The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1879-03-01 00:00:00

recommended tlli.t. blinkers should be called on to
give a " stattitable deposit recielpt " for every in-
terest-beaning deposit, which - should carry a stamp of
2s. per cent.; and he conalnded by moving a resolu-
Alan calling on the Government to eopsider whether a Bill
!on the subject should not be introduced. at ,an early date.
' Mr. Collins seconded the mitten, and' in the...short con-
-cersation.wnich followed Mr. S. Lloyd expressed an opinion
that no case had been made out, for , Interfering with
the responsibility of bankers; and Mr, T. 'Hankey also
protested against the Legislature attempting to teach
bankers their business. Mr. W. Shaw hoped the
Chancellor of the Exchequer would not single out the
business of banking for taxation; and Mr. Hermon
thought that the proposal would not be acceptable to the
public. Mr. Courtney pointed out that one effect of the tax
would be to put an end to short deposits altogether,
and showed how the suggestion would be • unwork-
able. Mr. Monk remarked that this was the first time
that be had ever heard a memher of the Opposition
providing the Chancellor of the Exchequer with addi-
tional taxation' and Sir G. Montgomery said that the
Scotch people did not attribute the recent catastrophe
of the Glasgow Bank!, to the system of deposits The
Chancellor of the Exchequer, while advising the withdrawal
of the motion, admitted that the subject was one deserving
discussion. His objection to the proposal was founded on
its interference with the freedom of banking, and though he
might look with favour on a tax suggested for the benefit of
the revenue, he should take a different view of it when its
object was to regulate a business.
The motion was then withdrawn.
Mr. S. Howard, seconded by Mr. Wheelhouse, moved for
a Royal Commission to inquire into the deficiences of the
water supply of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and into the
necessity and expediency of resortipg to the lakes of Cum-
berland and Westmoreland. In support of it he canvassed
the evidence given before the Committee on th,e Thirlinere
scheme last year, contending that it had not adequately con-
sidered the question from the public point otview.
Mr. Birley opposed the motion, which ho rooked upon as
Intended only to delay the passage of the ltanclaester
Waterworks Bill, and Alir. A. Brown also opposed it on
public grounds..
Mr. Mater-Booth was of opinion that the grounds assigned
by 'Mr. Howard were entirely inauflicient to justify the
appointment of a Royal Commission, and pointed out that
there already existed ample information on the *Abject in
various Blue-books. Mr. W. E. Foreter and Mr. Raikes ad-
vised the withdrawal of .the motion; and pr. Ilayiair, the
Chairman ol last year's Committee, vindicated the complete-
ness of its inquiry.
The motion was then,withdrawn.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in a Bill to
declare the true meaning of Section SO of the Friendly
Societies ,Act, 1875, and the House was counted out at
20 minutes past 8 o'clock.

the I vereation.askioklailted
"—et- been

In the Houog op COMMONS, Feb. 26, the second reading of
the Consecration of Churchyards Act (1867) Amenoraent BIU
was moved by Mr. Monk, and gave rise to considerable dis-
cussion, in which Mr. Ernest Noel (who moved that the Bill
be read a second time this day six mouth.), Mr. Forsyth,
Mr. Osborne Morgan Mr. Walter' Mr. Newdegatio, Mr.
Berestord Hope, Morgan,
Cross and other hon members
took part. Eventually the House divided, when the numbers
were :—For the second reading, 124; against, 160; and the
Bill was accordingly rejected.
The remaining Ciders were disposed of, and the House
adjourned shortly` before six o'clock.