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

~__=~' ___ lii 414 POO ; -. 8 " ..---- '` . 1. A further Pow er t „ 1, vet , gather an annuity of 30 1. u be given und,r the Act would be that of pm.- eliek,&lll Bum to be paid to a party have to tttiu ,, death The Government would no doubttio4iferenceconie3, in the case nfi e ,, , u ti against the risk of bad lives, which, . a t th e pur recau- Party notwithstanding all their 4,;;llently caused a loss; but he proposed that P the deferred an ro;.,ci Ile propo,ed tletv."ltl at the same time purchase a h • elle s'in • ' • • therefore, children, he should that if a party wished l t d o ir e the ility far his widow or aa 4 „ PoWer to convert the payment upon . himself of etuty, goo cold be happy to avail an y isf on very • lie be ()relthat could be furnished him. el he death into ester s had acted on the Yed to hi f • p artsof the country. The tlaett oe w el from various p ter ' 11 „ i!s one into which no party feeling could estions that hal been one feeling 4 th s 54,,b51.". Menahers were actuated aereolo afoot which would be best b ready to re' etiv 4 ' u"eply inter t 1. He should be to e ta}, ss • es e - • would tend till Iroe„,, ggestbns, therefore, which y forthose who interest of the sekih:etacet of the measure. For the iusti tetiets Flosse s the banks were most vatuf annuities Rat Dan bat in his opinion the establishme . ut o East to meet tb,d.re valuable still. He had d ne Nealties . 1, ho ~- a the case; thet a t 118 note Was every ember in the House, t and he was sincerely anxious, an ) x m io e u e s t , 1/ . e i r i e i lls of those concerned,—(Hear.) . fact said he had d; ted his st't'll e zder te e , . e. -rex e the last 30 years, 14 I ? th i cttce of the House for he attention tfo ie ~, e ast 12 years ho had directed t . tion to th He 1, the the subject. ,se not or of the Exchequer to stated to 'tvee„, surPriscd at the amount of the loss 3say ,th that he'r incurred; but he very much regretted would ' 4 31)1 0 ! lir red the Right Hon. Gentleman not of the Nlotr 1. 13 ea rrY out his plan. The peopie ket.- e l Y lied le . e . • _ Banks e , ie, e en deluded oy the Savings tareey,relintre was keeping of the made pledged to the sate 1 4 G n ': lue depositers. The Act of 1817 only ,:__ Dor f ~e-ermnent answerable for the sum invested in , a liable t o lretit securities. This left the depositor iee the trt s ,„'ee 4 robberim of all kinds. At lira ;tees. 4 fits was for Years ' th dupe ' of one of the tru should (1 5 is Ofr. ' • Government ot e of times) opinion the the of hl t I two thin -- 'al r leave the savings of lh • 4 ` °ll e, or g ' eL ! . -rs the whole t heir tee leeuro to the depositors regretted that t e ne Y• Re (Mr. Hume) had always he min te e Government had departed from S in Inc of ,the first Savings bank established I \ a'her . 4 '4 1813 —the Western Provident Institution ted into gre s i e"eY pound deposited was converted %ea t Der tjeal. Stock. In his opinion, UOverll - . 1 40 140 1dd t k , -, lct. fort 4 e upon itself the tas expense 'lril o . ' he depositor and save him the.,.ra,. telt -...tortiori w hich he ' would incur if he did so n 1 141 I l ia the had wail . was a great h . to th e G o Y not done so long since gain to the de , lt ore. ~ ernment, while it was no had paid Non,i-tu thirty Years the Government '4l' ""`• morn it received, which was i en 1, ,y Dm e than had barites -111310„, n,st to the mi smanagement of the savings _, Itt -" ~41 • ce in the rate or *eq. the from the difference Government had !Me te ' slid it vras certain that if the Govern hid 'POs it If ' •• . it wou ld not have ta p ay , s e e the responsibility, i t h Y l , " I f se much. The Act of 1844 had taken Government, Me, a,' "I on the part of the le % e re was th e - - itv for the dop 1 le e , ere. Jre, no secur ~ "erase had s sorry that the Right Ho able 11- nour Ge hitt, bad E aid nothing making good the losses li b about h e be dNtl ti. been sustained by depositors, because _ eonfi ',,t,itea init,tkerery penny so lost was lost through vern "44 0 ; the Government. In his opinion, the Go 4 w e e °l btl Make themselves responsible for these losses, very ta hh as for all fu turedeposits; but he doubted vl 1 if i t the Scotch lalse a ; w ould not be better to adopt allowed I rte r 41 of • 8 hereby banks ._ t iii est f ro ,,_ , n since 181 , w was deosited. , ger. ei the day on which money ~t ll,l - ,„",c, 1 gre a t '' command f means to the commerce mvi til. " 4I, EICt• • 1 t o of i ar ea of the country while would re th4lt t h e „te poor. To adopt this system remove ulkissi.h.'evernment from all interference, and oh. lh ti idity of loss to'the St ate. He (Sir. •Hume) body, L eti4 ;t i l l i , 4 , ° e to the State becoming an insuring b e e li t - tu ere were sufficient insurance offices already In s ,: erie, and also that it was quite unnecessary. in -5 'then it would °be far better to take off thefor the lr dot t Y up to 100/ and thus afford facilities mu- Atli, ° c onvert the " State into an insurance ik'44 48 14 ' 4 with the limits pTO - by tv , ~, agreed, however, was too opli ~ -2 Ltlght, Hon Gentleman. The plan , Aae e , - "tu) in his opinion, • a n d he considered it was i..ireitl,l„l'e Govern tt adopt it. `" td ' "ILLOITGegBe ° said te question to decide ga it) eke was this—whoY to be the responsible . 3 t... were tzetth etler the Bil tt, et f , 12 It was not the fact of getting that made an li,,,at r , n urober of high names . s for the Nil i "°llltUn The Commissioner had t ili tt 4 11eb 41 ,, • persons, but they e t , e ree po , s. „ , ere all high The speaker was ti lt of thegra"ole duties to perform. Rolls was another, .9 Qhier ll' duties Master of the nother, the skon,,, Baron of th Exchequer was a .4 "iant-G e - Chancery was ano h, a tt ,i R. eneral of the Court of • another. t' s , l tele" Chancellor of the Exchequer was . sion • ''as w as the onl ••working man of the Commls ~ th i , -es 4 ;„,„ , arise ). that public functionar) , , ,t,a n ot out ise in which It appeared b) Iftl's be trusted. —(Laughter.) of the I te em re the Roue° that the Commissioners bank It%ltseebein bad power to sell all the savings. versa, 41 4 e ouvert • into -bills, and vice 34, 6 Op e , . it Exchequer -bills, h took place in 7 Ye er ations of this character whic d 1840, () " 18 32 lid 1836, an d ee , Ai . or ,e.snd 1833, 1835 a per Cant. stock had *tagtit(t)ki, bought.s`4ll7reeo-oand-,-guttrter This transaction t t Pos e°te l, net for '°9° . el purposes, but for so 6 m 7 the es eely • know Savings In 183 - e , h a Government. ti ' l l „ 1 8 11c t ill o e n ts ,b 11 111 to ti th t e ° extent te of 19,000,000/. wer to tr' e Xte - ' ec otint of the savings banks, and . stock involve] NA • Ilt 4 f 13 250 o 1 was sold. This e 0 \h, etie tts . , - i- 00 • number of 2,1- ,-. Ilie 6, 4. ' 1 1 the former to the 0 or 1 400. e e ", the fatten to the number of ITl'3oWillougilb 1 ,44 rn ~. best calculation he (Sir H. of "eon 141 " th • " 01 ved a loss ve 0 30/ ' these trensactions inv That jt,, s ,th e r ,' , kit including the difference of interest. , . 