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

THE SUN,

ryaa 820/, and the et re coracle:l was 2/. la cenelleier,
he had to state that he c.,uld not in that in-.tense ceu-
lent to a departure from the contract which had been
entered into with the people of Manchester.
Mr. T. EGERTON said, the question to be asleed of
other towns which might apply to the same privileges
as Manchester sbould be whether the public reeeilue
Would be benefited by granting them? 'I he 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 banded warehouses; but he
Ought to know that buyers were not in the habit of pur-
chasing by telegraph, but by making their selections
themselves in hm-triE.:l warehouses.
Mr. LABOUCHERE admittted that he bad been de-
sirous to see established in this country a system of in-
land bonded warehoueee which worked so well in other
countriee of the world.—(Hear, hear.) At the same time
he had always been of opinion that the Treasury ought
to be haveeted with a discretion to attach to the privilege
kith conditions as it might think necessary for the seen-
tity of the revenue. That object though not cometely
achieved, was accomplished in per: and out of toe
struggle which took place came the Bill which made the
concede:on to Manchester. He could not admit that the
conclunt of the Government on that occasion and on the
reeent. exhibited any inconsistency. His Right Hen.
eriend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not said
that he desired to withdraw the privilege granted to
Manch-aster; on the contrary, if Manchester found the
privileges advantageous be wished her to continue to
enjoy them, but on such conditions as he thought indis-
pensable fur the general security of the revenue. He
should deeply regret to see the privilege withdrawn
from Manchester ; but if she attached so much
unportnnee to ir, he was surprised that she
could Hot raise the paltry sum required, wren be
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 House would
Bee that the Government had done no more than confer
on Manchester a privilege upon terms which were rea-
sonable and just—terms which could not be departed
from w ithout 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
hie 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-
Pause 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
en far too narrow grounds. The question was whether
the inland bonding system ought to be extended; and
he 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 perint out any mischief which had arisen from the
existence of bonded warehouses at Manchester. Had
Liverpool suffered from it? He W 33 informed not. A
Very fair prima facie case bad been established, that the
increase of consumption which had followed a more
llber sl 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
laid that bonded warehouses ought to be confined to
Ports. This might have been true when so much diffi-
culty wets 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 cherge the public would cheerfully pay
it. But it would entail no extra charge, far expense
Must be incurred wherever the goods were lodged, whe-
ther at report 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, tieing of
opinion that he had made out a clear case for an inquiry.
Mr. EIEY WOOD said the arrangement to which the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had adverted was but a
temporary one. The system required revision, and a
Commit tee 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 oil Manchester alone to bear the expense.
Viscount GALWAY expressed his surprise at the at-
tempt which was meth 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 tot say that the Right Hon. Gentleman had ex-
pressed an opinion that the expense of the bond-
ing warehouses at Manchester should be defrayed by the
State. On the contrary, he said the reverse. In Octo-
ber, 1842, be said, " All his other objections had passed
away, acid 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. FREWEN, 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, it car-'
tied out, would facilitate justice on the one band, 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 ef his resolution.
The motion having been seconded,
Sir G. GREY had two objections to the motion of the
Hon. Gentleman—the one was that it was an abstract
resolution waich would bind the Hausa to tho 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 establiVed. If they
were to admit the principle involved in the proposition
of the lion. Gentleman, he did not see any reson why
the jurisdiction should be limited to the home circuit.
Why, for instance, should not an off.nee committed at
Oxford be brought to London for trial? He did not see
how such a proposition could be curried out with any
regard to either cer..,:-.Lorny or convenience.
The resolution was oPgatived 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 extend the same
measure of relief to the depositors in the late Rochdale,
Scarborough, Tralee, must Killarney Savings Banks
as has been already extended to the depositor;
in the late Cutfe-street, Dublin, Savings Bank."
He said that in the R Ichdale Savings Bank the depo-
Bitors consisted of 1,245 women, oo' whom 722 were un-
married, 292 were married, and 231 young persons or
children. Thera 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 House by quoting them.
He admitted that these unfortunate depositors bad 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 tho 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 Cemmittee
did not inquire into the Rochdale or Scarborough Sa-
vings 133131c5, 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
that was conceded to the Cuffe-street Savings
Bank
nk 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 had 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 actin, as
trustees. the depositors felt assured that they had a
bona fide security for their money. But in the year
1844, when the failure cf the Hertford Savings Bank
took place, it W2B 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 tome
other security, for in the 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 euperviae those institutions, wrote a circular to all the
trustees in England and Ireland upon this subject ; but
in only one bank in the United it iagdona had that se-
writ' been entered into. It was Mr. Tidd Pratt'a duty,

