and eeet, l_ se tt 11;4..._e4 to part, in k the Is investo:s ought to be . Qol,lllrtired ai T havin, thti t placed e under the prctsction of ' 1414 ' T 'e• been between rich and poor. 4 1 ,, 'tins) f re case was one tOases ef :::t % % 4 3 most important to teach the labour cared for by tiea''tats, u ,st their interests were equally let,a am, _.; teat, ill fact, there was butlass for the one could not tlsie nwhother for the poor.--(Hear.) He of the in -I,,_'°*te otitartunity pass of speaking . in behalf pia 4 4 Is Pr • N i • .ik un,ering constittuents. told 115 414 sti'dthe Right Hon. Gentleman ' 4 oteel o b se the a i prospective Bill, and depre• fight 4114 . 11l was a thought it would not n t , t io Jos to the past. lie been deluded into ell oit s s titeg i r r s t, to thew who had that no allusion 40 14 ti _att,avings banks, to agree . 0.. t it would be e i ti tot t fof 's t de to the past. He thought had been dis til... (k tot °, allude to those cases which . ,4 % - kiread • He did not fthe public. ps o , ric eei t i f the ?" were be. /re fr Montrose that no hat I' ''" whet on. Member 0 de to protect the to 4 ss 4. , eye: . in the Bill was ma aprovision 1 l!le oe • ne believed, on the contrary, that . the tsetse.tw Bill was inserted which would protect to d in toTo- e t‘til t , e he believed no provision was introduecrcest oughtP 1 5 t h e alterllosent. The system of paying interest accounts ought 4 .41 e r evi : s u i and the system of keeping em. er of a!,:! Dear Re .Re thought, OR the 20th November 0 f every 111 ) 14 gal :44 ' i :it a stated hour, the accounts be added N r 4l 4l, t h ee l 11.ould be closed, and the balancelf attention e t : terned checked by the general balance. ht was certain !i ts ' Rre kf te this part of the subject,e He would b „t ttil ltd ,. good would be derived from . fthe Govern int %,, e. ! to the past, and would show-ible, the Chief b", 1 4. 18 _ 1 ," hot strictly legally responsi National Debt 1 1 ' 1 11 , 4 ft : e oner fur the Reductton of the Still I !: keiof .ehancellor of the Exchequer himself.n Member 0 t Ito o O l ned, as had been stated by the Ha • be motef,"ftle/ Government were morally responsible,de deposited, 4 t 11 "Y depositor believed, at the time he P ken he Gov safety of his es e st rtt Government security for the Po • -.° show ere fairly ti l , limbi c , how far the Government w . _ s • Isp., , he would state what he conceived wa ( bit cl t IV., c. 92, re „, ed , he ease. The 9 Geo. should be ""kia. that savings bank accounts 4 14 a °P •to and if not 4 , up , th , a particular period, Reduction of the j i 44 1 b e Commissioners for the of that :,111t. And S•bt were required to close the accounts , 're r ,II the 3 Will. IV., e. 12, the Commissioners Gazette the ,git , e e , oerc.i:itre.d to publish in the London their accounts. plot qtie set blinks which had not close p ant ed ot the °t „ those wise laws was obvious, namely, to the of e gepositorsagainst wilful negligence on h.. 0 t rus ,__ a and 8 Viet., removed . f, l i 4 Sal rt , s 7 so e •. Another Act, 7 4,1 hegiir,e___eensibillty from trustees onaccount s which made 4the es•te`lews., These were the three law Government. 1 4 _ 5 404_ the' the depositors against the to the , us, of Learned Member then referredlB2B . anti qee n,, eude-street Savings Bank. In , ~ IteCOU in these Zito ye 41.4 Eta were published; and it was had hs•atio, that the defalcations took place. Now the n,at e --- ,rt. as required by law, been published, '4%11,1.e:4°44 of 30,0001. could not have occurred. b ert 'sensors theueht hright • stating, as tho Go -15„, e o „,, . . e was in with the )4 /sha t , eirressioners had refused to comply . k i t s id not were responsible to the depositors. by "osi ° t3 t 4 " how Government could refute to take y t i lt, 1 eration the case of depositors who had lost 1114° thit geiles of their own authorities such a large All • Islie 1831, w . Q 4 i the subsequent depositors were the sufferers, and made so because their deposits were taken to pay off claims of the old depositors which had occurred before 1831. The trustees wished the accounts of the bank to be closed about the year 1831, as would be proved by documentary evidence from the trustees themselves. In consequence of the commu nication of the trustees to Government, Mr. T. Pratt went to Dublin, but, instead of closing the bank, he in duced the trustees to continue the business. He main tained that the Cuffs-street Tank from 1831 became vir tually a new bank, and this went to strengthen the charge of injustice, by making the deposit , of the new depositors available for the claims of the old depositors. Though there was only a surplus of 27,0001. in 1831, they paid in 1836 claims arising previous to 1831 to the amount of 50,000/., and this too with the full cognizance of Government. He would ask whether this was not a case which ought to have the attention of Government, awl he hoped when the Committee met again that the case of the depositors would be taker. into consideration. It was on grounds of public policy only that Government allowed the erroneous ac counts to pass in 1831, and the money of the new depositors to be made use of in payment of the claims of the old depositors. He would now refer to the Killarney Savings Bank, as here again he thought the Government had acted with great injustice. The l:gal opinion of Sergeant Green was that the Commis sioners, when apprised of the neglect or refusal of the trustees to furnish accounts, ought to have taken pos session of the balance, which amounted to 16,600/., which balance ought to have been appropriated t o the p symerat of depositors before 1844. It was wrong on the part of the Government to part with that sum; and, therefore, Government, in this view of the case, were re sponsible f r that amount. In the case of the Tralee Savings Bank the accounts had not been furnished fora euunbsr of years. Here was another case which clearly entit'ed the depositors to the favourable consi deration of The Government. He trusted that on some future occasion Government would announce their de termination to do something in favour of these unfurtu nate depositors. Mr. GROGAN would express his regret that the Right Hon. Gentleman had omitted ail allusion to the gross injustice committed under the late Act by what he must call the public officers of the various sayings banks in those cases which had been ieferred to. He would first call attention to one or two points in the Bill which required some explanation. The Right Hon. Gentleman did not state whether the present annual limit of 301. was to be interfered with? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied, it was not to be interfered with. Mr. GROjAN wished to know who was to pay the rensurer's salary ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied, " TirVst)A.it APRIL 30 1 .. 1~~0, be sn a Lord of the Treasury, he was a disappointed man i dirt, darkness, and defective ventilation, was incurring a —and in that feeling had brought foreasrd this subject— ' heavy responsibility ; he was in fact making bimselt th e accountable agent, in the case of some thousands of the that was a vulgar taunt—(Cheors) — and did not become ulation, forhealth and sickness, life and death. the Right Hoe. t:s' entleman, who hung like a tin kettle to Popr N. B. WARD repeated the evidence he luta given on a the tail of the Member for Tamworth.—(Laughter.) former occasion to the Health of Towns Commissioners on Whenever the Bight Hon. Baronet moved from one side a th n e um p l h a ysica c il influences iub of . light both l upon plants and of the House to the other the movement was sure to be noted by the tin kettle clinking behind his heels.— shrivelle'danand"witheredhpe a c. p m pa e u n r s an o c f a is a u n , t i s ile f l pre l le d ntil b sg een a (Laughter.) On the part of his constituency, he thanked grown without light, under circumstances otherwise favour his Hon. Friend for brirging forward this motion. ab 1 ,... With regard to the effect of a. want of light on the Although the Eight Hon. Gentleman ran through the human constitution, he had frequently traced some of the gamut in praise of the bisheps, nothing would have been most laineutable instances of disease that he had ever met done but for the exertions of laym en hke his Honourable with in sis.profession as a surgeon to the living in dark- Friend, either in the promotion of education or the abo- ened roOms; that is to say, in rooms of-which one or more lition of slavery, which had been effected by the exer- h i f b. the i windows- - had been.. closed to avoid the duties. Lions of a layman, Mr. Wilberforce; and he hoped his H olusny'dleli * especially , the , case in the neighbourhood of Hon. Friend would pereeecre in his praiseworthy exer quarters of the generally in the Jewish tions, uninfluenced by the taunts of the ecclesiastical tax had been ;oln dii metropolis. i,tib T l h e e a t u e a m u pt f atLn of' saving the' Member, the Member for the University of Cambridge. among them it might trilly•be said, in the Scripture,wordpsnonle classes Sir R. INGLIS said, the fundamental error of the that ° there'was no light in their dwellings." A tax upon pon Member for Cockermouth was that his confounded prin- light could only have originated in the most profound igno ciples. He regarded the bishops as sti e eediaries, to ranee of physical laws. ' Experiments had shown that .the whom he might dole out . what he pleased, whereas they tadpole, if kept in' he dark, would live and die a tadpole, in held their properties by as good a title as any private in t its ' organization; becoming a frog, light being essential to this change gentleman did his estates. The property of the Bishop children wereana and the affects of want of light upon of London was attached to the sea tor twelve hundred if brought up in roo g m o s n ' e a . but Ho u w ut ee f :er well supplied with food, years.