4 4tire 0 1 - • andthe question that raised lliki„W : as sotthe deficit, Government to ilieeati th e oIY what right haul the right it h a d to )hi e d th e ani,.terest, but also whatnthe manner in tp, t l they iisaelbogs.banks deposits 4it. I. Willoughby) qov e s (11. e called eea handled. He (Sir at the head of the le,eiretee,,, . 0 on the Noble Lord some real, efficient, h es n ß B,°:,_tai consider whethe b r lia e _ h d instead of that nofttsed."ite wcaosall not that t est t a he mishandlin of the :ttl'ltB4%Olta depositasr should a be prevent-el by law; be e t e ith, l ,t this the ction 13 William IV., a t Chan t)r f 4° She Right II Gentleman the la e of 1, 0 th e Ex b on. the cessation tt t l . ;: pow er oen equer was due and owing s-bank stock into tp i qti, rsb; ,,_ t converting saving 0 T release trustees lit ) erassinperu,, and . vice versa. liability was to set lie „Pree4 ° ef savings banks from h reduction of lath: 4l l4 N 111,11Pon carelessness; and t 0 b he felt 1 Nee t,l intereatdeposits would . e, th t , extrer • upon many parties. If the t tti ee ee ,sly d isagreeable to not been repealed, per ti io lv oUld i, 9 th Geo. IV. had Government d e ave been no loss at all to the kr, Pcisitor kte,' eir A I. • point --"W FORD expressed the great disap lio,„ ?e that the of the Exchequer gave 11 t4 7, of th e Chancellor . to those unfortu esoehei,_e_ return of the deposits of misplaced h,:ltiq,N, in who who had been the victims Rochdale no less 4, 4 .10, 00 the Government In the exer -4 !tele Rag abstracted though through Olt "erlfiees f trustees,depositors would the . . . of 4 s , p 12 s . i , ~ 0 the 1 responsibility ki to te s rea r? Pnund. The mora because the de !sers believe ett with the Government, Government as )Taut))y f .red that they had the Ras „. fe et „. or their the trustees. There w!. 'eltli be so , Money behind was none in 14 ty, ~, tholance of security, but there e lt ih e r , not from le t elve f„ 00 r People suffered, therefore, and the GO - 'lilt, but from that of the law; good the t o es witti,.7ll!B had bound to make act of cruelty k ri tet th e ' te 'lad beea sustained. It was an hard-earned IVltt in Poor people to invest their t 4°Y wa that did security. afford perfect in h tL POO ter , Y not t tl y)zi t ,„ ,_ , classes had been urged by persons . ks—he him th,l 1 1 4 to layest their savings in these ban "ls , tak en and tc, 45 . 41,1 h i _ a Part in this recommendation, to be kle rei 10, to think the investors ought of :q3• 4 ,„, all ha think been t h e protection ,- kit -Lent . Tung placed under rich and poor. la ear) j r e case was one between g elan) teach the labour the suiles that most. important to equally cared for by ri e4 tE tte i I , a their interests were one law for the teethTl(l4aot°h:' lerl fact, there was but He could not . is 0 „,,_ . r . .. ir the poor.—(Hear.) behalf of the in ,,,41a eirrrtunity pass of inspeaking , u , , uis l sa s fe reeQeveeering constiituents. Gentleman told Voltz% th `" said the Right Hon. . 11 and depre !le 1.1 411 kne e l 13111 was a prospective B 1 ft would not tie, e 3l , it i t , s .? 2 l e to the past. He thought deluded into all et A , sg 1 4 1 7 ei to those who had been asion that no lite e N lie mad e banks, to agree _ . t would be el 4'''t ti nt t :ue to the past. He thought had l been dis toted and ;1141114e to those cases which He did not Pr n 4 ,reith trheady were before the public. that no I N' elt)11 Wh e R on- Member for Montrose the l e threei„. i,etever in the Bill was made to protectovision rs e ,,,s ne w 14. red,belie on the contrary, that a provision in ti 11 4 ,1,3_11,1, asnserted which would protectthetot pro t Ittat%),"4 believed no provision was introduced t, i . lilt evallient T interest ought •as eree and system of paying accounts ought ve. r evia ed : the system of keeping N vember of hy: Yea r e , Ile thought, on the 20th 13 Of every ilp 4 bit tl i C a Stated hour, the accounts be added )Pere44 ehteiteahOUld be closed, and the balance attention N ttire ed by the general balance. If a certain k e i (O L 5 this part of the subject, he _I! wa llet would tast,,tlilittlege°od, would be derived from it. Govern- Clver e " tne past, and would show if the Chief b e ri ns e not strictly legally responsible,. the l Debt lil t th eller f th Reductionof the National e ee ,is e he Still f o ati lt • Micelle of himself. 1. tun ed r the Exchequer Member el% Atim r , r .,' as had been stated by the Hen. sible, be- , fist ev, , Government were morall respon deposited, I st 1 1 l 'Y de p • time he . In oti e had „. outer believed, at the of his 4,,,ey, 4,_ elovernnaent security for the safety theilitible° fairly show how far the Government were was 9°i law of be would state what he conceived 92, re tose''' teetthe ease. The 9 Geo- IV-l e _e h . ould be m tlp -.. savings bank accounts _ . f 1 not NO ti , tl ,t° a particular period, and of the Li o kttal es Conamissioners for the Reduction 0 _ that tiara 4°d by were required to close the accounts f ts to t l'e q , ii ,°Y the 3 Will. IV., C. 12, the Commissioners the Tb e t t or t h e 's:_l to publish in the London Gaze tt e accounts. Pro t „ qjeet banks which had not closed their namely, to p er eet th e eel those wise laws was obvious, on the 114, ‘ af tras7Positors against wilful negligence full°llll ressees. A.nother Act, 7 and 8 Viet., removedw.i. 110 rfNligelloosibility from trustees on accoutot m li made baen so 0 1. , These were the three laws which tat zioti. 'geld toe .r depositors against the Government. t the I S2e °f ache srned Member then referred ; an tw o ho ke" euffe-street Savings Bank. In 1 . 82 t. ea a t he 'ears trats were published; and it was in q tel t i tt k:/li nts 44 the defalcations took place. Nowe bad .. 1 4 , t Tat t „w e: as required by law, been published, the vetouarefero thouit of 32,000/. could not have occurred. _ o ° . lo w til ebt e e ,„ ght he was right in stating, as the t-I° the le e ' )bat utlyuftissioners had refused to comply with ttlo uld ,ot Govern R hew were responsible to the depositors. by te°utider; Government could refuse to_ take ost 440 1 4 icteite ion the case of depositors whoh d I a large sel I ltit. T i , ' of their own authorities such a hie ot ie . Old ~, deposit3rs, previous to 1831, were 1 th e blibriequeut depneitors were the ~``,~, THE SUN, 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 ttiemeelves. 