The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-25 00:00:00

The difficulties in the way of an effective Government
control were almost insuperable, because they might be
deceived by frauds in the keeping of the books, inas-
much as they could not compel depositors to bring in
their books at certain periods.
Mr. SI, ANEY said he had never voted on a more
painful question than the present. He thought the
Hon. Member fur Kerry had made out a case of strong
moral obligation on the part of the Government, inas-
much as a general impression had prevailed among de-
positors in consequence of the legislation of the House,
that the Government were responsible. Under the cir-
cumstances, however, he thought it would be better to
have the motion withdrawn for the present; but if pressed
to a division he would give it his support.
Colonel THOMPSON supported the motion. The
money had been paid over the Government counter, and
the Government ought to be responsible for it. It had
encouraged this mode of making deposits, and there was
a sort ot agency on its part.
Mr. J. A. SMITH could not regard this case in the
light in which it had been placed by the last speaker.
The Government had never declared itself to be respon-
sible for this money until it was paid into its hands.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer bad twice attempted
to improve the law, and had, to his great regret, failed
in carrying his intentions into effect in consequence of
the state of public business. lie could not support the
motion ot the Hon. Member for Kerry.
Colonel DU NNE supported the motion.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ... ••• 56
Against it ... ..• G 3
Majority... ••• —7
Mr. URQUHART moved that the Committee on Di-
plomatic Salaries be re-appointed, according to its own
recommendation.
Mr. BROTHERTON moved that the House adjourn.
The House having divided, the numbers were—
Ayes ... •.. 64
Noes ••• ... 32
Majority... ••• ... —32
The House accordingly adjourned at a Quarter past
Twelve o'clock.