—[An lion. Member exclaimed—Since the Refor- sun, they became pale and sickly,roaasutdhetbdeiirect rays of the motion.] That observation, no doubt, emanated from one stunted. Upon this head some striking facts their growth bee was b of those members who had sworn to defend the property lished by physicians employed in the hospitals g of St. Petear pub of Peters' the Church, and who would have never been per- burgh. . ....... mitted to enter that House hut for the easy credulity Colonel SYKES was desirous of expressing JAis strong- con:- of Members of that Hour. He had always received the viction that tire evil now in operation was SQ serious tinitit greatest attention in that House, and could not complain was hardly possible to exaggerate its baneful influence 1 of interruption. but he felt convinced that the facts already stated must-have Sir BENJAMIN HALL then moved the adjourn- weight with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that the • - system would be abandoned. 1 t was not a Merely finan meat of the debate. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said he hoped the Hon. both a sanitary and a mor t alquestion; sial queztion, it tree And the arguments in favour of a change were of the graveat, Baronet would not persevere with his motion. He importance. thought the Bill could be better discussed in Committee, Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR observed that all meet , vrere and he was prepared to mov e some amendments when h now so full y a g reed upon the magnitude of the P o restehoetii arrived at that stage, which he would to•morrow lay On that he must really put it to the Chancellor ofettisi;Eekehea the table of the House. The purport of one of them quer as a great public scandal that the resistanc WO Go. t , would be to extend the proposa l as to deans and chap- vernment to a simple measure of sanitary preaucitt iA6id, ters, that no dean or Cano n should be allowed to have have been prolonged up to the p resent moment( • t rust be out of the precincts of th cure of souls e cathedral towns. obvious to every one that the window d uties could not-be defended upon financial grounds. If the money were re- Sir B. TIALL said that heeler lion was a further in quired, it could be raises by a moderate and equitable houze ducement for him to persevere in his motion, tax, which he (Lord R. Grosvenor) should be quite willing to Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, if the Hon. Baronet support, as a direct tax, preferable in many respects to other persevered, he would have to postpone many Bills fiscal burdens affecting trade and industry. Were it not for which he was anxious to send to the Lords for early con- the fact that, in the midst of all our boasted civilisation, we sideration, which would also have the effect of delaying were taxing light and air, the existence of window duties this Bill. might be taken as .evidence of a state of barbarism greater Mr. P. WOOD deprecated the tone which character- than had prevailed in the middle ages, or at any period of ised the debate, and thought an error bad been cote- the world's history. The advent of Lord John Russell to mitted in not bringing it forward at an earlier hour in power had been hailed by many persons in the belief that all objects connected with the moral and physical improve ' the evening. ment of the population would be actively promoted, and it Mr. COCKBURN strongly recommended the Hon. was to them a source of grief and disappointment that the Baronet to withdraw his motion , as h i s p e r severin g Government, i nstea d o f taking the lead upon these questions, might endanger the Bill altogether. should have unnecessarily thrust itself into a false position. Mr. HORSMAN said. if they agreed to take the fur- Public opinion was turning against Ministers, - and the recut ther discussion of the Bill on going into Committee, he of the window duties, it was now not itnprobable, might be had no doubt his Hon. Friend would withdraw his mc- forced upon them by a hostile vote of the House of Corn tion. He would now call upon the Right HOD. Gentle- mono. He (Lord R. Grosvenor) should take a part in such man the Member for Cambridge to state the office fur a vote with the greatest pain, and he implored the Chancel which he had been a candidate. From his experience for of the Exchequer to put himself right Ivith his friends and right with the country, in gracefully and generously con cand standing in the House he should not make estate- ment he had not grounds for, and in that view import- t.cl i‘ i l o r g.h;measure f of relief i. now solicited. C. It and his brethren of the archi ance would be attached to what he said. 'No man who tectu i: a 1 i- profession, °w a ' would arlla t e eitify to the grand fact - had held office, and aft-awards took an independent window duties were objectionable, not oly Ou that the course, would be exposed to the same imputation. He grounds, but also as occasioning much structural deformity, iary asked whether he would withdraw the insinuation or and as imposing an insuperable barrier to the progress of do state the ground upon which it was founded. rnestic architecture. He felt anxious that there should be no Lord J. RUSSELL said filet he would fix an early attemot made to modify the present system, in order merely day for the discussion in Committee if the motion for to palliate the evil, but that it should be wholly abolished. the adjournment was withdrawn.—(llear.) He had The great point to contend for was perfect liberty in works of heard with pain the course the debate had taken, and co o n st s e tr r u ou ct s io to n m in ak t e he th d e i t r u ee x tio u n tb g o e f r er i ma pereonvseomr e ot ari,th7" pre with regard to the insinuation that the Hon. Member for P designs and to allow him to blot out ad libitum the architectural Cockermouth was seeking for office, or disappointed in of a building most essential to its health aud cheerfulness as not obtaining it, he thought there was not the slightest a human habitation. Taxes should have reference solely to foundation for it. At the same time he would observe, the value of the property taxed, and he, both as a private in reference to the Eight Hon. Gentleman opposite individual and as a member of the vestry of St. Pancras, was (Mr. Goulburn), that there was as little foundation fur quite willing to agree to a moderate house tax as a substitute any attack on his integrity and public character. for the window duties; and he thought that such a proposi- Mr. GOULBURN explained, but in a tone inaudible tion would be generally received by the public with favour. in the gallery; but he was understood to withdraw the The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the depu tation would not of course expect him to reply then specifi insinuations rrspecting the motives to which the course cally to the different points on which . he had been addressed. of the Hon. Member for Cockermouth ( Hr. Horsman ) It had been his duty to listen to their representations, and it was attributed. would also be his duty to receive several other deputations Sir B. HALL withdrew his motion. that had written to request an interview upon the same sub- The Bill was then read a second time. ject. The question of the window duties would receive the REFORM IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY. fullest consideration of her Majesty's Government. - Mr. TURNER moved for leave to bring in a Bill 10 The deputation then withdrew. diminish the delay and expense of proceedings in the - • -- ----- - - High Court of Chancery.. The Hon. and Learned Member said he would merely explain that his Bill would not interfere with the valuable orders recently issued by the Lord Chancellor. Leave was . given, and the Bill 'was brought in and 'Tat a first time. The Bill was ordered to be read a lit - cond time on Wednesday, May 22. The Savings Bank Bill was brought in, read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Monday next. The House adjourned at a Quarter *past One. PARLIAMENTARY OATHS. A very interesting report has been published by the Select Committee appointed to make inquiries into the oaths of Members upon being admitted to take their seats in the House of Commons. In a report of twenty seven pages of the ordinary Parliamentary size will be found the entire history of the swearing in of Members down to our own time, and counting from the Act cf Elizabeth, which directs that Members shall take the oath of Supremacy "corporally upon the Evangelists." Previous to this date it does not appear that any trace exists of the exaction of an oath from Members on tak ing their seats. Early in the reign of Jame I. we find an oath directed against the Popish recusants, which ap pears to be nearly similar to the present oaths of alle giance and abjuration. During the Protectorate the form of swearing becomes modified to the following effect :—" T, A. 8., do, in the presence and by the name of God Almighty, promise and swear that to the uttermost of my power, in my place, I will up hold and maintain the true reformed Protestant Christian religion in .the purity thereof, as It is centained in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, &c." The earliest enactments of Charles 11. are directed against the Quakers, his latest against the Papists—then it is we meet with the declaration against Transubstan tiation, tee. It is in the Act of Ist William and Mary, commonly called the Toleration Act, that we find the first trace of the resolution to exclude all persons not professing the Christian religion from the walls of Par liament. It is therein recited that there are certain persons, dissenters from the Church of England, who scruple at the taking of any oath, and as a measure of relief to them it is enacted that they may avoid taking the oaths exacted at the time from other Members of Parliament, upon their