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 Cuffe-street Bank from 1831 became vir tually a new bank, and this went to strengthen the charge of injustice, by making the deposits 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, and he hoped when the Committee met again that the case of the depositors would be taken 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. Ho would now refer to the Killarney Savings Bank, as here again he thought the Government had acted with great injustice. The le 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 16,0001., which balance ought to have been appropriated t ) the payment of depositors before 1844. It was wrong on the part of the Government to part with that sum; and, therefore, Gov _rnmetit, in this view of the case, were re sponsible f that amount. In the case of the Tralee Savings Barrie the accounts had not been furnished for a number of years. Hero was another case which clearly entit'ed the depositors to the favourable consi deration cf the Government. He trusted that on some future occasion Government would announce their de termination to do something in favour of these unfortu nate depositors. Mr. GROGAN would express his regret that the Right Hon. Gentleman had omitted all allusion to the gross injustice committed under the late Act by what he must call the public officers of the various savings banks in those cases which had been referred 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 30/. was to be interfered with? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied, it was not to be interfered with. Mr. GROGAN wished to know who was to pay the treasurer's salary ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied, the Commissioners. Mr. GROGAN—Was the old rate of interest to be maintained 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 deposits. 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 deposit tore. He would now refer to the cases of those who had suffered from the defalcation of the savings banks' effi2ers in the hope of eliciting something favourable from Government. The Honourable Gentleman hero enterel 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 Cuffe street Savings Bank, the result of which had been the stoppage of the bank, and the depositors had received nothing. If ever there was a case 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 voluut ere who were utterly irresponsible, the Right Hon. Gentleman could not suppose that they would have deposited their money. The question was of immense importance to those who had lost all their money, and he hoped, whenever it should come before the Commit tee. that a favourable decision would be given.—(Hear.) Mr. SLANEY 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, be 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 pa!d to it. He wished, however, to make one or two remarks, which he trusted the Right Hon. Gentleman would not overlook. The Right Hon. Gen tleman said most truly that the deposits of the working classes were 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 find that the depositors were to be made to pay.—(Bear, _ hear.) Now, with respect to the amount deposited. Formerly the sum was 150/., but now it was to be reduced to 10e1., thus cutting off one-third of the investments which the humble classes might be 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 100/. 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 dune 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.—(Hear.) Mr. H. HERBERT said the Right Hon. Gentleman having recpeested 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 were founded on fact, and he thought sifter the example set by the Right Hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Herbert) might be permitted to make a few remarks. The Hon. Mem ber for Shrewsbury thought it desirable not to go into the matter, because a Committee was to be appointed. Now he (Mr. Herbert) had no faith in the Committee that would be appointed, because he had no doubt the Right Hon. Gentleman was about to appoint the Com mittee of last year. And he would state why he had no faith in the proceedings of that Committee. Previously to its app ointment a notice cf motion placed on the paper by the Hon. Member for Dublin, had been 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 pro p ssition, saying, " You may have your Committee, but I must nominate it." He agreed to the proposition of' the Right Ilan. Gentleman, and was afterwards informed by an lion. Member that he had been "done."—(Leugh ter). The following year that Committee, of which the Right Hon. Gentleman was chairman, made a short report, stating that they had not been stele 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 the 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 he 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. Member 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, 20s. in the pound was given to the depositors pre vious to 1846, and 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 iastance 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. Byam stated that, strictly speaking, the Commissioners bad not acted in the manner directed by the Act. He (Mr. Herbert) had to 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. Byam admitted this in his examination. In fact, ever since 1844 accounts had been passed by the Commis sioners with errors so gross that any school-boy might have detected them. In the accounts of the Killarney Bank, published in a 100 of newspaper in 1848, he him self had detected an error to the amount of 4,000/. On the face of one account, the aggregate amount of forty-one depositors of WU each was put down at 1,300., instead of 4,1001. The opinion of Dir. Green, was late Attorney-General for Ireland, and one of the best of lawyers, was, that the Commissioners had been guilty of a violation of the Act in regard to 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 case of the Tralee Bank, Mr. Tidd Pratt went to Tralee and made award; 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 found a verdict for the dsfendant, 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 law, had been thrown over by the incompetency of a public officer, who had not served the notices required by the Act. He should not have troubled the House with these details if he had not felt that he was advocating the case of those who had been reduced to a miserable state of beggary and desti tutiun, not from any fault of their own, but rather from possessing those good qualities which every wise Govern ment should encourage—honesty and industry. There little use in telling the people to be honest, indus ,riuus, and frugal, if their savings were not to be secured to them as fir as possible. An able writer ha I said that he who spoke from conviction spoke with force. He knew not whether he 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, instea I 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 at cation which the sub ject deserved. He was aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished that the subject should he considered prospectively. But as three months 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, ho 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 tlso depositors, 'and yet they permitted the sesion t) 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.