was 8201., and the sum collected was 2/. In conclusion,
he had to state that he could not in that instance con-
sent to a departure from the contract which had been
entered into with the people of Manchester.
Mr. T. EGERTON said, the question to be ask' d of
other towns which might apply for the same privileges
as Manchester should be whether the public revenue
would be benefited by granting them? The Chancellor
of the Exchequer had referred to the telegraph and the
extension of railroads, as doing away with the necessity
in a great measure of inland bonded warehouses; but he
ought to know that buyers were not in the habit cf pur-
chasing by telegraph, but by making their selections
themselves in bonded warehouses.
Mr. LABOUCHERE admittted that he bad been de-
sirous to see established in this country a system of in-
land bonded warehouses, which worked so well in other
countries of the world.—(Hear, hear.) At the same time
be had always been of opinion that the Treasury ought
to be invested with a discretion to attach to the privilege
such conditions as it might think necessary for the secu-
rity of the revenue. That object though not c anpletely
achieved, was accomplished in parr; and out (it the
struggle which took place came the Bill which made the
concession to Manchester. He c mid no:. admit that the
conduct of the Government on that occasion sod on the
present exhibited any inconsistency. His Right Hon.
Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not said
that he desired to a ithdraw the privilege granted to
Manchester; on the contrary, if Manchester found the
privileges advantageous he wished her to continue to
enjoy them, but (newels conditions as he thought indis-
pensable for the general security of the revenue. lie
should deeply regret to see the privilege withdrawn
from Manchester ; but if she attached so much
importance to it, he was surprised that she
could not raise the paltry sum required, when he
remembered her liberality in other respects, by
a small rate on goods actually warehoused, and
which would, therefore, only be paid by those who,
either directly or indirectly, availed themselves of the
privilege. The Hon. Members for Manchester had, per-
haps, done no more than their duty in bringing the sub-
ject forward, but he hoped the rest of the Howse would
see that the Government had done no more then confer
on Manchester a privilege upon terms which were rea-
sonable and just—terms which could not be departed
from without opening the door to the admission of all
inland towns to the same privilege, who chose to de-
mand it.
Mr. BROTHERTON only spoke the sentiments of
his constituents when he said that it would be a great
injustice to compel Manchester to pay the expenses of
their warehouses, when the inhabitants of the district
for many miles round it derived the benefit from them.
When a post-office was established in any town, the ex-
pense of such an establishment was never charged to
that particular town, but to the public, because the
public in that case, as in this, reaped the advantage.
Mr. SPOONElithought the question had been argued
on far too narrow grounds. The question was whether
the inland bonding system ought to be extended; and
be should feel disposed, if the motion were carried, to
move an instruction to the Committee to that effect. The
Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had failed
to point out any mischief which had arisen from the
existence of bonded warehouses at Manchester. Had
Liverpool suffered from it? He was informed not. A
very fair prima facie case bad been established, that the
increase of consumption which had followed a more
liberal system had not entailed an increase of expense on
the public. The very arguments used against the mo-
tion were a reason for appointing a Committee. It was
said that bonded warehouses ought to be confined to
ports. This might have been true when so much diffi-
culty was found in moving goods from one place to
another; but now that the transit was so easy and so
safe the argument fell to the ground. The inland bond-
ing system was a great public advantage, and if it did
entail some extra charge the public would cheerfully pay
it. But it would entail no extra charge, for expense
must be incurred wherever the goods were lodged, whe-
ther at a port or inland. It was not often that he agreed
with the Hon. Member for Manchester, but, without
pledging himself as to any particular line for the future.
he would support him on the present occasion, being of
opinion that he had made out a clear case for an inquiry.
Mr. HEYWOOD said the arrangement to which the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had adverted was but a
temporary one. The system required revision, and a
Committee of Inquiry ought certainly to be appointed.
Mr. KERSHAW said it was not the interests of Man-
chester alone which were involved in this question, but
those of the whole surrounding districts, containing more
than a million of inhabitants, and it was therefore unjust
to call on Manchester alone to bear the expense.
Viscount GALWAY expressed is surprise at the at
tempt which was made on, this occasion to saddle the
income of the country with so foolish a sum.
Mr. M. GIBSON, in reply, expressed a wish to re-
move any impression which might be entertained of his
having misrepresented the words of the Right Hon.
Member for the University of Cambridge. He never
meant to say that the Right Hon. Gentleman had ex-
pressed an opinion that the expense of the bond-
mg warehouses at Manchester should be defrayed by the
State. On the contrary, he said the reverse. In Octo-
ber, 1842, ho said, " All his other objections had passed
sway, and it only remained for him to ascertain whether
the necessary expenditure would be repaid by the benefit
conferred on the public." In conclusion, he would ob-
serve that the liability of the Manchester Corporation had
passed away, and it now lay between the trade of the
district and the Chanceller of the Exchequer whether the
privilege should be taken away or continued at the ex-