subscribing P. declaration against the Pope's supremacy as also the following profession of faith:—" I, A. 8., do profess faith in God the Father, suet in Jesus Christ his eternal Son, the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God and blessed for evermore, and do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine in spiration." Such was the state of things in the days of William and Mary. A wicket of admission was opened for Christian Dissenters. Papists, and all persons not Christians, were still jealously excluded from en active share in the legislation and government of the country. In the eighth year of the reign of William 111. it was decided that by law a Quaker was admitted to make his or her solemn affirmation, in place of an oath, in all courts of justice and other places where by law an oath was required. Ueder these clrcumstances John Archdale, a Quaker, was elected for Chipping Wycombe, in Buckinghsanshire, in the year 1698. He refused to take the oaths, but de manded that his declaration of fidelity, &c., should be ac opt( d as it would in other cases where an oath was re quired. The House, however, refuted to listen to his aerated, and he we, rejected. We e met pass over the Abjuration oath, ending, as it does, with the words, " upon the true faith of a Christian"—as also that of Anne—that we may arrive at the permission granted by the statutes of George 1. to the Quakers to subscribe declaration of fidelity, instead of the oaths in question. in all courts of justice and elsewhere, &c. We next come to the Jews. As we are now upon the very ground et es ah!ch there has been so much skirmishing, we must here be a little more exact. B y the 10th George 1., cap. 24,—it is enacted, " tha t whenever any of his Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion shall present himself to take the Oath of AbiUrntioll ruein p u rsuance of, • Sec., the wo rds, • upon the t faith of a Christian,' shall be • omitted out of the said oath in administering the same to such person; s and the taking the said o a th by such person professing t s h h e al le h w e is d h ee r m el e m i chieenvetortadksianfgoreosfaitdhe A* bjura: tion Oath." This st atute was followed up three years g d - to n w be it a lic .)suutff l i afterwards by another one to the same effect. Other Acts there are set out in the report of the Select Com mittee bearing upon the forms of oath taken by Members prior' to Mr. Pease' s case ; but for these we must refer our readers to the report itself. That case is too fresh in the public recollection, and has been so often and so fully discussed, that we need not here again enter into particulars. Suffice it 'to say • that, after due consultation, Mr. Pease was admitted to take his seat in the House upon making his solemn affirmation and declaration. to the effect of the oaths directed to be taken at the table of the House. Mr. Pease himself was called as a wit ness before the Select Committee, and stated most clearly, and expressly, that in the declaration made by hint e d's, words " upon the true faith of a Christian" were omitted. Quakers, Moravians, Separatists have betel now expressly relieved by statute. The Queen's subjects who profess' the Jewish religion are, therefore, alone excluded from a seat in Parliament in consequence of the preliminary ceremonials. At the commencement of the report the member iof the Select Cenuaittee favour us with a sho rt synopss! of the position of the Tews in England. They were .Pa nibbed from the realm in the 18th year of the reign. eg h and of King EdWard 111., and did not return to this . count i r i y a until, the days of Oliver Creimwell. Dur E ing t Protectorate some Dutch Jews tame over to and prayed the Protector that he would let them .. . ave Wished his S her Upon this occasion it was that Bynnepu their synagogues and the free exercise of their religion. d barred R • t Demurrer to the Jews' long di into Enylanel. It seems t hat no sconsderab e . number of di sco ntinued i mutter i have them came over to England uutil the been Resallo wedtoration. to live From that date to the present they amongst us in peace—diseharging faithfully the obliga tions of good c itizens and good subjects of the Crown. One by one the restrictions have fallen away which Impediment exi sts to the ir complete emanci pprevented their ad mission into offices of public trust, &o. t h e cone! declaration, which One only only concluding words of a have been dispensed with in the case of others, and may therefore Without impropriety cease to be required from Jews . w ho may henceforward be returned to serve as Members of Parliament —Tin". Authorship is, according to the spirit in which it is pursued , an infamy, a pastime, a handicraft, an art , a science, a virtue.—Eliza Cook's journal. [ADvssansEmENT.]—Another Permanent Cure of a Nervous Headache a n d Giddiness in the Head by Holloway's William Smith, of No. 5, Little Thonnas.street, Lambeth, suffered for many years with a nervous headach ard giddiness in the head, which so prostrated his strength that he had very little hopes of a recovery. His disorders completely baffled the skill of several eminent doctors, who, it appears, mistook his complaints for an affection of the spine, and he got worse under their treatment. In despair, and asre source; he commenced taking Holloway's Pills, which have had the effect of restoring him to perfect health, and the prospect of a hale and hearty old age.—Sold by all Druggists, and at Profesior Hollorayrs Establishment, 24.4 Strand s London. - ``-~-L:~ ~... SUN, LO'NtION, WAS the Commissioners. Mr. GROGAN—Was the old rate of interest to be mahitained for the present ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER —No. the Bill would not come int > operation until the 20th November next, and then the reduction would take place of the interest and deposit'. Mr. GROGAN put these questions because it was im portant there should be no doubt existing on these points. He wished to have balance-sheets prepared and circulated at stated periods, showing the exact position of the savings banks. This, he thought, would be very acceptable to the public as well as to the deposi• tors. He would now rel'er to the cases of those who lied suffered from the defalcation of the savings banks' officers in the hope of eliciting something faeourahle from Government. The Honourable Gentleman hero entere I into some further particulars connected with the ease of the Cuffe-street Savings Bank's deposi tors to show that the depositors had a well-grounded claim on the consideration of Government. The grossest irregularity had prevailed at the Cuffs street Savings Bank, the result of which had been the stoppage of the hank, and the depositors had received nothing. If ever there was a else calling for the merciful interference of the House, that of the Cuffe-street Bank was the strongest. If the depositors had been aware that they had not the security of the Government, but merely of a few volunteers who were utterly irresponsible, the Right Hon. Gentleman could not suppose that they would have deposited their money. The question was of immense importerce th those who had lust all their money, and he hoped, whenever it should come before the Commit tee, that a f .vourable decision would be given.—([Tear.) Mr. SL ckNEY said there could be no doubt that the loss of the depositors was a matter of the greatest inte rest, but, as the Committee was to be appointed, he thought it would be much better to communi cate the facts to the Committee than to state them to the House. He hoped that in the Commit tee justice would be awarded to those parties, and if the question should be at all doubtful, the benefit of the doubt ought to be given in favour of the humble depositors.— (Hear.) The number of persons interested in the subject was extremely large, and he thanked the Right Hon. Gentleman for the attention which he had paid to it. He wished, however, to make one or two remarks, which ho trusted the Right Hon. Gentleman would not overlook. The Right Hon. Gen tleman said most truly that the deposits of the working classes wore not in a state of security ; and he believed the measure of the Right Hon. Gentleman would tend considerably to improve that security ; but in doing so he regretted to field that the depositors were to be made to pay.—(Hear, hear.) Now, with respect to t he amount deposited. Formerly the sum was 1501., bat now it was to be reduced to 100/., thus cutting off one-third of the investments which the humble classes might les enabled to make. It was true the Right Hon. Gentleman proposed to give them facilities to become stockholders ; and when their deposits should amount to 1001., they should receive stock of that value. Now, he wished to know if the Right Honourable Gentle man would give them the option of 1001. in Exchequer bills, instead of 1001. in stock ? If it were practicable to make 501. Exchequer-bills, it would be a great stimu lus to a vast number of persons who were desirous of investing in Government securities.—(Hear, hear.) He congratulated the country upon the prospect of these humble parties being able, through the medium of Go vernment offices, to purchase into the funds, and receive the interest close to their own doors; but he hoped that a power of attorney would not be necessary in each case, and also that the advantages of these investments would be given to friendly societies in general.—(Hear, hear.) Sir J. JOHNSTONE said, if he had understood the Right Hon. Gentleman correctly, the Committee would examine the cases of the bank at Scarborough, and other banks in this country, as well as the Irish banks. He hoped when all the circumstances connected with the defalcation at Scarborough were considered, something would be done to pay the depositors the small loss which they must necessarily incur. The trustees asserted that if any imputation could be fairly cast upon them of having in any manner neglected their duty, they would without a moment's consideration pay every sixpence of the deficiency, although no legal responsibility rested upon them.