—(Hear.) Only the other day another case of failure bad 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 loss 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 ray, 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 fn. 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 fir 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 bent f that they had the security either of the trustees or the Government itself', he thought a claim might fairly be urge lon 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 the 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 askiug 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 t the busi ness, and not to have allowed half-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 ? Ho did not see why deposits should be limited to 100/. 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. He 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 act seek to be spared paying for advantages. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ra'd 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. Tidd Prate, 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 been in Tralee gaol, the house shut up, and all the papers of the savings bank 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 gentienean 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. Tho Hon. Member for Dorset (Mr. Bankes) 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, ha 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 know whether the case of Rochdale would be included? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not 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 great 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 recommend 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 c ourt ; eight lay commissioners, six . to be appointed by the Crown and tw o b y 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 oneby 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 responsibi lit y thrown on the Commis sioners than now attached to them. The Bill which he now moved to be read a second time came down from the House of Lords, and was in accordance with the p r i nc ip a l recommendations of that committee, though in some of the minor details it differed from some of those recommendations. The main recommendation was, not to supersede the body of the bishops , and to appoint a committee, on thu members of which would devolve the principal management of the secular concerns of the Commission. Some doubts had been entertained as to the t o hody, as new propriety ofsuch a committee, but it m ust be one o f h proposed, but not independent of ;t, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 30, 1850. though containing paid members. The Bill proposed that an estates committee should be appointed to c meider all me.tters connected with the lands, tithes, and hereditamenti; and it was also proposed that these persons should be appointed, called the Church Estates Commission, two to be nominated by the Crown and one by 'the Archbishop of Canterbury; the first Cominissicner nominated by the Crown to receire 1,200/. a year, and the Commissioner of the Archbishop 1,000/., to be paid out of the funds. It was proposed that this Commission should be a perenet eat body, and that they should be assisted by three from the body of the C o mmissioners themselves, one of whom should be a layman. These were the only particulars in which the B:11 differed 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 little as possible cu church property. The Committee also recommended that one of the paid Members should e , e always present at the transaction of business; but the Bill said two, who should be members of the com mittee of the 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, he need hardly assure Honourable Members who read the papers laid on the table with reference t 3 the defalcations of that office, because if there had been such separation no such defalcation could t,ke place. It was proposed t 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 Lords, te which he should not then advert, but simply state that it was his intention t o give notice of the 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 ca aof the Deans of W e ll s and Salis bury it was found that income was not sufficient, and the present deans had been appointed at 1,5001. Af.er 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 clause by which that doubt was removed, by expressly restricting the salaries of all deans in future to 1,000/., subject to the exeeptiou 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 ply 1,500/. a year to seven deaneries enumerated in the measure. It was the intention of the Government to introduce a clause which would restore the Bill to its original shape in which it was brought before the House of Lords—([leer, hear) —with the exception that the higher salary would be confined to the Dean of Wells, and to the executors of the late 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 Le 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 was 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 parties to whom it was committed, and secure a better attendance. He trusted that whatever point of diff e r e nce 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. HORSMAN said this was an extremely import ant measure, wh-n they considered that the Commission to which it referred was dealing with large amounts of Church property. The Right lion : Gentleman had in troduced it in a very clear and candid manna h.—(Hear.) 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 Right Hon. Gen tleman and the Government tee credit of believing that in introducing this measure they had been actuat . ed not by the desire of carrying what t he y thou g ht 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 opp rnmenonents in might the other House of Parliament, The Government take the credit for the best parts of the Bill—the weak ones had 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 fir the features of an ugly child.—(Laughter.) The Eccl esiastical Commission had been condemned by universal public opinion. The Bill came before them with all the concessions the Commis sion were prepared to make t 3 that universal opinion, and they must, therefore, make the best Bill they could of it under all the circumstances. But let them see hew 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.—(lles.r, 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 inferred that any alteration they proposed in the Commission would not be proposed from any hostile . feeling, and could only spring from the stronge st 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 princiele 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 (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 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 do the ecclesiastical busi ness and look alter their interests thus on the paid commission, the bishop's Commissioner would neutra lise the Crown Commissioner. In the estates com mittee ho would be in the minori`y, and in the whole board he would be in . a minority o f o n e 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. He asked if this was carrying out the professed principle c f the Bill, payment and responsibility ?