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

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-
cheuer; all it had to do was to obey the order of the
Court of Chancery, and refund the money.
After a few words from Mr. BROTHERTON and Mr.
ROM:DELL PALMER, the vote was agreed to, and the
House resumed.
The Exchequer Bill (17,786,7001.) was read a second
time.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this
Bill being read,
Mr. lIORSMAN 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 understanding. 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 tho
same.

A conversation ensued, in which Sir H. Willoughby,
Mr. Hume, Mr. Goulburn, and Lord J. Russell took
part, and the Noble Lord having given the promise re-
quired by Mr. Horsman, the Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed on Monday fortnight.
The other orders of the day were postponed, and the
House proceeded to the notices of motion.
COMNIIT7'EE ON SAVINGS' BANKS.
Mr. REYNOLDS moved that the following be the
Select Committee on Savings' Banks:—Mr. Reynolds,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Henry Herbert,
Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Napier, Mr. John Abel Smith, 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 the Committee of last session. He had
endeavoured to come to an arrangement with the llon.
Member, for Dublin, which would have prevented the
necessity for his amendment. He found, however,
that no alteration in the constitution of the
Committee would be agreed 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 very fairly, and there had never been a
difference between them except on one occasion, when
the Hon. Member for Kerry stood alone. It had been
said that this was an Irish question, and therefore there
should be a large number of Irish Members upon it.
But he denied that it was exclusively 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 Impsrial 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 English and Scottish, as an Irish question,
On these grounds he moved the re-appointment of the
Committee.
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 Exchequer to postpone this question, although 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 postponing the
consideration of the subject until a late period of the
session, and at last, in perfect despair, he (Mr. Herbert)
placed a notice on the paper for a Supply night, and ex-
pressed his determination to proceed with it. The Chan
cellor of the Exchequer, finding him determined, 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 Corntnittee.—(A
laugh.) In his innocence he consented, and then—
(Liughter)—the Chancellor of the Exchequer put
only three- Members on a Committee, the original
object of which 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, when the question was totally
altered, the Chancellor of the Exchequer took advantage
of the fairness 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 had the proposal to
re appoint the Committee of last session. They had not
even the result of the mountain in labour—the mouse
had not made its appearance.—((fear; bear.) When the
motion on this subject was made, the Right Hon. Baronet
met it by a direct negative, not by a proposal to re-
appoint the Committee. The Government were de.
teated, 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 ROD.
Friend the Member for Dublin.
Mr. R. M. FOX, while he had no desire to shrink
from his duty, beeged to thank his Hon. Friend for sub-
stituting an Irish lawyer, the Member for Athlone, for
himself.
Mr. GOULBURN thought the Hon. Member for
Kerry had gene into a discussion net very germane to
the question, a hich was certainly a most disagreeable
one—the composition of a Committee. With reference
to the point, whether it was a general question or not, he
believed the Hoe; Member himself had admitted that it
was a general one, and as he had 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. HUM E said that disclosures of great hardship
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 H. WILLOUGHBY 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 an 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 grounds for believing
that fdir 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 occa-
sions, as much credit as ho 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. Gentleman credit for having steered
very wide indeed 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 enjoy the same amount of privilege, and the
same measure of courtesy, that was invariably ac
corded to Hon. Members a ho were in the same position
with himself—that of having succeeded in carrying a mo-
tion for the appointraeut of a Committee. The Right Hon.
Gentleman insisted that he should not have that privi-
lege—that he 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 Lord the Member for
Tyrone had read the report, which stated that the Corn.
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.
tleman came forward and had the modesty to ask the
House to consent to the re-appointment of his own old
Committee, which be 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 hate to fulfil.
It was a Committee " to inquire into and report on the
circumstances connected with the failure of the Sr.
Peter's parish savings-bank, in Cuffeo-street, in the city
of Dublin, and on any security or securities which may
be in existence for snaking 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 comprise the savings-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. COWAN—Auchtersrder.
Mr. REYNOLDS (imitating the accent of the Hen.
Member)—Yes, Auchterarthr. Ile was infinitely
obliged to the lion. Member for Edinburgh for having
assisted him to accomplish the difficult fent 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.. (llear, 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 banns were the plain-
tiffs, and the defendants were two personages of no ltss
importance than the present Chancellor of the Exche-
quer and another Right Hon. Gentleman (the Member
fur Cambridge University), who bad long filled thesawe
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 tri►ial importance, but could they afford to do so?
Were they aware of its tremendous significance—its life
or death importance to thbusands of the popular classes
in Ireland? It was literally a gatestiou et. life Q death