witen he found he had received no renewers t' hirs ciren-
lar, and taet the p :sties to wheal lielist written h not ,
entered into %nese securities, to call the atteetion et the
public to the change recently unde in the law in respect
to these securities; and not to allow them to go on tor
so many years depositing their money without obtain-
ing proper security for its safety. The public were com-
pletely ignorant of the effecte produced by such change
in the law. He held in his hand a copy of an extract
frolic, a letter sent from the War-office to 18.49. After
giving certain directions to the paymasters of pensioners
in the different (,arts of the United Ktegdona, it recoil
mtnded them to point out to the pensienera the great
propriety of their putting by a, portion of their pay in
the savings banks to mset the contingencies cf sickness
and the neceisities of old age; that their money wouid
perfectly bra
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 had been put into
possession of an interesting correspondence that had re-
cently taken place upon the subject of national school-
books. The Noble Lord at the head of the Government
bad 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 men
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 he-
terest.”—(llettr, hear.) He (Mr. Herbert) asked whether
those publications were not well calculated to foster the
ireprasion amongst the people that the Government
were security for the money deposited in the savings
banks? He held in his hand 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 tho 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 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 3.350,0001. at low prices, and invested upwards of
6,000,0001. 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 1,750,0001., and the investments made by the
hands of the Commissioners amounted to upwards of
3,000,0001. 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 event of acci-
dent. p 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, mid
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, bad been discontinued.
Of these, six out of eight bad 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. He (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 cusp 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 eft'. cts, however, the House could remove by a
paltry sum—about half the cost of a line-of-battle ship—
a tenth of the cost of the crusade against slavery every
year—about 100,0001. The Hon. Gentleman concluded
by repeating the motion.
Mr. S. CRA.W FORD seconded the motion, represent-
ing as ho 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, i °presenting
many thousands of persons 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 the poor man should advise him to lodge
his money in savings banks as at present constituted.
Ile (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 is paying the public money to make
goed the loans 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
10s. in the pound. If the motion was agreed
to, they could not stop 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 benks. The Hon.
Member for Kerry had spoken of successive Governments
tampering with the money of saving bulks; but he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) denied thee 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 is 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
1644 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 coca-
sion was, whether a legal liability which had never been
enforced should continue, or whether the gentlemen on
whose manegfment 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 b00k,.; in the Scarborough Bank the trus-
tees bail constan ly attended. He was exceedingly sorry
that losses of this kind should be entailed ou parties
whom he was most anxious to protect. Last year he
passing a Bill which would give greater se-
hcuardithes of
yoptothe 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
he was receiving additional lialormation 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 he 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 so.
Mr. REYNOLDS protested against the vote of
30,0001. which was granted to the Cuffe-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 t: ought that the remaining 30,000/.
should be paid them. With regard to the motion, al-
ughhe must say that the Hon.
limiting his demand to 10s. in the
txhioeer hfoerteipiperrorrye,dinofit,
a good cause. He should de-
pound, was compromising
mand payment in full.
Mr. BRIGHT said that some regard should be paid to
the obstacles stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
to stand in the way of acceding to the motion, fur 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
bring the whole subject of those bygone defalcations be-
fore the House, for Kerry
and appeal to the generosity of the
off those losses.
country, aric he had no doubt there would be a large
majority in favour of paying
Mr. HUNIE thoughtthat 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
Goverernent 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-
tiona which ha 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. He could not see the distiection which had been
drawn between the Caffeestreet Savings Bank and the
other eavings batiks 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
in cases of this kind, these was no telling Where to stop.