—(Renewed cries of 4 . Hear, hear.") He said the Bill throughout was conceived in a bad spirit. If they wanted to see what that spirit was, let them take the 14th clause, which increased the incomes of seven of the deansyear.—(Hear, hear.) Did any one suppose that the other deans would not ask for the same income ? If the Dean of Bristol could not live upon less than 1,5001., why should the Dean of Ro chester starve upon 1,000/. a year.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Bill, he repeated, was most imperfect in its details, m i sta ken in spirit, and if he was compelled to make an election between accepting it in its present shape without the chance of amending, he would move its rejection at once.—(ll. ear, he tr.) But it was sus ceptible of considerable improvement in Committee, and he would endeavour to show what these improvements were. The first was to carry out the recommendation of the Committee and appoint three paid themComissioners. He must say that the plea upon which 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 1,0001. a year to a hard worked Commissioner. Yet the very parties who obj ected to pay a Commissioner 1,000/. for doing the work of the . Beard, in the ver y same Bill proposed to raise the income of seven s i necure deaneries 4,000/., an increase which, if granted, would be certain to entail an addition of 10,000/ a year on the other deans, or 14,0001. in all. — ( Lo u d trice of " Hear, hear.") That was, however, not . the only specimen of ' the almost inconceivable economical Inconsistency of hard-working these parties, who made the pf a singlerof the Church the plea for refuting the salary D Commissioner. It was not in that Board alone that was exhibited. Practically the same parties b a d t h e 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 was also the treasurer. Very few of the members attended the meetings, and the whole business fell in to the hands of the secre tary. Until within the last few years there was no t even an audit established.—(llear, hear.) The whole office million and a half w hi c h expenses amounted to about 4,0001. a year, and th e w h o l e of the funds they had to administer only amou n t e d to 12,000/. out of a capital of a had been granted at two different periods. Farther, when some time since the Act ap pointing the board was a b ou t to expire an application was made for a new Act, ex tending the duration of the Commission for five years more, at an annual cost of 4,0 001. to manage a principal of 12,000/.—(Hear, hear.) These officers were paid from the Consolidated Fund, and he was sure the House would have been very n ap py . to accede to any proposal from these economical Commissioners to reduce a few of the clerks, or the surveyor, or some of the other mon strous expenditure for the a dministration of. so sm e ll a sum. In the case of Queen Anne's bounty the same pa - ties were tho administrators, and there again the secretary was treasurer and commissioner all in one. He , called the meeting when he th ou g ht p ro p er, but ver y few attended. He might also have kept the money i n hi s own possession, for all that the Commissioners had done in the matter ; but as an honest straightforward man of business, he had laid down a rule for himself, that he would have no money in his hands, and be subject to no suspicion in consequen ce. Here, again, the ex pense of management nearly eat up one-half of the 14,0001. intended for sho augme n ta tion of °mall livings, The management of these two Commissioners threw some light upon the economy of those who, 'under pretence of the poverty cf the Church, now objected to a Com missioner of 1,000/. a year. One of the great arguments in favour of the prep end, ranee of the ecclesiastical ele ment in the composition of the Board was, that the in terests of the Church required protection. But be said that the business was purely temporal. The people would repudiate any interference of the Commission with religious questions. The Right Hon. Secretary of State for the Home 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, had subverted the excellent principle to which be had thus briefly adverted, and the bishop, instead of leading the godly, peaceable life, hallowed, as formerly, by assoc;ations 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 could 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. He - objected to the bishops being on the Commisoion, as they were wanted else where. Christianity had to contend against the views and opinions of many, and to enkindle faith in an age in which the infusion of the spirit was necessary. The bishops of the Church were designated f ethers 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 bes eight these heavenly fathers to give up their temporalit ee 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 aid be (Mr. Horaman) 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 po;itories 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. Ho should not be half the year an ecclesiastic and the other half living in a palace shut up from his clergy. lie did not think it was the duty of a bishop to be engaged in look ing after fines and leases for the purpose of enriching his family to the prejudice of the Church. According t 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 est tblishment. This was a deep-dyed stein cf the Church—that its spiritual interests were sacrified 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." lie denied that this was the fact in the way suggested. What was desired was, that there should be 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 rrasons 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 his 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 to 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— (le 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 1001. 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 had been established there; so that instead of lagging behind, education now went before the increase cpopulation 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 Hon. Member op posite. He would new approach the question which the lion. Gentleman had also moot d, 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 judges, the judges having salaries atnounting to gether to 38,0001. On the other hand there were 16,000 clergymen and 21 bishops, the salaries of the bishops amounting to 140,000/. Whilst, therefore, the prizes in the law wore as 1 to 150, in the Chureh they were as 1 to GOO, and what disproportion was there in those figures, reference being had to the duties of the two pro fessions? Again, the lion. Member had referred to the probate duty paid by some of the bishops which amounted to 1,500,0001., and had endeavoured to found upon that circumstance an argument that they ha I led 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 queathed. 