The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-28 00:00:00

SUPPLY.

The House then went into Committee of Supply.
The CEIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved
for a vote of 52,1151., to refund to the next of kin of
person named Turner, whose e.ttate was estreated to the
Crown, and was raid into the Treasury in 1845, under
the supposition of his having no heirs. Subsequervly,
in 1846, a bill was filed in Chancery to recover it, the
next of kin having appeared, and admitted by a jury to
be entitled.

Sri 11. Ii'ILLOUGHBY a lied when the money was
paid into the Cimsolidatcd Fund.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
more than 54,000/. was paid over in 1846, of which the
stronnt of this vote was the principal item.- The par-
ticulars would Le found in the papt-rs of 1844.
Mr. GOULBURN said he hoped some provision would

be made for some of the parties concerned in the case,
who very much deserved it from their excellent conduct.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that it was not a matter within the power of the Ex-
chequer; all it had to do was to obey the order of the
Court of Chancery, and refund the money.
After a ivw words from Mr. BROTUERTON and Mr.
ROUNDELL PALMER, the vote was agreed to, and the
House resumed.

The Exchequer Bill (17,786,7000 was read a second
time.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL.

On the order of the day for the second reading of this
Bill being read,

Mr. HORSMAN said there was an understanding that
it should not be taken at so late an hour, but that an op.
portunity for a discussion upon it should be offered.
Several Hon. Gentlemen who felt an interest in it had
left the House on that undt.rstand:ng. He should not,
however, oppose the second reading if the Noble Lord
would give a distinct pledge that at a future period such
an opportunity should be given, and full notice of the
same.

A conversation ensued, in which Sir 11. Willoughby,
Mr. Hume, Mr. Gonlburn, and Lord J. Russell took
part, and the Noblo Lord having given the promise re-
quired by Mr. Henn:an, the Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committzd ou Mon-lay fortnight.
The other orders of the day were postponed, and the
House proceeded to the n4ces of motion.
__ COMMITTEE ON SAVINGS' BANKS.

Mr. REYNOLDS moved that the following- be the
Select Committee ou Savings' Banks :—Mr. Reynolds,
the Chancellor of the Excllequer, Mr. Henry Herbert,
Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Napier, Mr. John Ah 4 S:aith, Mr.
Grogan, Mr. Gibson Craig, Mr. George Alexander
Hamilton, Mr. Spooner, Mr. Mackenzie, Mr. Henley,
Sir H. Willoughby, Mr. Keogh, and Mr. Bourke.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
was sorry to be obliged to make the motion of which he
had given notice as an amendment, namely, the re-ap-
pointment of ;he Committee of last session. He had
endeavoured to come to an arrangement with the lion.
Member fur Dublin, which would have prevented the
necessity for his amendment. He found, however,
that no alteration in the constitution of the
Committee would be arced to, and therefore
he had no alternative but to move this amend-
ment. He objected to the Committee nominated
by the Hon. Member, on account of the number of Irish
Members it contained, and also because seven of the fif-
teen Members had voted for the inquiry, and only four
against it. The Committee of last session had per-
formed its duties vary fairly, and there had never been a
differonce between them except on ono occasion, when
the Hon. Member for Kerry stood alone. It bad been
said that this was an Irish question, and therefore there
should ho a largo number of Irish Members upon it.
But he denied that it was exclu:Avely an Irish question.
—(Hear, hear.) At least, though the banks were mainly
Irish, the claim was made upon the Consolidated Fund,
and that he conceived made it an vial question.
There had been complaints made respecting English and
scottish savings' banks, but this was the first time that
a claim had been made upon the Consolidated Fund to
make good any losses, and it was therefore clearly as
much an Eng,li,-h and Scottish, as an Irish question,
On these grounds he moved the re-sppointment of the
Coma-Jim- e.