—(dear.) Mr. H. HERBERT said the Right Hon. Gentleman having requested Hon. Members to confine their obser vations to the Bill, instantly proceeded to vindicate the conduct of the Government and the conduct of the offi cers' connected with the National Debt Office, assuming that none of the allegations which had been made wets) founded on fact, and he thought after the example set by the Right Hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Herbert) might be permitted t) make a few remarks. The Hon. Mem ber fa. Shrewsbury thought it desirable not to go into the matter. because a Committee was to be appointed. Note he (Mr. Herbert) had no faith in the Committee that would be appointed, because he had no doubt the Right lion. Gentleman was about to appoint the Com mittee of last year. And he would state why he had no faith is the proceedings of that Committee. Previously to its appointment a notice of motion placed on the Raper by the Hon. Member for Dublin, had seen several times postponed at the request of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and when he (Mr. Herbert) afterwards gave a similar notice, the Right Hon. Gentleman consented to the pre position, saying, " You may have your Committee, but I must nominate it." He agreed to the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and was afterwards informed by an Hon. Member that he had been " done."—(Laugh ter). The following year that Committee, of which the Right Hon. Gentleman was chairmen, made a - short report, stating that they had not been elate to go fully into the merits of the case, and recommending a further inquiry into savings banks. The - next year when the Honourable Member for Dublin gave notice of a motion for a Committee, it was met by a dis tinct negative, and on two occasions the Government were in a minority on the appointment of the Com mittee. The Right Hon. Gentleman now proposed the appointment of a Committee, and would probably delay the nomination till one or two o'clock, when the House was quite wearied. The Right Hon. Gentleman had not told the House what the Committee was for.—(Hear, hear.) He could not help adverting to one other cir cumstance connected with tee appointment of that Com mittee. A wish was expressed by the Irish Members generally that the Hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) should be placed on the Committee, on which occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer ex pressed his regret that ho could not consent, but that it was his determination to stick to the Committee. The Hon. Member; for Montrose, who was a member of the Committee of 1848, declined to serve on that of 1849; but instead of then appointing Mr. Napier, they nomi nated the Noble Lord the Member for Kildare (Lord Naas). Now with respect to the treatment of the depo sitors, who, he contended, ought to be reimbursed, Mr. Tidd Pratt, in his examination before the Committee, stated that in his opinion a gross and grievous hardship. had been inflicted by the passing of the Act of 1844. The Hon. Membir for Cork said that, in the case of the Killarney Bank, the claims amounted to 36,0001., and the assets to only 16,000/. Now, how was that divided? Why, 201. in the pound was given to the depositors pre vious to 1846, ancl . 3s. to the depositors subsequent to that period.—(Hear, hear.) And what was the reason for a decision so contrary to every principle of equity and common sense but the passing of the Act of 1844? Allusion had been made to a variety of irregularities that had been permitted to take place by the Commis sioners of the National Debt. In almost every instance in which the Act required their control for the protec tion of depositors they had neglected to exercise it. In proof of this he would refer to the evidence of their secretary, Mr. Byam, given before the Committee of 1848. In his examination Mr. Byane stated that, strictly speaking, the Commissioners had not acted in the manner directed by the Ant. Ho (Mr. Herbert) had t) prefer a charge against the Commissioners, which, he thought, would surprise the House, and it was that they had passed and signed the accounts trans mitted to them without the slightest supervision. Mr. P-am a !mittfd this iu his examination. In fact, ever since 1844 account' had been passed by the Commis sioners with errors an gross that any school-boy might have detected them. In the accounts of the Killarney Bank, published in it local newspaper in 1848, he him self bad detected an error to the amount of 4,0 0 0 o f On ththefire of one account, the aggregate amou of fart} -Jilt: depositors of 1001 each was pat down at 1,3014, iustead of 4,1001. The opinion of Mr. Green, late Attorney-General for Ireland, and one, of the beat of lawyers, was, that the Commissioners had been guilty of a violation of the Act in regard t,t•the transmission of the accounts. He could not help re ferring to the extraordinary conduct of the gentle man appointed by the Government to supervise the pro ceedings connected with savings banks. In the care of the Tralee Bank, Mr. Tidd Pratt went to Tralee and made awards against a certain number of trustees, but with a degree of haste that rendered it almost impossi ble that he should not have committed errors. One of these awards became the subject of trial at the assizes for 1849, at which Mr. Tidd Pratt gave evidence. The jury fouud a verdict for the defendant, and the decision was confirmed by the Chief Justice on appeal. The con sequence was, the unfortunate people who had endea voured to obtain redress by le w, had been thrown over by the incompetency of a public officer, who had not served the notices required by the Act. lie should not have troubled the House with these details if he had not felt that be was advocating the case of those who had been reduced to a miserable state of beggary and desti tution, not from any fault of their own, but rather from possessing those good qualities which every wise Govern went should encourage—honesty and industry. There little use in telling the people to be honest, induss trious, and frugal, if their savings were not to be secured to them as far as possible. An able writer had said that he who spoke from conviction spoke with f irce. He knew not whether ho had done so; but after having been an eye-witness of the distress and wretchedness which had resulted from the failure of the savings bank of Tralee he felt that he ought not to remain silent when such a question as the present was bef ire them. Mr. BANKES thought the Hon. Member :had given good reasons why he had taken the present opportunity of offering his remarks to the House, instead of wait ing till the nomination of the Committee, which would probably take place at a period of the night when he might not be able to obtain that attention which the sub ject deserved. He was aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished that the subject should be considered prospectively. But as three mouths of the session had elapsed he 'thought he was entitled to ask the Govern ment whether they intended to give any aid to those who in England and Ireland had suffered so severely from the failure of savings banks—and in some degree, he must say, from the neglect of the Government itself? During three sessions the attention of the House and of the Government had been called to this particular subject, and it was extraordinary, considering that neg lect of duty on the part of persons connected with savings banks was known to some members of the Government, that last session should have . been allowed to pass without a measure of this kind being introduced. The Government were aware of what was not generally known, that the Bill of 1844 materially affected the safety and security of the depositors, ,and yet they permitted the sesion to slip away without bringing forward any measure on the subject. In his opinion Government was justly to blame for their neglecting this subject from the time they be came aware of the circumstances alluded to up to the present moment.—(Heme) Only the other day another case of failure had occurred in a neighbouring county, and there was no saying . where the matter would end. Not only had they to regret the pecuniary loss of the sufferers, but also the public less which would arise from circumscribing the limits of these beneficial institutions, in consequence of the neglect of the Government in not earlier applying a remedy. He would not say that there was a greater disposition in that House to legislate for the rich rather than the poor; but he did say, that if the sufferers in the present case had been trustees, and not depositors, more would have been said about the matter. —(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Scarborough, and the Hon. Member for Rochdale, had both alluded to the failures that had taken place in their neigh bourhoods. He did not clearly understand whether the proposed Committee was to embrace those places as well as Ireland. The Honourable Member for Kerry had given a very satisfactory reason why he did not desire the appointment of a Committee with reference, to the case of Ireland. The Hon. Member seemed to think that the question of their claims was so clear that a Committee would only be a waste of time. In regard to all cases—taking into consideration the ignorance of depositors with regard to the terms on which they had entrusted their money, and their belief that they had the security either of the trustees or the Government itself; he thought a claim might fairly be urged on their behalf. There were not wanting pre cedents for remunerating parties who had suffered from no fault of their own, but from that of public officers. In one case tee Bank