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 seen 30,0001. and 40,0001., and that made a difference of 500,000/., by which, in steting . it at 1,500,000/. he had exceeded the true sum. The bishops made the most excellent use:of their salaries fir 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. Ho 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 felt convinced, that notwithstanding the censure and vituperation in which the Hon. Member opposite had indulged on this and on former occasions, the public would not be blind to the advantages of a Commission modelled and con stituted in the manner proposed by the Bill now before the (louse.—(Hear, hear, an 1 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 far bringing 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 this Committee meant that it should have a separate 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 stood, would accomplish that as effectually, for this being a small Committee, and having these questions continually before them, h u e conceived that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundre , their opinion would sway the w hole bod y .—( He hear.) Whether they had three Commissioners or two, and one f u u n r p t h a i e d ; t t h h e a n t w a a s s t n h o e t s v e i t p a e l i i e n t s t h e e e Bill.could be n d o is w c o u u ss ld ed n m ot u g c o h better in Committee. He regretted the observations 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. lie thought the language used by the Right Hon. Gentleman this 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 answer 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 vitup er at i o n— and w it h all his com mendations of the bishops, he could not show that they had given up anything from theit own incomes, but left the burthens on their successors. The remark which the Right Hon. Gentleman made on his lion. Friend, that having been a Lord of the Treasury, he was a disappointed man —and in that feeling had brought forward this subject — that was a vulgar taunt—(Cheers) — and did not become the Right lion. Geetien3an, who hung like a tin kettle to the tail of the Member for Tamworth.—(Laughter.) Whenever the Right Hon. Baronet moved from one side of the House to the other the movement was sure to be noted by the tin kettle clinking behind his feels. — (Laughter.) On the part of his constituency, he thanked his Hon. Friend for bringing forward this motion. Although the Right Hon. Gentleman ran through the gamut in praise of the bishops, nothing would have been done but for the exertions of laymen like his Honourable Friend, either in the promotion cf education or the abo lition of slavery, which bad been effected by the exer- lions of a layman, Mr. Wilberforce; and he hoped his lion. Friend would persevere in his praiseworthy exer tions, uninfluenced by the taunts of the ecclesiastical Member, the Member for the University of Cambridge. Sir R. INGLIS said, the fundamental error of the Member for Cockermouth was that he confounded prin ciples. He regarded the bishops as stipendiaries, t) whom he might dole out what ho pleased, whereas they held their properties by as good a title as any private gentleman did his estates. The property of the Bishop of London was attached to the see for twelve hundred years.—[An Hon. Member exclaimed—Since the Refor mation.] That observation, no doubt, emanated from one of those members who had sworn to defend the property of the Church, and who would have never been per mitted to enter thet House but for the easy credulity of Members of that House. He had always received the greatest attention in that House, and could not complain of interruption. Sir BENJAMIN HALL then moved the adjourn ment of the debate. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said he hoped the Hon. Baronet would not persevere with his motion. He thought the Bill could be better discussed in Committee, and he was prepared to move some amendments when it arrived at that stage, which he would to-morrow lay on the table of the House. The purport of one of them would be ti extend the proposal as to deans and chap ters, that no dean or canon should be allowe I to have cure of souls out of the precincts cf the cathedral towns. Sir B. HALL said that declaration was a further in ducement f ,r him to persevere in his motion. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, if the Hon. Baronet persevered, he would have to postpone many Bills which he was anxious to sand to the Lords for early con sideration, which would also have the effect of delaying this Bill, Mr. P. WOOD deprecatel the tone which character ised the debate, and thought an error had been com mitted in not bringing it forward at an earlier hour in the evening. Mr. COCK BURN strongly recommended the Hon. Baronet to withdraw his motion, as his persevering might endanger the Bill altogether. Mr. HORSMAN said, if they agreed to take the fur ther discussion of the Bill on going into Committee, he hsd no doubt his Hon. Friend would withdraw his me tion. He would now call upon the Right Hon. Gentle man the Member for Cambridge to state the office for which be had been a candidate. From his experience and standing in the House he should not make a state ment he had not grounds for, and in that view import ance would be attached to what he said. No man who had held office, and afterwards took an independent course, would be exposed to the same imputation. He asked whether he would withdraw the insinuation or state the ground upon which it was founded. Lord J. RUSSELL said that he would fix an early day for the discussion in Committee if the motion fur the adjournment was withdrawn.—(!leer.) He had heard with pain the course the debate hal taken, and with regard to the insinuation that the Hon. Member for Cockermouth was seeking for office, or disappointed in not obtaining it, he thought there was not the slightest foundation tor it. At the same time he would observe, in reference to the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulburn), that there was as little foundation for any attack on his integrity and public character. Mr. GOULBURN explained, but in a tone inaudible in the gallery; but he was understood to withdraw the insinuations respecting the motives to which the course of the Hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman) was attributed. Sir B. HALL withdrew his motion. The Bill was then read a second time. REFORM IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY. Mr. TURNER moved for leave to bring in a Bill to diminish the delay and expense of proceedings in the High Court of Chancery. The Hon. and Lc arned 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 repel a first time. The Bill was ordered to be read ase - coed 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. 