pense of the public. All he asked was a Committee to
inquire which course was the more advisable, and
although the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared so
well contented now to decide the matter on his own re-
sponsibility, he had seen the day when he was by no
means indisposed to share his responsibility with a Com-
mittee of that House.—(Hear.)
The House divided, when there appeared 50
For the motion
Against it ... ... 65
Majority against the motion ... —l5
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT JURISDICTION,
Mr. FREW EN, pursuant to notice, rose to move a
resolution—" That it is desirable to extend the jurisdic-
tion of the Central Criminal Court to the whole of each
county in the Home Circuit." The Hon. Gentleman
founded his proposition upon the saving of time and ex-
pense effected within the last few years by railway com-
munication. There was, therefore, an obvious advantage
in consolidating and amalgamating counties for criminal
purposes. Such an arrangement as he proposed, if car-
ried out, would facilitate justice on the one hand, and
lessen expense on the other. The prisoners in the coun-
try, instead of being kept waiting for some time for their
trial at a heavy expense to the county, might be sent up
at a small expense by the railway, and tried at once.
He did not want to urge the Government to do anything
this session, but merely to pledge themselves to make
such a change in their criminal law in the next session
as was involved in the adoption of his resolution.
The motion la4v.ng been seconded,
Sir G. GREY bad two objections to the motion of the
Hon. Gentleman—the one was that it was an abstract
resolution which would bind the House to the adoption
of a certain course at some remote period of time, and
the other was that the effect of such a change as was
proposed would be contrary to the principle upon which
the Central Criminal Court was established. If they
were to admit the principle involved in the proposition
of the Hon. Gentleman, he did not see any reson why
the jurisdiction should be limited to the home circuit.
why, for instance, should not an offence committed at
Oxford be brought to London for trial? He did not see
bow such a proposition could be carried out with any
regard to either economy or convenience.
The resolution was negatived without a division.
SAVINGS BANKS.
Mr. H. HERBERT then rose to move " That this
House will, on a future day, resolve itself into a Com-
mittee to consider of an address to her Majesty, praying
that she will be graciously pleased to exesud the same
measure of relief to the depositors in the late Rochßdale,
Scarborough, Tralee, and Killarney Savings ank
as has been already extended the depesitorss
in the late Cuffs-street, Dublin, Sevings Bink."
He said that in the Rochdale Savings Bank the depo-
sitors consisted of 1,245 women, of whom 722 were un-
married, 292 were married, and: 231 young persons or
children. There were 953 miners, 539 labourers, 191
sick clubs, comprising about 10,000 persons. The total
number of depositors amounted to 2,965. The House
could well imagine the vast misery that was represented
by those figures.—(Hear, hear.) He could state similar
facts as to all the other banks, but did not think it neces-
sary to occupy the time of the I.louse by qng them.
He admitted that these unfortunate depositors had no
legal claim upon the Government; for if they had it
would not be necessary for him to make this appeal to
the House. But neither were there any legal claims upon
them when they granted 262,0001. to the holders of
forged Exchequer-bills, and a large sum to the depositors
in the Cuffe-street Savings Bank. These cases which
he wished to bring under the notice of the House were
cases of equal justice as those to which he had just re-
ferred. It was said that these matters had been already
decided by a Committee. He denied it. The Committee
did not inquire into the Rochdale or Scarborough Sa-
vings Banks, and they said that they saw nothing in the
cases of Killarney or Tralee to distinguish them from
the failure of any other bank The same principle of
justice that was conceded to the Cuffs-street Savings
Bank ought to be extended to the other banks that had
suffered equally with it. The Government had meddled
enough with these banks to render a well-grounded belief
that the depositors had Government security for their
money, while they removed the security that bad for-
merly existed in the responsibility that was attached to
the trustees. The Government had been tampering
with the money of the depositors, by using it for public
purposes, and they had no right now to say that they were
merely guardians of the people's money. Up to 1844
the depositors had the security of the responsibility of
the trustees in each one of their banks. When they
saw the names of parties in their neighbourhood who
were well known to be solvent and respectable acting as
trustees, the depositors felt assured that they had a
bona fide security for their money. But in the year
1844, when the failure of the Hertford Savings Bank
took place, it was found that those trustees had to pay
a considerable sum of money to make up the defi-
ciency. The Legislature, in order to supply a remedy
for this evil and to protect trustees for the future, in-
troduced a clause into a Bill passed through the
House that year, which totally took away all respon-
sibility from the trustees in these institutions and
substituting no other security in its place. The
Legislature, it appeared, contemplated at the time some
other security, for in tee same clause to which he
alluded they said it would be lawful for each of
the trustees to limit the responsibility to such sum as
was specified in the instrument before referred to. Ac-
cordingly, in 1844, Mr. Tidd Pratt, who was appointed
to supervise those institutions, wrote a circular to all the
trustee's in England and Ireland upon this subject; but
is only one bank in the United Kingdom had that se-
mill been entereiinto. It was AIL Tidd Vratt's duty,