of England had granted an indem nity of 300,0001. or 400,0001. to parties who had suffered from a forgery. It was their duty to render savings banks as secure as possible. He was aware that it would be better to discuss the Bill at a future stage, but thought that the present was not an unfair time for calling the attention of the House to the subject, and asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he had made up his mind to recommend any assistance from the public purse to those who had sufferel? Colonel THOMPSON said his argument why the de positors had a claim, not only on the Government, but on the country, was, that the country was mainly to blame. The country ought to have looked to the busi ness, and not to have allowed halt-starved Irishmen to be defrauded of their painful savings. Since the country had not done so it had no right to grumble if called on to provide the means for remedying the evil. Why, he would ask, should the same precaution not have been taken in savings banks that was taken in the collection of the taxation of the country, where security was re quired of the collector ? He did not see why deposits should be limited to 101)1. A private banker did not ob ject, but was rather rejoiced, to receive deposits beyond that amount. Why should the limit of 1001. be taken in savings banks? It was a saying that there were things cheap but so squalid as not to be worth having. Ile was quite certain that depositors would never demand to have that cheapness which was accompanied with the certainty of never seeing their money again. They did not seek to be spared paying for advantages. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER mid there was only one question necessary for him to answer with reference to the Bill, and that was the question of the Hon. Member behind him with reference to granting Exchequer-bills instead of stock. He was disposed to decrease the floating debt as much as possible, and there fore did not think it advisable to increase, by any means that could be avoided, the issue of Exchequer-bills. With regard to the general observations of the Hon. Member for Kerry, he did not think it necessary, nor was that a proper opportunity upon which to enter into a discussion on the subject to which the Hon. Member had referred. He should only refer to one portion of his speech—namely, that which alluded to the case of Mr. Till Pratt, and wherein it had been stated that due notice had not been served, according to law, upon the parties concerned. Now, what, he would ask, were the special requirements of the Act of Parliament? It was required that the notices should be posted on the doors of the savings bank, or the place where such bank was kept. In the instance in question, the party con cerned had Leen in Tralee gaol, the house shut up, and all the papers c,f the savings hank deposited in the Town-hall. Yet circular letters had been sent to all the trustees and parties concerned, and all those who had been engaged in the action had had an opportunity of meeting the gentleman who had gone there to investigate the matter. Under the circumstances of the case, all had been done that could be done to comply as far as possible with the mean ing and spirit of the Act of Parliament. The Hon. Member for Dorset (Mr. Bsnkes) had wished to know why the Government had not introduced a measure like the present one, for England, in the course of last year, when they must have known of the evils which existed in the system. In answer to that, he could say that a similar measure had been proposed, but they had been obliged to withdraw it. In conclusion, he would only observe that it was necessary the Committee which it was proposed to re-appoint should be nominated, in order to receive the report of the actuary. Mr. BANKES wished to knew whether the case of Rochdale would be included? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER dideeot think it advisable for the present. But all these cases of defalcation were under consideration. After a few words from Mr. HERBERT in explana- tion, The motion was put and carried, and the Attorney. General proposed as the Member to bring in the Bill. ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION. Sir GEORGE GREY then moved the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill. In doing so, he said he felt it was necessary to render a short statement to the House, and to detail as briefly as possible the cir cumstances which brought about such a measure, and the principle it was proposed to introduce. In 1847 a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the con stitution of the Ecclesiastical Commission for England and Wales, which took some evidence in that session, but made no report to the House. It was re-appointed in the session of 1848, when a greet deal of additional evidence was given, and at the close of it a report was presented to the House. That report briefly referred to the origin of the Commission in 1835. and after advert ing to the nature of the duties of the Commissioners, proceeded to reaommend that certain alterations should be made in its composition. They recommended that the number should be increased from thirty to forty nine, consisting of two archbishops, five members of the Government, all the bishops ; three judges, either of the courts of equity or prerogative court ; eight lay c ommissioners, six to be appointed by the Crown and two by the Archbishop of Canter bury. The Committee stated further, that the constitu tion of the present Commission was liable to very great objections, that it was too large for the transaction of such business, and that there was a great want of regu larity in the system, owing to a want of proper atten tion, an uncertainty of attendance on the part of the Commissioners, owing to an absence of any obligation, and that that absence threw a larger share of power into the hands of a portion of the Commissioners than was deemed expedient. They then recommended that the portion of the business purely ecclesiastical should be separated from the other objects of the Commission, and confided to the management of the bishops; that three paid Commissioners be appointed for the management of the property of the Church, two by the Crown and one by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that the presence of one of these paid Commissioners should be necessary on all occasions. In those recommendations generally the Government concurred. They felt it was most desirable that there should be a greater security for a proper at tendance, and more responsibility thrown on the Commis sioners than now attached t 3 them. The Bill which he now moved to be read'a second time came down from the House of Lords, and was in accordance 'wits the principal recommendations of that committee, though in some of the minor details it differed tram some of those recommendations. The main recommendation was, not to supersede the body of the bishops, and to appoint a committee, on the members of which would devolve the principal management of the secular concerns of the C )mmission. Some doubts had been entertained as to the propriety of such a committee, but it must be one of the body, as new proposed, but not independent of it, EVENING, though conta,'.ning paid members. The Bill proposed that an estates committee should be appointed to consider all matters connected with the lauds, tithes, and hereditament 4 ; and it was also proposed that those persons should be appointed, celled the Church Est'ates Commission, two t' be nominated by the Crown and one by the Archbishop of Canterbury; the first Commissioner nominated by the Crown to receive 1,200/, a year, and the Commissioner of the Archbishop 1,000/., to be paid cut of the fends. It was proposed that this Conarnienion should be a permanent body, and that they should be assisted by three from the body of the Commissioners themselves, one of whom should be a layman. These were the only pe.rticulsrs in which the B:11 differnd from the recommendation of the Commis sioners. In the first instance, they recommended that the three Commissioners should be paid; but the Bill only proposed two, as it was thought desirable to trench as liele as possible on church property. The Committee also recommended that one of the paid Members should be always present at the transaction cf business; but the Bill said two, who should be members of the cone mite eof tee general body, and bound to report to it, though he should say that their responsibility would be so great, and their recommendation entitled to so much weight, that it was expected their decision would not be overruled by the general body. The Bill also provided that the offices of secretary and treasurer, heretofore held by one, should be separated, a measure necessary, be need hardly assure Honourable Members who rand the papers laid on the table with reference t i the defalcations of that office, because if there had been such separation no such defalcation could take place. It was proposed to abolish the office of treasurer, and to make one of the Church Estates Commissioners fill that office. An important alteration had teen made in the House of Lerds, t which he should not then advert, but simply state that it was his intention to give notice of th e introduction of a similar clause during its passage through the House.