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 HowAnD, 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 had 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. 16s. window duty, of which the sum of not less than 351. was for duties charged upon their sculleries and water-closets. If the window duties were to be maintained, 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. Mr. W. E. Ificicsox 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, ad 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 Parliamentary return — Total number Houses liable to of houses. window duty. Birminghem Bristol Leeds ... ....... 31,626 2,479 Liverpool Manchester Norwich . ....... 14,043 1,871 It ought by this time to Le 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 gion disease, was to receive every possible encouragement. In favour bf a man who had reduced the number of windows in his house from twelve to seven, the Chancellor of the Ex chequer remitted 21. 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 money 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 annum, 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 adjustameni of this burden, while they were un der consideration, , let be introduced to amend and explain Lord Althoro sAc of 1834 (4th and sth Wm. I V. , c. 54), so that the pledge which was then given might now at last be redeemed. The pledge was, that the amount collected should not be increased, and that after Use s th of April, 18 3 5, e very one should be allowed to opal new windows free of duty; Lord Althorp's words were, that the effect of the Act wo uld be, " to p reven t anviincrease of revenue in the case of houses already existing." The window duty collec ted for the year ending ,177,656. April 5, 1835, was ... For the year ending April.s, 1849 ... 1,813,629 A large portion of this increase had been produced by a rigorous system of surcharges. A quibble had been raised upon the m w eaning of the Act, and the pledge had beea b r oken. It as an extraordinary instance of breach of faith. What would be 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 ruins 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 sacri 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 t" another session, the revenue would not lose 50,000/., 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 h ad raged last autumn ; it might break out again after the summer of the present year; and although it might be said that there rnulod histwol cholera if there were no window duties, the purification f the air by all possible methods was really known preventive. One broad fact was —th y e basement stories of several hundred thousand houses in Great Britain being now inadequa.sely lighted and ventilated, became reservoirs of mephitic vapours ; these mephitic vapours, when rarifixl by thy summer h_ eats, The maintained h ance 1a system f the ascend to the upper floors and subject the inmates loot fevers of a more or less typhoidal form. e Exchequer, therefore, so long is _ which operated as a direct premium tor the encouragement of dirt, darkness, and defective ventilation, was incurring a heavy responsibility; he was in fact making himself the accountable agent, in the case of some thousands of- the population, for health and sickness, life and death. Mr. N. B. WARD repeated the evidence he hal given on a former occasion to the Health of Towns Commissioners on the physical influences of • light both upon plants and animals, and exhibited spec'mens of plants (presenting a shrivelled and: withered appearance) which had been grown without light, under circumstances otherwise favour able. With regard to the effect of a want of light on the human constitution, he had frequently traced some of the most lamentable instances of disease that he had ever met with in his profession as a surgeon to the living in dark ened rooms; that is to say, in rooms of which one or more of the windows had been closed to avoid the duties. This was especially the case in the neighbourhood of Houndsditcb, Rosemary-lane,_ and generally in the Jewish quarters of th e me t ropo li s . The temptation of saving the tax had been found irresistible, and of the poorer classes among them it might truly be said, in the words of Scripture, that there was no light in their dwellings." A tax upon light could only have originated in the most profound igno rance of physical laws. E x p er i men t s h a d s h own th a t tl,ie tadpole, if kept in the dark, would live and die a tadpole,:iir stead of becoming a frog, light being essential to this chailAe in its Organization ; and the effects of want of light upon children were analogous. However well supplied with food, if brought up in rooms shut out from the direct rays of the sun, they became pale and sickly, and their growth was stunted. Upon this head some striking facts had been pub lished by physicians employed in the hospitals of St. Peters burgh. Colonel SYKES was desirous of expressing his strong con viction that the evil now in operation was so serious that it was hardly possible to exaggerate its baneful influences; but he felt convinced that the facts already stated must have weight with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that the system would be abandoned. I t was not a merely finan :ial question, it was both a sanitary and a moral question ; and the arguments in favour of a change were of the gravest importance. Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR. observed that all men were now so fully agreed upon the magnitude of the present evil that he must really put it to the Chancellor of the Exche quer as a great public scandal that the resistance of the Go vernment to a simple measure of sanitary precaution should have been prolonged up to the present moment. It must be obvious to every one that the window duties could not be defended upon financial grounds. If the money were re quired, it could be raises by a moderate and equitable home tax, which he (Lord R. Grosvenor) should be quite willing to support, as a direct tax, preferable in many respects to other fiscal burdens affecting trade and industry. Were it not for the fact that, in the midst of all our boasted civilisation, we were taxing light and air, the existence of window duties might be taken as evidence of a state of barbarism greater than had prevailed in the middle ages, or at any period of the world's history. The advent of Lord John Russell to power had been hailed by many persons in the belief that all objects connected with the moral and physical improve ment of the population would be actively promoted, end it was to them a source of grief and disappointment that the Government, instead of taking the lead upon these questions, should have unnecessarily thrust itself into a false position. Public opinion was turning against Ministers, and the report of the window duties, it was now not improbable, might Le forced upon them by a hostile vote of the House of Com