Mr. H. HERBERT, having had something to do with
this matter; hoped he should be excused for making a
few observations. Night after night last session the Hon.
Member for Dublin was implored by the Chancellor of
the Exchcquer to postpone this question, aliliceogh it
was one of great, importance, not so much from the
amount at stake as the necessity of giving satisfaction to
the parties interested. He succeeded in postponieg the
consideration of the subject until a late period ef the
session, and at last, in perfect despair, he (Mr. Herbert)
placed a notice on the paper for a Supply night, en I ex-
pressed his determination to proaoed with it. Too Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, finding him detern-dned, agreed
to a Committee, but asked him if, having little expe-
rience in the House, he would allow him (the Chancellor
of the Exchequer) to nominate the Committee.--(c1,
l-osgh.) In his innocence he consented, and then—
(Leughter)—the Chancellor of
.tho Exchequer put
only three Members on a Committee, the original
object of wh;ch was to inquire into Irish banks.
He asked if that was fair, or would have been called
fair in the case of a Scotch or English Committee?—
(Hear.) Well, now, wlien the question was totally
altered, the Chancellor of the Exchequer took advantage
of the faireess with which he had been treated, and
asked them to reappoint the Committee, which, according
to his own statement, was for a general and different
object. They had savings banks failing, and no one re-
sponsible, and yet they had no legislation on the subject.
He was told, in answer to
.a question put to the Right
Hon. Gentleman some time since; that a measure was
prepared that prevented him from moving in the matter,
and now, instead of a measure, they bad the proposal to
re-appoint the Committee of last session. They had not
even the result of the mountain in labour—the mouse
he'd not made its appearance.—(llear, hear.) When the
motion on this subject was made, the Right lion. Baronet
met it by a direct negative, not by a proposal to re-
appoint the Committee. The Government were de.
feated, whereas, had it succeeded, it would have pre.
vented all inquiry whatever. He thought, that in a
matter which referred exclusively to Ireland, it was not
fair to put only three Irish Members upon it, and he
appealed to the House to adopt the motion of his Hon.
Friend the Member for Dublin.
Mr. R. M. FOX, while he had no desire to shrink
from his duty, begged to thank his Hon. Friend for sub-
stituting an Irish lawyer, the Member for Athlone, for
himself.

Mr. GOULBURN thought the Hon. Member "for
Berry had gone into a discussion not very germane to
the question, which was certainly a most disagreeable
one—the composition of a Committee. With reference
to the point, whether it was a general question or nut, he
believed the Hon. Member himself had admitted that it
was a general one, and as he bad not made any com-
plaint against the Committee of last session, he saw no
reason why it should not be re-appointed,
Mr. KEOGH said, without impugning the conduct of
the late Committee, he thought that now a new Com-
mittee should be appointed.
Mr. HUME said that disclosures of greatchardship
took place before the Committee of last session, and
he thought at that time that further inquiry should take
place before anything could be done.