—(Hear, hear.) By the law the Ec clesiastical Commission had had the management of the separate estates transferred to them, with the limitation that the incomes of the deans were not to exceed 1,000/. a year. In the crass if the Deans of Wells and Salis bury it was found that income was not sufficient, and the present deans had been appointed at 1,5001. After the appointment the question arose whether the Ecclesias tical Commission possessed the power to augment the incomes. It appeared that there were at least doubts upon the subject, and under these circumstances the Government had introduced a i clause by which that doubt was removed, by expressly restricting the salaries of all deans in future to 1,0001., subject to the exception of the Deans of Wells and Salisbury, who bad accepted the appointment on the Un derstanding that the salary was to be 1,5001. That clause had been altered in the other House of Parlia ment, and power given by the Bill to pay 1,500/. a year i to seven deaneries enumerated n- the measure. It was the intention of the Government to introduce a clause which would restore the Bill. to its original share in which it was brought before the House of Lords—(Hear, bear)—with the exception that the higher salary would be confined to the Dean of Wells, and to the executors of the lets Dean of Salisbury, the present Dean having accepted the deanery at 1,000/. a year. It was also the intention of the Government to enforce the regulation that deans must be resident in their deaneries eight months in the year, and therefore they would be pro hibited from holding any benefice more than three miles distant. He had thus briefly stated the leading provi sions of the Bill. There were other minor arrangements with which it aas not necessary to trouble them. If the House assented to the principle of the Bill, he believed it would effect a very beneficial alteration in the consti tution of the Commission to improve the practical ma nagement of the business, increase the responsibility of the partics to whom it was committed, and secure a better attendance. He trusted that whatever point of difference might arise as to the details of the measure, this would be discussed in Committee, and that the House would assent to the principle of the Bill. Mr. lIORSMAN said this was an extremely import ant measure, when they considered that the Commission to which it referred was dealing with large amounts of Church property. The Right Hon. Gentleman had in troduced it in a very clear and candid manner.—(Herr.) He had given a very lucid statement of its principal pro visions, and shown no disposition to avoid its weak points. For his own part he gave the Rigat Hon. Gen tleman aed the Government the credit of believing that in introducing this measure they had been actuated not by the desire of carrying what they thought required by the facts and the justice of the case, but what they were likely to carry.—(Hear, hear.) The measure.had . been carefully drawn up to conciliate its opponents in might other House of Parliament. The Government take the credit for the best parts of the Bill—the weak ones bad been inserted by them to avoid opposition, and the worst parts had been inserted by the House of Lords. —(Hear.) In fact he did not feel that the Government were responsible for the Bill in its present shape any more than a godfather would be for the features of an ugly child.—(Laughter.) The Ecclesiastical Commission had been condemned by univer sal p ublic opinion. The Bill came before them with all the concessions the Commis sion were prepared to make t t that universal opinion, and they must, therefore, make the best Bill they could of it under all the circumstances. But let thorn see how the Bill really dealt with the defects that had been pointed out in the constitution of the Commission by the Committee. In the first place, its great size was objected to. It originally consisted of thirteen members ; it was now forty-nine, and that made it a most unwieldy body. How did the Bill remedy that ? It proposed to add three more commissioners, making the forty-nine into fifty-two.—(Hear, hear.) The next objection was, that practically the Commission was not only inefficient, but absolutely irresponsible. Well, take the 6th clause. It proposed to appoint two paid Commissioners, and to take that proposal in connexion with the report of the Commission. It was composed of high functionaries of the State, and of persons very friendly to the Commis sion, and it might, therefore, be fairly interred that any alteration they proposed in the Commission would not be proposed from any hostile feeling, and could only spring from the stronges t conviction of its utility. But the Committee suggested the appointment of three:Com missioners. Now, what was the .• principle of that re commendation ? What was the principle of the Bill itself ? Payment and responsibility, that was the aim of the Committee, and it was the principle which the House, in the discharge of the duties devolv ing upon it, ought now to carry out in that Bill.— (Hear, hear.) These three paid Commissioners were to attend daily to the business, and the Committee pro posed that one of them should be appointed by the Arch bishop of Canterbury, because it was believed that the Archbishop would then retire from the Commission, and leave the business to be conducted h by his Commissioner , —(Hear, hear.) By the Bill 'the paid Commissioners were reduced to two, and one of the two was to be ap pointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, removable at his pleasure—(Hear, hear)—while the Archbishop him..., self and the whole bench of bishops remain members of the Commission, while at the same time they had their. Commissioner appointed to clo• , the ecclesiastical busi ness and look after the ir interests thus on the paid . commission, the bishop's Commissioner would neutra lise the Crown Commissioner. In the estates com mittee he would be in in the minority, and in the whole board he would be a minority of one against fifty. The unpaid Commissioner would be a layman, but practically he would be nullified, and from his posi tion as an unpaid member have no responsibility at tached to him. But even this was not enough. Not content with thus neutralising the power of the public paid Commissioner, a subsequent clause of the Bill provided that nothing should be done unless it was ap proved of by the whole board, Ile asked if this was carrying out the professed principle of the Bill, payment and responsibility ?—(Renewed cries of " Hear, hear.") sa id the Biil throughout was conceive in a bad spirit. If they wanted to see what that spirit was, let them take the 14th clause, which increased the incomes of SeYOll of the deans to 1,500/. a year.—(Hear, hear.) Did any one suppose that the other deans would not ask for the same income ? If the Dean of Bristol could not lire upon less tbaa 1,500/., why should the Dean of Ro chester starve . upon 1,0001. a year.—(Hear, hear, and laughter. he repeated,evelie meet imperfect in ). ite detailsemistaken in spirit, and if lie was compelled to make rot e l e ction between accepting it in its present shape without the chance of amending, he would move its rejection at o nce.—(H ear, hear.) But it was sus ceptible of considerableimprovement in Committee, and lee would endeavour to show what these improvements were: The first was to carry out the recommendation of the Committee and appoint three paid Commissioners. He must say that the plea upon which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners opposed that recommendation struck him as being most extraordinary. They had suddenly dis covered that the Church was so poor that they could not, in justice to the funds they had to dispense, afford 1,000/. a year to a bard•worked Commissioner. Yet the very parties who ob j ected to pay a Commissioner 1,000/. for doing the work of the . Beard, in th e very same Bill proposed to raise the income of seven sinecure deaneries: 4,0001., anincrease which, if granted, would be certain to entail an addition of 10,0001 a y ear on the other deans, or 14,0001. in all.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") That was, h owever, not the only specimen of the almost inconceivab le economical inconsistency of these parties, who made the poverty of the Church the plea for refusing the salary .of a single hard-working Commissioner. It was not in that. Board alone that was exhibited. Practically the same parties had the management of the Church Building Fund and Queen Anne's Bounty. There were 41 members on the Board of the Church Building Fund. .But the whole business, as usual with the Ecclesiastical Commissions, fell upon the secretary, who wa s also the treasurer. Very few of the me mbers attended the me e ti n gs, ar i d the whole business fell iuto the hands of the secre tary. Until within the last few years tberp was not even an audit established.—(llear, hear.) The whole office expenses amounted to about 4,.00 . 0t5t year, and the whole of the funds they had to administer only amounted to 12,000/. out of a capital of a million and a half w hich had been granted at two different periods. Farth er , w h e n some time since the Act a ppointing the board was a b ou t w as made for a new Act, ex to expire an application tending the duration of t he Commission for five years 00/. to manage a more, at an annual cost of 4,oprincipal of 12,000/.