when he found he had received no answers to his circu-
lar, and that the parties to whom he had written had not
entered into these securities, to call the attention of the
public to the change recently made in the law in respect
to these securities; and not to allow them to go on for
so many years depositing their money without obtain-
ing proper security for its safety. The public were com-
pletely ignorant of the effects produced by such change
in the law. He held in his hand a copy of an extract
from a letter sent from the War-office in 1849. After
giving certain directions to the paymasters of pensioners
in the different parts of the United Kingdom, it recom-
mended them to point out to the pensioners the great
propriety of their putting by a portion of their pay in
the savings banks to meet the contingencies of sickness
and the necessities of old age; that their money would be
perfectly safe in those banks, as the Government security
was then given to them. It was true that the pensioners
had been paid their money back again; but that fact
only strengthened his case. The House hadikeen put into
possession of an interesting correspondencemfhat had re-
cently taken place upon the subject of national school-
books. The Noble Lord at the head of the Government
had taken upon himself to recommend the publication of
certain books, to be circulated under the auspices of the
Government, over the United Kingdom. Now, in one of
those books was this paragraph:—" When a poor man
has saved up a little money he generally puts it into the
funds, or deposits it in the savings bank, which does this
for him. He is one of the Government creditors, and he
receives his share of the taxes raised in the shape of in-
terest."—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Herbert) asked whether
those publications were not well calculated to foster the
inepr,ssion amongst the people that the Government
were security for the money deposited in the savings
banks? He held in his band a remarkably able pamphlet
written upon the subject, in which it was shown that
the Government, when exigencies existed, had made
sales of stock by means of the money belonging
to the savings banks at periods when there
were no corresponding demands by drafts upon
the savings banks. An actual loss had thus oc-
curred to the public s through this stock jobbing of
the Government amounting to nearly 2,000,0001. The
accounts brought before Parliament clearly showed
that these sales and transactions were constantly made,
wholly irrespective of any demands by the deposi-
tors in the savings-banks. Between the months of
February, 1823, and July, 1824, the Commissioners sold
out 3.350,000/. at low prices, and invested upwards of
6,000,000/. in Exchequer-bills. During the two years
ending in November, 1834, the payments to the savings
banks to the reduction of the national debt amounted
only to 1,750,00(11., and the investments made by the
hands of the Commissioners amounted to upwards cf
3,000,000/. The solution of these incomprehensible
transactions could only be found in the statement of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being. The
late Sir R. Peel, on the 18th of March, 1842, stated in
Parliament, when addressing the gentlemen who now
occupied the Ministerial benches, that the time had ar-
rived when their tamperings in the savings banks and the
5 per cent. Customs duty must be abandoned. If that was
the case, the Government had no right to turn round on
the depositors, and deny their claim in the eveut of acci-
dent. The general distrust created in Ireland by these
failures was indescribable. In 1846 there were 74 savings
banks in Ireland. Since then 21 had ceased to exist, and
it was in the industrious districts that the greater part of
this cessation had taken place. In Connaught, for ex-
ample, there were as many before as after 1846—namely,
five; while in Munster, 6 out of 14; in Leinster, 6 out
28; and in Ulster, 9 out of 25, had been discontinued.
Of these, six out of eight had been closed in the county
of Down. The blow this state of things gave to in-
dustry and to independence was not to be easily appre-
ciated; and yet these were the feelingS which a Govern-
ment should most anxiously encourage. lie (Mr. Her-
bert) was recently at a distribution of sums subscribed
by the trustees of savings banks in Munster-17,0001.
He could bear testimony that the blow to industry given
by these failures was such as no amount represented by
figures could denote. In case of other banks besides
those adverted to in the motion, he had witnessed the
most frightful cases of utter ruin among the widow and
the orphan, the aged and the young. Those unfortu-
nate effects, however, the House could remove by a
paltry sum—about half the cost of a line-of-battle ship—
s tenth of the cost of the crusade against slavery every
year—about 100,0001. The Hon. Gentleman concluded
by repeating the motion.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD seconded the motion, represent-
ing as he did a town of sufferers. The loss in the Roch-
dale Savings Bank amounted to 38,000/., which had to
be borne by 2,965, including 191 sick clubs, representing
many thousands of persona more. His (Mr. S. Craw-
ford's) constituents did not assert a legal claim on Par-
liament, but they held that they had a claim in equity
upon the consideration of the Legislature. There was
no reason why the claims of any other classes should be
preferred to those of the industrious classes. The Go-
vernment had delayed to revise the law, but was that a
reason why the poor should suffer? If the State inter-
fered at all with savings of the poor, then the security
should be complete and undivided; otherwise the Go-
vernment should not discourage voluntary associations.
No friend of tho poor man should advise him to lodge
his money in savings banks as at present constituted.
He (Mr. S. Crawford) did not advance any peculiar
claims on the part of the Rochdale Savings Bank; he
took the general case of all savings banks, and main-
tained that those institutions were defective. Nothing
was more important to that House than the interests of
the poor man; and he therefore appealed most anxiously