LONDON,

Ttla clifficutties in the w..ly of an effective Government
control were almost iit..operable, becanio they might be
deceived by frauds in the keepieg of the books, inas-
much as they could not compel depositors to bring in
heir books at certain periods.
Mr. SLANEY said foe had never voted on a more
print& question than the prevent.• He thought the
Hon. Member for Kerry had made oc.i; a case of strong
moral obligation on the part of the Government, inas-
much as a general impresi.ion had pretadied among de-
positors in consequence of the legislation of the House,
that the Government s,.ere responsible. Under the cir-
cumstances, however, he thought it would be better to
have the motion withdrawn for the prevent; but if pressed
to a division be would give it his support.
Colonel THOMPSON supported the motion. The
money had been paid over the Goverment counter, and
the Government ought to be responsible for it. •It had
encouraged this mode of making deposits, and there was
a sort of agency on its put.
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 had twice attempted
to improve the law, and had, to his great regret, failed
in catrying his intentions into effect in consequence of
the state of public business. He could not support the
motion of the Hon. Member for Kerry.
Colonel DUNNE supported the motion.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ... 56
Against it
Majority... ... —7
Mr. URQUHART moved that the Committee on Di-
plomatic Salaries be re-appointed, according to its own
recommendation.
Mr. mtor HERTON moved that the House adjourn.
The House having divided, the numbers were—
Ayes ... 64
Noes ... 32
Majority...
The House accordingly adjourned at a Quarter past
Twelve o'clock.

ECCLE.IASTIC AL 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 Montagu Cbolmeley against.

PARLIAMENTARY 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, 81.
Abdy, Sir T. N. Evans, William Milner, W. M.
Bailey, Joseph Fergus, John Moody, C. A.
Barrington, Viscount Fox, W. J. Mowatt, Francis
Berkeley, Admiral Freestnn, Colonel O'Connell, John
Bowles, Admiral Fuller, A. E. Pendarves, E. W.
Brotherton, J. Gladstone, W. E. Perfect, It.
Brown, W. Granger, T. C. Pilkington, JameS
Cardwell, Edward Grentell, Charles W. Portal, Melville
Carew, W. P. Grey, Sir G. Fewer, Dr.
Childers, J. W. Grosvenor, Lord R. Pusey, P.
Christopher, R. Grosvenor, Earl Rich, Henry
Clay, James Hall, air B. Russell, Lord J.
Clifford, Henry M. Hatchell, John Salwey, Colonel
Coesburn, Sir A. Heywood, JameS Sanders, George
Corry, 11. Hey-worth, Lawrence Seymour, Lord
Cowan, Charles Hogg, Sir J. Stanford, J. F.
Craig, Sir W.G. Holland, Robert Thickness°, R. A.
Davie, Sir H. Howard, P. H. Thompson, Colonel
Dawes, Elward Jermyn, Earl Tyler, Sir. G.
Denison, J. E. Kershaw, James Verney Sir IL
Drummond, Henry Labouchere, Henry Watkins, Colonel
Duckworth, Sir J. Lewis, G. C. Wilcox, Brodie
Duncan, George Mackinnon, W. A. Wilson, James
I >uncurl, John Mangles, R. D. Wood, Sir Charles
Dundas, Sir David Marshall, William Young, Sir John
i Edwards, Henry Martin, C. W. TEL LENA.
Ellice, Edward, jun. Matheson, Colonel Hayter, W. G.
Elliot, J. E. Miles, W. Cowper, W. F.

MINORITY—NOES, 32.
Bankes, G. Duke, Sir James Mußings, J. X.
Barron, Sir H. Duncan, Viscount O'Flaheerty,al Antkony
Barrow, W. 11. Duncombe, T. Osborn, Ralph
Booker, T. W. Forbes, William Pechell, Sir G.
uil
Brocklehurst, John Frewen, C. H. Staffo)rd, Augnst
Buller, Sir Y. Gilpin, Colonel Stanley, Edward
Bunbury, William Henley, J. W. Verner, Sir W.
Chatterton, Colonel Hodges, T. L. Wall, C. B.
Currie, Henry Inglis, Sir R.
Dashwood, G. 11. Johnstone, Sir J. TELLERS,
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 Manch9ster, as it
affects importers, dealer,, and consumers of goods liable to
Customs Imty, 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 bonded
towns in the United Kingdom." The House divided
MINORITY—AYES, 50.
- •