Sir a wiLLouilasy said this was a most im-
portant question. The depositors were greatly dis-
pleased with the alterations made in these laws in 1844.
The Government was aware when these changes were
made, that this bank in Dublin was insolvent. The no-
mination by the Hon Member for Dublin was a fair one.
Mr. J. A. SMITH denied that this was sn Irish ques-
tion. The question was, whether the Government was
responsible for deposits made in these banks before they
were invested in the public stocks; and in that view he
regarded it as an imperial question.
Lord C. HAMILTON said the reference of inquiry
to the Committee of last session was with regard to
savings banks in Ireland alone, and therefore it could
not be considered an imperial question. In fact, the
object was to inquire into the causes of the mismanage-
ment of these banks in Ireland. They should, there-
fore, be careful to avoid giving any gretunls for believing
that fair inquiry was checked or prevented.
Mr. REYNOLDS would give the Right Hon. Gentle-
man on this, as he was disposed to give him on all omit-
sinus, as much credit as he could, for he was decidedly
of opinion that the more credit a Chancellor of the Ex
chequer obtained the better.— (Hear, hear.) He would
give the Right Hon. Gentlemen credit for having steered
very wide iinlesel of the true question at issue.—(" Hear,
hear," and laughter.) What was that question? It was
simply this—whether he (Mr. Reynolds) was to be per-
mitted to erjoy the same amount of privilege, and the
same measure of courtesy, that was invariably ac
corded to Hon. Members Is ho were in the same position
with himself—that of having succeeded in carrying a mo-
tion for the appointment of a Committee. The Right Hon.
Gentleman insisted that he should not have that privi-
lege—that lie should not enjoy that courtesy. And why ?
Because a Committee was appointed last year to inquire
into the laws affecting savings banks in Ireland, sat
seven times, and in the end made a very lame and impo-
tent report—which report, lame and impotent as it was,
the Right Hon. Gentleman peremptorily refused to act
upon.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lead the Member for
Tyrone had read the report, which stated that the Com-
mittee had made a careful investigation—that they were
not able to complete it, but that they recommended that
it should be resumed next session. When he (Mr. Rey-
nolds) brought forward a motion, having for its object
the carrying out of that recommendation of the Com-
mittee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer put all the
limited machinery at his command on that to him (Mr.
Reynolds) most fortunate evening—(Laughter)—into
play 'against him to prevent his success. And having
adopted that severe course, the Right Honourable Gen.
tlexnan came forward and had the modesty to ask the
House to consent to the re-appointment of his own old
Committee, which he contended was the best and most
immaculate under the sun. Now, without intend-
ing the slightest discourtesy to that Committee—without
meaning to impeach them either in respect of their in-
tegrity or their ability, he would take leave to ask what
it was that they were appointed to do? Simply to inquire
into the laws affecting the savings-banks in Ireland.
Very different was the mission which the Committee
now proposed to be constituted would have to fulfil.
It was a Committee " to inquire into and report on the
circumstances connected with the failure of the Sr.
Peter's parish eavings bank, in Cuffee-street, in the city
of Dublin, and on any security or securities which may
be in existence for making good the loss thereby occa-
sioned."—(Hear, hear.) By an amendment subsequently
introduced by the Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Kerry (Mr. Herbert) it was resolved that the inquiries
of the Committee should also cemp:ise thesavings- banks
of Killarney and Tralee, and a Scotch bank with an un-
pronounceable name, which he, with deepest regret, con-
fessed his total inability to bring his tongue round.
Mr. CO W AN—Auch tererder.
Mr. REYNOLDS (imitating the accent of the Hon.
Member)—Yes, Auchterarder. He was infinitely
obliged to the Hon. Member for Edinburgh for having
assisted him to accomplish the difficult feat of pronounc-
ing the word.—(Laughter.) But now they were told
that this was an imperial question. He begged leave
most respectfully, but most emphatically, to deny the
assertion.—(Hear, hear.) He most respectfully and
emphatically maintained that it was an Irish question.
It was, in point of fact, a trial before a tribunal of jus-
tice—a trial wherein three savings banes were the plain-
tiffs, and the defendants were two personages of no has
importance than the present Chancellor of the Exche
quer and another Right Hon. Gentleman (the Member
for Cambridge University), who bad long filled thesame
office with " credit to himself," and he supposed he must
add with advantage to his country.--(Laughter.) The
Government might affect to treat this question as one of
very trivial importance, but could they afford to do so?
Were they aware of its tremendous significance—its life
or death importance to thousands of the popular classes
in Ireland? It was literally a question of life or death