to the House and the Government to do him justice in
this matter.
Mr. MORRIS said the subject was one worthy of in-
vestigation, and the Government should not refuse such
a small sum as that required to remedy the evil.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped
the House would make allowance for the unpleasant
position in which he was placed; but, however painful it
might be, he was bound to say no case had been made
out to justify him in paying the public money to make
good the losses of savings banks, with which the Go-
vernment had nothing to do. The motion was to ex-
tend the same relief to these four banks as had been ex-
tended to Cuffs-street Bank; but the case was different,
for the circumstances of the latter had been brought be-
fore the Commissioners for Savings Banks previous to the
failure, and the Select Committee had therefore recom-
mended some relief to the depositors, which he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) had paid to the extent of
103. in the pound. If the motion was agreed
to, they could not atop at these banks, but
should include all others—the Dartford and the
Poole Banks, for instance; and what he was
practically asked to do was to make good all losses, even
those sustained by the neglect of trustees. The question
was not, consequently, one of 100,0001., but of 200,0001.
and upwards; and, besides, it would be an affirmation of
the principle that all depositors should be paid, however
careless was the management of savings banks. The Hon.
Member for Kerry had spoken of successive Governments
tampering with the money of saving banks; but he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) denied that the pre-
sent Government had ever done so, and maintained that
all money lodged by depositors would be paid them with-
out the loss of a single farthing. The great difficulty
in which the Government was placed in respect to this
question, was to reconcile Government control with
voluntary action as regarded these banks. It was quite
true that the trustees were originally liable for the de-
posits, but the liability was so onerous that the Act of
1844 relieved them from it, giving them a voluntary
liability in the matter. In most cases, however, since
1844 the trustees had made up the loss by their volun-
tary contributions. In the Carmarthen case the Lord-
Lieutenant of the county came forward and paid all the
depositors under 51. Practically, therefore, no great
difference had been made by the removal of the legal lia-
bility. The question that had to be decided on that occa-
sion was, whether a legal liability which had never been
enforced should continue, or whether the gentlemen on
whose management the existence of these banks de-
pended should withdraw from them? and the House of
Commons decided in the sense that these gentlemen
should continue. In the Rochdale Bank the actuary had
two sets of books; in the Scarborough Bank the trus-
tees had constantly attended. He was exceedingly sorry
that losses of this kind should be entailed on parties
whom he was most anxious to protect. Last year he
had hopes of passing a Bill which would give greater se-
curity to the depositors than at present. However, he
was unable to pass that measure, and he feared there was
no great prospect of passing it this year; but the delay
would enable him to make the measure more perfect, as
ho was receiving additional 'information on the subject
every day. The principles of the measure which he con-
templated was the appointment by the Government of
a treasurer who should be responsible for the money he
received. Any further than that he could not go without
incurring a responsibility which would require of him to
have the appointment of all the officers of the bank. He
could assure the House that as soon as he was in a posi-
tion to bring in the Bill he would do ao.
Mr. REYNOLDS protested against the vote of
30,000/. which was granted to the Cuffs-street Savings
Bank being regarded as an act of charity; it was but a
partial act of justice to the depositors to whom the money
was due, and he thought that the remaining 30,0001.
should be paid them. With regard to the motion, al-
though he approved of it, he must say that the Hon.
Member for Kerry, in limiting his demand to 10s. in the
pound,
was compromising a good cause. He should de-
mand Mr. BRIGHT said that some regard should be paid to
payment in full.
the obstacles stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
to stand in the way of acceding to the motion, for there
could be no doubt that if it was understood that Parlia-
ment would make good every defalcation of the kind, this
would not be the last application that would be made to
them. But he thought that the Chancellor should has-
ten to bring in a Bill fixing the responsibility somewhere
or other for the future, and then when the matter was
settled in that way, let the Hon. Member for Kerry
bring the whole subject of those bygone defalcations be-
fore the House, and appeal to the generosity of the
country, and he had no doubt there would be a large
majority in favour of paying off those losses.
Mr. HUME thought that as regarded the Irish savings
banks, there was a moral though not perhaps a legal
liability on the part of the Government. In Paris the
Government appointed the officers of savings banks, and
were responsible to the depositors; but here there was
a divided responsibility, not easily understood by. the
humble classes who placed their money in our savings
banks. Much of the present difficulty would have been
prevented if the Government had adopted the resolu-
tions which ho had laid on the table on this subject in
1842.
Mr. HENLEY could not admit that the legislation of
that House had anything to do with these unfortunate
losses. Ile could not see the distinction which had been
drawn between the Cuffe-street Savings Bank and the
other savings banks in Ireland and in England. He ad-
mitted that the failures in question were painful to con-
template; but in dealing with the public money the
House must act on the principle of disallowing claims
which were not strictly legal, for if they once gave way
La cases of this kind, there was ho telling where to stop.