mons. He (Lord R. Grosvenor) should take a part in such a vote with the greatest pain, and he implored the Chancel lor of the Exchequer to put himself right with his friends and right with the country, in gracefully and generously con. ceding the measure of relief now solicited. Mr. C. Foowna, for himself and his brethren of the archi- tectural profession, would testify to the grand fact that the window duties were objectionable, not only on sanitary grounds, but also as occasioning much structural deformity, and as imposing an insuperable barrier to the progress of do mestic architecture. He felt anxious that there should be no attenvdt made to modify the present system, in order merely to palliate the evil, but that it should be wholly abolished. The great point to contend for was perfect liberty in works of construction in the direction of improvement. It was pre posterous to make the taxgatherer a censor of architectural designs, and to allow him to blot out ad libitum the features of a building most essential to its health and cheerfulness as a human habitation. Taxes should have reference solely to the value of the property taxed, and he, both as a private individual and as a member of the vestry of St. Pancras, was quite willing to agree to a moderate house tax as a substitute for the window duties; and be thought that such a proposi tion would be generally received by the public with favour. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the depu tation would not of course expect him to reply then specifi cally to the different points on which he had been addressed. It had been his duty to listen to their representations, and it would also be his duty to receive several other deputations that had written to request an interview upon the same sub ject. The question of the window duties would receive the fullest consideration of her Majesty's Government. The deputation then withdrew. PARLIAMENTARY OATHS. A I ery interesting report has been published by the Select Committee appointed to make inquiries into the oaths cf Members upon being admitted to take their seats in the House of Commons. In a report cf 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 Elizsbeth, 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 :—" I, A. 13., do, in the presence and by the name of God Almighty, promise aid swear that to the uttermost of my power, in my pTase, I will up hold and maintain the true reformed Protestant Christian religion in the purity thereof, as it is contained 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, &c. 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 a declaration against the Pope's supremacy as also the following profession of faith:—" I, A. 8., do profess faith in God the Father, and 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 Christian., 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 as oath, in all courts of justice and other places where by law an oath was required. Under these circumstances John Archdale, a Quaker, was elected for Chipping Wycombe, in Buckinghamshire, in the year 1698. Ho refused to take the oaths but de manded that his declaration of fidelity, &c., should be ac cepted as it would in other cases where an oath was re quired. The House, however, refused to listen to his demand, and he was rejected. We unit 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 I. to the Quakers to subscribe declaration of fidelity, instead of the oaths in question. in all courts of justice and elsewhere , &c. %Ye next come to the Jews. As we are now upon t he very ground o. er vt Yeti there has been so much skirmishing, we must here be a little more exact. By the lOds George 1., cap. 24,—it is enacted, " that whenever any of his Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion shall present himself to take the Oath of A thebjion in pursuance cf, &c., the words, upon true faith of a Christian,' shall be omitted out of the said oath in administering the same to such person; and the taking the said oath by such person professing the Jewish religion without the words aforesaid * * shall be deemed to be a sufficient taking of the Abjura tion Oath." This statute was followed up three years 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. has been s sia o nyg o aa f dhg t m e itaa n hiintast a toz n ldee d n i n Th a t case is too fresh in the public recollection, and not here l Pease upon oa nsteomwa making t ats n o efort a e discussed, t fa rf a u k i r in m l e ytd s o uthieiosup aascrenot aidnetshu la : ra h , t . a i o t n w , se Suffice Mr declaration, in the House t 0 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 hire, the words " upon the true faith of a Christian" were omitted. Quakers, Moraviane, Separatists have been now expressly relieved by statute. The Queen's subjects who proasis the Jewish religion are, therefore, alone excluded from a seat in Parliament in consequence of the prelisuinary ceremonials. At the commencement of the report the members of the Select Committee favour us with a shor t synopsis of the position of the Jews in England. They were ba nishe I from the realm in the 18 th year of the reign of King Edward 111, and did not return to this i country until the days of Oliver Cromwell. Dur E n e g g d e Protectorate some Dutch Jews came over et t o themh an and prayed the Protector that he would 1 bli h d hi se Shor t their synagogues and the free ex ercise of their religion.ave Upon this occasion it was that Bynne pu , p at e e rn E urr ng e l r an to d. the l Jews' seams ews' lotnhga that no oconctoinn considerable barred derable Re mitter late n umbe r e it tr e oi them came over to England until the Restoration. From that date to the present they have been allowed to live amongst us in peace —discharging faithfully the obliga tions of good citizens and good subjects of the Crown. One by one the restrictions have fallen away which prevented their admission into offices of public trust, &o. One on ly impediment exists to their complete emanci pation in the concluding words of a declaration, which thereforehavebee dispensedwnithout cease impropriety with inthecase of others, and may to be required from J ews , who may henceforward be returned to serve as Igcmbars of Parliament.-7 inter. Authorship is, according to the spirit in which it is pursued, an infamy, a pastime, a handicraft, an art, a sc ience, a virtue.—Eliza Cook's Journal. [ADTZRTISEMENT.]—Another Permanent Cure of a Nervous Headache and Giddiness in the Head by Holloway's Pills.—Mr. William Smith, o f N o . 5, Little Thomas-street, Lambeth, suffered for many years with a nervous headach an d giddiness in the head, whieh 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 as a last re source, he commenced taking Holloway's Pills, which have bad the effect of restoring him to perfect health, and the prospect of a hale and hearty old age.—Sold by all Druggists, and at Professor Holloway's Establishment, 244, Strand, London. -, ,_ I I I