to no less than 1,700 poor people of the city he had the
honour to represent, who were artizans for tho most
part, cr aged and infirm servants. Relying on the
stability of this nation—confiding in the honour of
England, and trusting to the solvency of the public Ex-
chequer, they denied thentselve the comforts—nay, in
many instances, the common necessaries of life, in order
that they might make a provision for their declining
years (as they fondly imagined) by lodging 50,0001. in
the savings bank of St. Peter's parish.—(Lear, hear.)
And now the Right Hocourable Gentleman the Member
fur the University of Cambridge had the hardihood to
stand up in his place and assert that those poor creatures
—those plundered, robbed, swindled artisans—(Cries of
" Oh," and cheers)—yes;the robbed, plundered, swindled
artisans of Dublin (he would not retract the words) had
no claim to reimbursement. The Right lion. Gentle-
man was Chanc-Ilor of the Exchequer from 1841 to
1844. During that period, the person who acted as the
agent of the Government in this matter of the savings'
banks, was a gentleman who still appeared to be " a pet"
in that House—a gentleman with the euphonious ap-
pellation of Tidd Pratt—Mr. Tidd Pratt. Mr. Tidd
Pratt and Mr. Higham might be regarded as Commis-
sioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, so far
at least as the savings' hanks were concerned.—
(Laughter.) The proper name to be given to these Com-
miesioners was, " The Commissioners for the reduction
of the savings of the unfortunate people of Ireland."
Mr. Pratt had manufactured an Act of Parliament
in 1814, which enacted that no manager should be liable
for any loss that might happen-to- deposits made in
these banks ; Mr. Tidd Pratt completely released the
directors from every species of responsibility, and the
result was, that, on the trial of an action at
the last Trak° assizes for the recovery of money
lost in the ravine bank of that district, in which
the plaintiff was a pauper and the defendant was
a solvent manager, the judge declared that, under
the Act of Mr..Tidd Pratt, the plaintiff had no legal
claim against the bank directors, and a verdict was
therefore entered for the defendant.—(llear.) Now he
(Mr. Reynolds) wanted to have Mr. Tidd Pratt, the
author of this Act of Parliament, put upon his trial, but
not be`ore the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Committee
of last session, which consisted of twelve Englishmen and
three Irishmen. What did the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer mean by opposing the appointment of the Com-
mittee which he (Mr. Reynolds) proposed, consisting, as
it did, of eight Englishmen and seven Irishmen? He
never was more surprised at anything in his life than the
Chancellor of the Exchequer's wholesale motion to sub-
stitute the Committee of last year for that now proposed.
He hoped the Right Hon, Gentleman was not serious,
and that he would not think of going to a division.—
(Leughter.) If the Right Hon. Gentleman's proposi-
tion was carried by the House of Commons the people
of Ireland would consider that a fair tribunal had not
been appointed by the Legislature. He demanded on
behalf of the depositors a just inquiry into their
grievances.

The CHANCELLOR of tho EXCHEQUER denied
that he r. seated the appointment of an impartial tri•
bunal. He would let the four first names on the Hoc.
Gentleman's Committee stand, but it pressed to a divi-
sion he would vote against the fifth name. He was quite
prepared then to consi(Li the other name g, and to have
appointed as fair a Committee as possible.
The names of Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Her-
bert, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were then
agreed to.
On the SPEAKER putting the qu:stion that Mr.
Napier be one of the Committee,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
objected, not from any personal feeling with regard to
that Hon. and Learned Gentleinan,_but because ho was
not on the Committee appointed last session. Ile would
divide the Reuse against the motion.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and a divi-
sion took pl►ce, when there arpeared—
For retaining Mr.. Napier's name 74
Against it
Majority against —37

Mr. Napier 's name was th► n struck out, and the fur.
ther consideration of the appointment of the Committee
was deferred, in order to enable the Chancellor of th►
Exchequer to consider the course ho would adopt with
regard to the other names proposed by Mr. Reynolds,
Mr. flirt:err, and himself.
Mr. MACKINNON moved that Mr. William Miles
be discharged from further attendance on the Select
Committee on Smithfield market, and that Mr. Ormsby
Gore be r.dded.

Mr. PEARSON objected. He desired a full and fair
inquiry, but be preferred to bare metropolitan Members,
as she question was one purely metropolitan. He moved,
as an amendment, that the name of Sir Pe Lacy Evans
be substituted for that of Mr. Miles.

Mr. GORE suggestvd that some plan should be
adopted by the House for spleeting the members of Com-
mittees, instead of leaving the matter in the hands of
individual Mvmbers.

A.l-ecr a brief discussion, Mr. Pearson withdrew hl4
amendment, and the name of Mr. Gore was added.

•
The Poor-law (Ireland) Amendment Bill was brought
in by. Sir W. Somerville, and read a first time.
The second reading was moved for Tuesday next.
The House adjourned at Hilf-past One o'clock.