ECCLE:IASTICAL TITLES BlLL.—Colonel Vyse paired,
in favour of Mr. Walpole's amendments, with Mr. T. B.
Hobhouse against them.
Mr. Welby also paired, in favour of Mr. Walpole's
amendments, with Sir Dlontagu Cholmeley against.

PARLIAMEN TARY DIVISIONS.

From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons,

TUESDAY, JUNE 24.
SMITHFIELD MARKET REMOVAL BILL.
Order for Third Reading read ; Motion made, and Ques-
tion proposed, " That the Bill be now read a third time :"
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word " now, and at
the end of the Question to add the words " upon this day
six months." Question put, " That the word' now' stand
part of the Question." The House divided :
MAJORITY—AYES, Si.
Ahdy, Sir T. N. Evans, William Milner, W. M.
Bailey, Joseph Fergus, John Moody, C. A.
Barrington, Viscount Fox, W. J. Mowatt,
Berkeley, Admiral Free tun, Colonel O'ConnellFrancis, John
Bowles, Admiral Fuller, A. E. Pendarves, E. W.
Brotherton, J. Gladstone, W. E. Perfect, R.
Brown, W. Granger, T. C. Pilkington, James
Cardwell, Edward Grentell, Charles W. Portal, Melville
Carew, W. P. Grey, Sir G. Power, Dr.
Childers, J. W. Grosvenor, Lord R. Pusey, I'.
Christopher, R. Grosvenor, Earl Rich, Henry
Clay, James Hall, Sir B. Russell, Lord J.
Clifford, Henry M. Hatchell, John Salwey, Colonel
Cockburn, Sir A. Heywood, James Sandars, George
Corry, 11. Heyworth, Lawrence Seymour, Lord
Cowan, Charles Hogg, Sir J. Stanford, J. F.
Craig, Sir W.G. Holland, Robert Thicknesse, R. A.
Davie, Sir H. Howard, I'. 11. Thompson, Colonel
Dawes, Edward Jermyn, Earl Tyler, Sir G.
Denison, J. E. Kershaw, James Verney Sir H.
Drummond, Henry Labouchere, Henry Watkins, Colonel
Duckworth, Sir J. Lewis, G. C. Willcox, Brodie
Duncan, George Mackinnon, W. A. Wilson, James
Duneuft, John Mangles, R. 1). Weod, Sir Charles
Dundas, Sir David Marshall, William Young, Sir John
Edwards, Henry Martin, C. W. TELLERS.
Ellice, Edward, jun. Matheson, Colonel Hayter, W. G.
Elliot, J. E. Miles, W. Cowper, W. F.

MINORITY-NOES, 32.
Bankes, G. Duke, Sir James Mailings, J. B.
Barron, Sir 11. Duncan, Viscount O'Flaherty, Antkony
Barrow, W. 11. Duncombe, T. Osborne, Ralph
Booker, T. W. Forbes, William Pechell, Sir G.
Brocklehurst, John Frewen, C. H. Stafford, Augustus
Buller, Sir Y. Gilpin, Colonel Stanley, Edward
Banbury, William Henley, J. W. Verner, Sir W.
Chatterton, Colonel Hodges, T. L. Wall, C. B.
Currie, Henry Inglis, Sir R.
Dashwood, G.ll. Johnstone, Sir J. TELLIO.3.
Davies, D. A. Keogh, William Williams, W.
D'Eyncourt, T. Lowther, Colonel Hume, Joseph

MANCHESTER BONDING.
Motion made, and Question put, " That a Select Com-
mittee be appointed to inquire into the working of the system
of warehousing foreign goods in bond in Manchester, as it
affects importers, dealers, and consumers of goods liable to
Customs linty, residing in Manchester and the neighbouring
towns; also as to its effects on the Customs Revenue, and to
report to the House as to the expediency or otherwise of
placing Manchester on an equal footing with all bended
towns in the United Kingdom." The House divided :—.
MINORITY—AYES, 50.
- -

---- -
Anstey, T. C. Greene, John Naas, Lord
Blake, M. J. Harris, Richard O'Connell, John
Best, John liastie, Alexander O'Connor. Feargus
Brocklehurst. J. Heald, James O'llaherty, Anthony
Brotherton, J. Henry, Alexander Patten, J. W.
Cobden, R. Herbert, 11. A. Peel, Frederick
Copeland, Alderman Heywood, James Pilkington, James
Crawford, W. S. Hey worth, L. Reynolds, Jouh
Crawford , Robt. W. Ilindley, C. Ricardo, Osman
Duncan, George Humphery, Aid. Smythe, G.
Dunctift, John Keating, Robert Spooner, R.
Egerton, W. T. Keogh, William Thompson, Colonel
Ellis, John Kershaw, James Westhead, J. B.
Fox, W. J. Lacy, 11. C. Williams, W.
Frewen, C. IL Legh, G. C.
Geach, Charles 3l'Gregor, John TELLERS.
Goold, Wyndham Meagher, Thomas Gibson, T. M.
Greenall, Gilbert 3luntz, G. F. Bright, John