—(Hear, hear.) These officers were paid from the Consolidated Fund, and he was sure the House would have been very happy to . accede to any p ro p os al from these economical Commissioners to reduce a few of the clerks, or the surveyor, or seine of . the other mon aimunstrateon of so small a strous expenditure for the sum. In the case of Queen Anne's bounty the same patties were the administrators, and there ag a in the secretary was treasurer and commissioner all in one. lie called the meeting when he thought proper, but very few attended. He might also have kept the money in his own possession, for all that the Commissioners had done in the matter ; but as a n honest straightforward man of business, he had laid closen a rule for himself, that he would have no money in his hands, and be subject to no suspicion in consequence. Here, again, the ex pense of management nearly eat . up one-half of the 14,0001. intended for the augraeatatton of small livings. The management of these two Commissioners threw some light upon the economy of those who, under pretence of the, poverty of the Church, now objected to a Com missioner of 1,000/. a year. One of the great arguments in favour of the preponderance of the ecclesiastical ele ment in the composition of the Board was, that the in terte is of the Church required protection. But he said that the business was purely temporal. The people would repudiate any intcrfe:enco of the Commission with religious questions. The Right Hon. S•cretary of State for the Horne Department was a member, so was the Right Hon. Gentleman the representative of the University of Cambridge, and he would as soon trust them as pious clergymen. Church property had been plundered, but not by the people. It had been plun dered first by the sovereign, next by the nobles, and, in our own day, by the Ecclesiastical Commission. — (A laugh.) But the people had never committed sacrilege. As to the representation, the Episcopal Bench was represented, but what came of the parochial clergy? Were they represented, or was there such an identity between them that bishops, most of whom had never been parochial clergymen, were capable of representing; them ? By another part of the Bill the episcopal influ ence was plainly shown. In the early days of the Church the residence of the bishop was in the cathedral city. His throne was erected in the cathedral, and the bishop was the centre of the religious life around him. But in modern times the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, with a courage at which he wondered, bad subverted the excellent principle to which he had thus briefly adverted, and the bishop, instead of leading the godly, peaceable life, hallowed, as formerly, by associations which the lapse of ages could only render more ex cellent, had removed from the ancient seat of his reli gion, and betaken himself to a modern aristocratic re tirement, to which his clergy coeld penetrate with difficulty, and the poor not at all.—(Hear, hear.) The retention of the bishops on the Commission on account of the Church in respect to the interests of the clergy was wholly unnecessary. Ho objected to the bishops being on the Commission, as they were wanted else where.. Christianity had to contend against the views and opinions of many, and to enkindle faith in an ago in which the infusion of the spirit was necessary. The bishops of the Church were designated fathers in God, but they were not found visiting the sick, consoling the dying, or enkindling the faith of Christianity in the minds of those who required to be thus inspired.— (Hear, hear.) The mode in which bishops discharged their duties was such as to sink the episcopal character in the eyes of the people. The press, the Government, Parliament, the clergy—all besought these heavenly fathers_to give up their temporalities, but they said no; the property of the Church was theirs, for they were the Church, and it should not be entrusted to any other hands. The country had arrived at this point, that it was asking what were the bishops for, and what were their use amongst us? When he made his motion of episcopal incomes, the Right Honourable Gentleman said be (Mr. Horsman) seemed to have a low esti mate of - episcopal duties. Now, he did not think the bishops were to be saved from comment, if their conduct merited that it should be censured. He had yet to learn that the duties of a bishop had any thing to do with the Ecclesiastical Commission. The Church taught them to respect the bishops, as the de positories of the true faith, handed to them from the apostles, and although they did not look to find the sanctity of the apostles in the bishops of the Church, they ought to be cast in the scriptural mould. Now, he denied that anything like this was to be found in the bishops of the Church at the present day, for it seemed as if temporalities had more influence on their conduct than the principle of charity. He would now turn to the Bill to say what a bishop ought to be. He should not be half the year an ecclesiustic and the other half living in a palace shut up from his clergy. He did not think it was the duty of a bishop to be engaged in look ing after tines and leases for the purpose of enriching his family to the prejudice of the Church According to his reading, it was not a part of the duty of a bishop to be in the House of Peers; and, lastly, it was not the duty of a bishop to use his influence in the House to the detriment of the Church which he was sworn to up hold. It is said that a Church establishment made men temporal. This was an argument against a Church establishment. This was a deep-dyed stain of the Church—that its spiritual interests were sacrifi©d to its temporal concerns. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then referred to the 13th clause of the Bill, which he said bad been introduced into it by the bishops, and they justify it upon the ground that the cry was " More clergy and less bishops." He denied that this was the fact in the way suggested. What was desired was, that there should bo a sufficient quantity of the working clergy, with bishops to superintend. What he wanted was, to spiritualise the bishops, and to do away as much as possible with the secular character which was now as sociated with their calling. Those were his reasons for opposing the Bill. Mr. GOULBURN said that, however the clauses of the Bill might be objected to, there could be no reason why the Bill itself should not be read a second time. The Hon. Gentleman had pursued bis usual course on this occasion. He had come down prepared to attack violently those who were absent.—(Hear.) He was ad dressing gentlemen who were living in a diocese which was presided over by a bishop whose exertions in pro moting religion were generally admitted te be most valuable. He denied that a bishop could exercise his spiritual, without involving him in temporal concerns; and, unless they were desirous of ' re turning back to the days of monks and nunneries— (A laugh)—this must be the case. The utmost that could be done, were the recommendation of the Ho nourable Member carried out, would be to appoint fifty five new incumbents at a salary of 100/. a year each. — (Cheers) On the other hand, the appointment of the Bishop of Manchester had led to the erection of a hundred new churches in his diocese, the appointment of 135 ad ditional clergymen, and a dissemination of Christian knowledge which had never before been the case in that part of the kingdom. In the way of education, too, as many as 180 new schools bad been established there; so that instead of lagging behind, education now went before the increase of population in that densely popu lated and important district. Upon the whole, there fore, he thought it would be agreed by all well-thinking people that a much better application of the money had been made than that proposed by the Hoo. Member op posite. He would new approach the question which the Hon. Gentleman had also mooted, whether the bishops were really paid more than was necessary for the im portant offices which they filled. He compared them for that purpose with the emoluments of the law and of state officers, but there was nothing common to the two pro fessions which could justify their comparison for the object in view.' However, he was willing to take the comparison with the law, and 'the two cases might be stated thus. There' were three thousand barristers and 21, judgest,the judges having salaries amounting to gethq to 38,000/. Onilte other hand there were 16,000 bishbps, the salaries of the bishops amodiitingeo 140,000/.. -Whilst, therefore, the prizes in the la* were, as 1 to 150, in the Chureh they were as 1 to 600, and" what disproportion was there in those figures, reference being had to the duties of the two pro fessions? Again, the Hon. Member had referred to the probate duty paid by some of the bishops which amounted to 1,500,000/., and had endeavoured to found upon that circumstance au argument that they hai lel sordid and avaricious lives. But he accused the Hon. Member of purposely leading the House astray with a fact which was fallacious,, for the purpose he mentioned ; because the Hon. Member having been a lord of the treasury, must have known that the probate duty was so levied as to afford no indication of the amount of property be queathel. The discrepancy in the present instance was so great that, instead of 50,00 C/. being the average amount of property left by the bishops to their children, the real average was bet +teen 30,0001. and 40,0001., and that made a difference of 500,000/., by which, in stating it at 1,500,0001. he had exceeded the true sum. The bishops made the most excellent ute:of their salaries for the advancement of religion, and the increase of the propagation of the gospel in their, several dioceses, and they would be found large contributors out of their in comes to the support of local societies formed for the general advancement of religion. He repeated his opinion,'that to a great extent the.temporal functions of their bishops were inseparable from the proper dis charge of their religious duties, and he telt convinced, that notwithstanding the censure 'and vituperation in which the Hon. Member opposite had indulged on this and on former occasions, the publitawould not be blind to the advantages of a Commission . modelled and con stituted in the manner proposed by the Bill now before the House.--(Heart hear,' and ironical cheers.) • Mr. E. DENISON said he thought that the recom mendation of the Committee had been mistaken as to the constitution of the Commission. He had to express his acknowledgments to the Noble Lord for bridging this Bill forward, and as the Noble Lord had stated that the Government intended to frame the Bill in accordance with the recommendations, of the Committee, he did not intend to ask the House to act in opposition to the Government, but simply to urge upon them the necessity of revising this point. They that were really responsible should be something more than mere officers to report to the main body of the Commissioners. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he presumed there would be no objection to the second reading of the Bill ,' and that all matters of difference would be considered in Committee. His Hon. Friend behind him thOught they were mistaken in the recommendations of the Com- - mittee. He (Lord John Russell) could not conceive that thlsCummitteo meant that it should 'have aseparate authority, but treated it as a Committee of the Board, and implied that it was to be part of the. Board. He thought that the Bill, as it st ood, would accomplish that as effectually, for this being a small Committee, and having these questions continually before them, he conceived that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundre heard, their opinion would sway the whole hody.—(Hear, ) Whether they bad three Commissioners or two, and one unpaid, that was,not vital in the Bill. Flewould not go further then, as these points could be discussed much better in Committee. He, regretted the obSeryations made with regard to the bishops; as far as he knew, them they were pious, learned, courteous, and hospitable He certainly regretted that they should have opposed the Bill which was sent to the Lords in 1840. Mr. OSBORNE said the Noble Lord would find it difficult to go through with this Bill to thesatisfaction of the bishops. He regarded it as a compromise., and might be licked into shape in the Committee. He thobght the language used by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge when he de signated the speech of his Hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth as a piece of laboured eloquence, came with a bad grace from him, who had taken four weeks to an swer the former speech of his Honourable Friend. The Right Honourable Gentleman's speech was laboured, but not eloquent. Considering that the Right Honour able Gentleman was an ecclesiastical Member, he was not sparing in his vi t uperati o n — an d with all his com mendations of the bishops, he could not show thatthey had given up anything from theie own incomes, but left the burthens on their shccessors. The remark which the Right lion. Gentleman made on . his Hon. Friend, that bating THE WINDOW DUTIES. On Friday last a numerous deputation, representing various sanitary, philanthropical, and architectural associations in the metropolis, waited by appointment on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the subject of the window duties. The deputation having been introduced by Lord Robert Grosvenor, Sir RALPH HOWARD, Bart., briefly stated the general ob ject for which the interview had been desired. He was himself chairman of an association for improving the dwel lings of the working classes, which bad found the window duties an insuperable barrier to its progress. The superiority of the model lodgings the society had erected consisted in the arrangements they had made. for an adequate supply of air, light, and water; but these arrangements bad led, under the present system, to such an increase of taxation that pri vate landlords could not be expected to imitate the example. Upon the buildings of the society in the Pancras-road they were actually paying 1621. 16e. window duty, of which the sum of not less than 35/. was for duties charged upon their sculleries and water-closets. If the window duties were to be meintained, offices of this description and the windows of basement floors should at least be exempted, and every sepa rate suite of rooms, let as lodgings, should be put upon the same footing as chambers in the inns of court, which were charged only at the rate of Is. 9d. per window. blr. W. E. llrcK - sox stated that the case of the model lodging houses, important as it was, represented compara tively but a small part of a wide-spread evil. He would beg to call attention to its magnitude by replying to an argu ment which had been urged by the Chancellor of the Ex chequer in his place in the House of Commons. Sir Charles Wood had contended that the window duties did not press upon the poorer classes of the community, inasmuch as there were 3,000,000 houses in Great Britain exempt from their operation. But why were 3,000,000 houses exempt? Be cause in the case of certainly a third of the number they were inadequately lighted and ventilated, and were so constructed in order to evade the law. Cottages and farm-houses were exempt, but the great majority of the working classes did not live in either cottages or farm-houses. They were to be found in towns, lodging in the back rooms of the upper floors of what are called, under the Building Act, al and 4th-rate Louses—houses that should have twelve or fifteen windows, but the occupiers of which, by darkening the staircase, pas • sages, closets, and cellars, reduced the number below the chargeable minimum of seven. The extent of the mischief now in operation might be shown by an extract from a re cent Parliamentaiy return — Total number Houses liable to ' of houses. window duty. Birmingham Bristol Leeds ... Liverpool • 42,929 ... 11,342 M anc h es t er 42,059 7,754 Norwich .......• It ought by this time to e understood that the sanitary objection to the window duties did not apply to the windows opened under the existing system, but to the windows closed. the Chancellor of the Exchequer was refusing to remit the tax in favour of those who studied the laws of health ; but a landlord content to allow his tenants to live in dirt and darkness, and their habitations to become a focus of conta gions disease, was to receive every pessible encouragement. In favour of a man who had reduced the numbee of windows in his house from twelve to seven, the Chancellor of the Ex chequer remitted 2/. 4s. 9d. per annum ; or of another who had reduced his windows from thirty to twenty, the sum of 4/. 4s. per annum. This was practically to act the part, not so much of a finance Minister, as that of a Minister of pes tilence. The remedy, if the mdney could not be spared, was a house tax. .Windows -were, in fact, parts of houses. Why not tax the houses as a whole? Such a tax might easily be rendered much more equitable than the present mode of assessment, which bore no reference to the rental. There were houses in public thoroughfares, rated to the poor-rates at 2001. per aunum,that paid little or no window.duty, the separate floors being occupied in shops and warehouses : while private houses of less than half the value in a by-street were heavily taxed. If difficulties arose in the adjustment Of this burden, while they were ander consideration, let a Bill be introduced to amend and explain Lord Altborp's ct of 1834 (4th and sth Wm. 11r., c. 54), so tbat . pledge:d Te which was then given might now at last redeemed. (pledge was, that the amount collected should not e in i c o r u e l a d se b d e , :and that after the sth of April, 1835, du ev t ery L u r e d 8 11thor 's allowed to open new windows free of y_ e P words were, that the effect of the Act would be, to prevent anvlincrease of revenue in the case of houses already existing." Tlie window duty col lected fur the year ending 1 1 , , 8 17 13 7„6 62 5 9 6 April 5, 1835, was For the year ending April 5, 1849 A large portion of this iacreasa ha u r b b l een ' ;roduced by a rigorous system of surfcarges. and ( the e bed been raised upon the meaning o the A Act, . the pge had beea broken. It was an extraordinary instance of breach of faith. What would he said in private life of a landlord who, after promising his tenant a lease at a fixed rent, raised it every year? Paragraphs sometimes appeared in the newspapers, headed, " conscience money," from which it appeared that individuals wishing to make their peace with God sent large sums of which they had defrauded the revenue to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Mr. Hickson) trusted the time would come when the con science of a Chancellor of the Exchequer would induce him to restore to the public that surplus revenue which certainly, since the passing of Lord Althorp's Act, in 1834, had been wrongfully obtained. • Perhaps in another session the Chan cellor of the Exchequer would be prepared with a compre hensive plan for a general revision of taxation—abolishing the soap duty, the paper duty, the duty on advertisements. &c., as well as the window duties. A moderate house tax, as a substitute for some portion of the revenue seed ficed, would then be more acceptable than at the present moment. But, in the meantime, the sanitary ob jection to the window duties must be met. Permission must be at once accorded to the owners of existing houses to render them healthful without having the fear of the tax-gatherer before their eyes. The case of houses now building did not press. If new houses were to remain exempt altogether" till another session, the revenue would not lose 50,000/., and would gain upon the timber employed • in their construction. Any delay in the abatement of the present evil would be de precated by public opinion, the Board of Health, and the en tire medical profession. A fearful epidemic had raged ]set autumn ; it might break out again afte r the summer of the present year; and although it might be said that therewould to cholera if there were no window du ties, the purificatio wo n 9f the air by all possible methods was really t t h? I h " th Y e known preventive. One broad fact was basement stories of • several hundred thousand lighted and ventilated, became reservoirs of mephitic va pours ; these mephitic vapours, when rarified by tee inmates h , eats, ascend to the Upper flours a nd subject the to fevers of a more or less typhoidal form. The . Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, so long as he maintained a system which operated as a direct premium for the encouragement of iwTtilmixt!!'f :: ... ~`