MAJORITY—NOES, 65. •
e
Baines, M. T Freestun, Colonel Pugh. David
Baird James .' Galway, Viscount Pusey, Philip
Baring, Sir F. T. Gilpin, Colonel Rice, E. R.
Bellew, R. M. Grey, Sir G. Russell, Lord John
Bentinek, Lord li. Grey, Ralph Wm. Salwey, Colonel
Berkeley, Henry F. Halsey, T. P. Seaham, Viscount
Berkeley G. F. Hanmer, Sir J. Seymour, Lord
Birch, Sir Thomas Hawes, B. Slaney, R. A.
Boyle, Colonel Henley, J. W. Smith, Vernon
Brown, 11. Hodges, T. L. Somerville, Sir W.
Cardwell, Edward Howard, Lord E. Stanley, E.
Clay, Sir W. Hume, Joseph Tailored, H. W.
Cockburn, Sir A. Johnstone, Sir.J. Tennent, R. J.
Cowper, W. F. Labouchere, 11. Thicknesse, Ralph
Craig, Sir W. G. Lennox, Lord 11. G. Vane, Lord-11.
Cubitt, William Lewis, G. C. Vivian, J. E.
Dawes, Edward Martin, C. W. Wilson, James
Drummond, henry Matheson, Colonel Wood, Sir Charles
Dundas, Admiral Milner, W. M. Wood, Sir W. P.
nuncios, Sir D. Mulgrave, Earl
Elliot, John Owen, Sir J.
Evans, J. Paget, Lord C.
Evelyn, W. J. Parker, John

TILLERS.
Hayter, W. G.
UAL Lard 3larcus

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 25,

1851

TRIBUNALS OF COMMERCE
A public meeting, cow erred by the secretary of the
committee for the establishment of tribunals of com-
merce, was held yesterday afternoon at Willis's Rooms.
Lord Wharneliffit was to have acted as chairman, but
sent an excuse, stating that his ill health prevented him
from attending; and, in consequence, Mr. Montagu Gore
presided. In opening the proceedings, he observed that
the object of the meeting was one of great public utility,
and, if carried out, could not fail to be productive of
great good. The smallness of the attendance ought not
to discourage them, for they were aware that most great
measures in England had risen from small beginnings.
Tribunals of commerce bad been carried out suc-
cessfully in France and Belgium, and he had no
doubt corresponding benefits would accrue to this
country by their introduction. It was very desirable
to collect all the information they could with
relation to the working of these courts in other
countries, to show the public the good that might bo
expected to arise from them here. This he considered the
first point to which they should turn their attention.
his time and service would always be willingly given to
carry out this object. The scheme was not opposed to
the legal profession, but merely sought to protect com-
mercial men against the present expensive system and to
render the law accessible to them. The laws affecting
commercial matters did require revision, for in many
cases they were aware that toe expenses had amounted
to thousands when they ought only to have been hundreds.
Mr. F. LYNE, secretary, said that the largo merchants
of London, when he first introduced his project, were
totally ignorant of _tribunals of commerce, and were, for
that reason, averse to them; but they now saw the bene-
fits they would prove both to the strong and weak.
Many who at first held back till they should comprehend
the principles of the scheme proposed, now understood
them, and came forward to tender their support. There
existed in Belgium a tribunal of commerce in every city
and county town, and in all towns of any commercial
or industrial importance; they were exclusively com-
posed of merchants and manufacturers chosen from the
most eminent, and particularly from among the prin-
cipals of the oldest established houses, having
a reputation for judgment and probity. The list
of judges chosen iu each province or locality,
was submitted to the State authorities for approval.
The judges held office for two years. Each tri-
bunal was composed according to the Population or ne-
cessities of the town or province. There was also a pre-
sident judge, and twelve, eight, six, four, or two judges
elected and constituted, besides an equal number of sup-
plemental judges. These judges occupied the bench
each occasion, one of whom presided. They were at-
tended by a consulting barrister, who was alone a paid
functionary, the situation of a commercial judge being
purely honorary. Although they might not adopt this
system or the French one, yet it was most desirable to
ascertain how they worked. This was the object of their
committee. It had been proposed in the city to petition
the House of Lords on the subject, but it would be better
for tht, m to wait and go there strong, and look out and
show them such a mass of evidence as would convince
them that these things were not a shadow, but a reality.
After explaining that he did not wish to say anything
against the legal profession, for whom he entertained
great respect, he said that quirks and quibbles were too
much encouraged in the law courts. These they wished
to remove, and, if they effected the change, the smallest
tradesman would benefit by it. They would now rather
lose 501. or 601. than go to law. He concluded by show-
ing that these tribunals would afford equal protection to
both rich and poor.
Mr. RAINY moved the first resolution:—
" That this meeting considers the establishment of
tribunals of commerce would tend to diminish unneces-
sary litigation, as well as furnish the means whereby, at
a small cost and the least possible salary, differences
among commercial men and others may be satisfactorily
adjusted."
The questions they were to consider were, whether the
present legal procedure was such as to call for change,
and also whether the means proposed was sufficient for
the purpose. The evils of the present tribunals had been
loudly complained of, and through the press had been
made very generally known. He then detailed several
cases in the Court of Chancery to show the great ex-
pense and loss of time incurred in procedure in that
court.
Mr. H. IL LESTER seconded, and Mr. W. CARPENTER
supported the resolution, which was carried.
Mr. Green, Mr. J. P. Ball, and other gentlemen, ad-
dressed the meeting, and moved votes of thanks to the
press for their exertions in the cause of law reform, and
to the chairman for his conduct in the chair; after which
,he meeting separated.

STEAM COMMUNICATION WITH AMERICA
The Commissioners to whom was referred the con-
sideration of the claims of Ireland to have one of her
western ports selected as the point of departure for
Transatlantic packet steamers have made an elaborate
report, which concludes as follows :
" It will be seen by what we have already stated, and
from the appendix attached to this report, that in the
protracted and detailed inquiry that has devolved upon
us, we have listened to all the arguments and facts that
have been urged upon our attention, and have sought
out such officers in her Majesty's service as have had
personal acquaintance with the western and southern
coasts of Ireland. We have asked opinions from
officers of the coast guard, and persons connected
with the merchant service; we have applied to municipal
bodies, to local committees, and to individuals who have
taken a prominent part en this question. We have found
a desire for the transference of the packet station
strongly entertained by many persons connected with Ire-
land, toueded on the hope that it would produce inci-
dental benefit to the neighbourhood of the port selected,
and to those parts of Ireland which must ho traversed
to mach it. To this desire we have paid great deference,
and have considered the subject with en anxious with to
arrive at a conclusion which would promote the com-
mercial and general prosperity of Ireland. But, on a
care ful review of the arguments that have been advanced,
we do not consider them to be sufficient to justify us in
recommending such a change. Some of those arguments
are of a speculative character, depending upon improve-
ments which have not yet been effected, and which can-
not be anticipated with any certainty. The principal
remaining grounds upon which the measure is advocated
are, the benefits which Ireland would derive from being
made the medium of intercourse between Great Britain
and America, and the saving of time and reduction of sea
voyage which the United Kingdom generally would obtain
in the communication with that country. We have shown,
however, that the gain of time that could be calcula-
lated upon, would not, even under present circum-
stances, as regards the greater part of the United
Kingdom, be considerable, if compared with the whole
length of the voyage, and that it will be of still less
importance if the mail packets are required to touch at
Holyhead. On the other hand there is reason to believe
that the frequent transfers to which both passengers and
goods would be subjected in the transit between any
place in Egland and Scotland and a port of the west
coast of Ireland would prevent any largo amount of
traffic between those countries and North America being
conducted by the new route. We find no reason to con-
clude that the local and particular advantages resulting
from the proposed measure would be so great, or the
saving of time so important, as to counterbalance the
large additional expense which would be entailed upon
the imperial revenue, and the evils and inconvenience
which would be inflicted on the great body of the mer-
cantile and travelling portion of the community by re-
moving the packets from the place were they were ori•
ginally established, as being the focus of the commercial
transactions of the United Kingdom with the North
American continent.—We have, &c.,
" GRANVILLE. " J. F.BURGOYNE.
" W. COWPER. " S. ELLERIY."
" JAMES A. GORDON.