--- - - .
Anstey, T. C. - Greene, John Naas, Lord
Blake, H. J. Harris, Richard O'Connell, John
Best, John Hastie, Alexander O'Connor, Feargus
Brocklehurst;J. Heald, James O'Flaherty, Anthony
Brotherton, J. Henry, Alexander Patten, J. W.
Cobden, R. Hereert, H. A. Feel, Frederick
CoVeland, Alderman Heywood, James Pilkington, JameB
Crawford, W. S. Hepworth, L. Reynolds, Jonh
Crawford, Robt. W. Hindley, C. Ricardo, Osman
Duncan, George Ilumphery, Ald. Smythe, G.
Duncuft, John Keating, Robert Spooner, R.
Egerton, W. T. Keogh, William Thompson, Colonel
Ellis, John Kershaw, Jamul Westhead, J. B.
Fox, W. J. Lacy, H. C. 'Williams, W.
Frewen, C. H. Legh, G. C.
Leach, Charles M`Gregor, John TELLERS.
Goold, Wyndham Meagher, ThomaB Gibson,
Greenall, Gilbert Muntz, G. F. Bright, John

MAJORITY—NOES, 65.
naives, 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 H. Grey, Ralph Win. Salwey, Colonel
Berkeley, Henry F. Halsey, T. P. Seaham, Viscount
Berkeley G. F. Hanmer, Sir J. Seymour, Lord
Birch, sir Thoma 3 Hawes, B. Blaney, R. A.
Boyle, Colonel Henley, J. W. Smith, Vernon
Brown, H. Hodges, T. L. Somerville, Sir W.
Cardwell, Edward Howard, Lord E. Stanley, E.
Clay, Sir W. Hume, Joseph Tancred, H. W.
Cockburn, Sir A. Johnstone, Sir J. Tennent, R. J.
Cowper, W. F. Labouchere, H. Thicknesse, Ralph
Craig, Sir W. G. Lennox, Lord 11. G. Vane, Lord:H.
Cubits, William Lewis, G. C. Vivian, J. E.
Dawes, Edward Martin, C. W. Wilson, James
Drummond, Henry Matheson, Colonel Wood, Sir CharlB3
Dundas, Admiral Milner, W. M. Wood, Sir W. P.
Dundas, Sir D. Mulgrave, Earl
Elliot, John Owen, Sir J.
Evans, J. Paget, Lord C.
Evelyn, W. J. Parker, John

TELLERS.
Hatter, W. G.
Hill, Lard blared"

SAVINGS BASK.
Motion made, and Question put, " That this House will,
To-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee, to consider of an
Address to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously
pleased to extend the same measure of relief to the depositors
in the late Rochdale, Scarborough, Tralee, and Killarney
Savings Banks as has been already extende:i to the depositors
in the late Cuffe-street, Dublin, Savings Bank." The House
divided :

MINORITY—AYA'S, 56.
Archdall, Captain Gallwey, Sir W. I'. Morris, David
Baird, JArnes Gold, Wyndham Naas, Lord
Barrington, Viscount Grace, 0. D. Naas, John
John
Beresiord, William Grattan, Henry 'Coneys, Sir D.
Blair, Stephen Greene, John O'Brien Si LucluS
Blake, Martin J. Guernsey, Lord O'Connell, John
Boldero, George H. Gwyn, liowel O'Flaherty, Anthony
Booth, Sir li. G. Halsey, T. P. Power, Dr.
Boyd, John Hamilton, Lord C. Reynolds, John
Brisco, M. Henry, Alexander Seaham, Viscount
Bunbury, William llindley, Charles Slaney, Robert A.
Clitiord, H. M. Hodgson, W. N. Stafford, Augustus
Davies, D: A. Hume, Joseph Thompson, Colonel
Dod, J. W. Johnstone, Sir J. Urquhart, David
Dunne, Colonel Keating, Robert Verner, Sir W.
Edwards, Henry Keogh, William Vesey, Hon. T.
Farnham, E. Knox, W. S.
Forbes, W. M'Cullagh, W. T. TELLERS.
Fox, W. J. Meagher, Thomas Hayter, W. G.
Fuller, A. E. Moose% William Hill, Lord Marcus

MAJORITY—NOES, 63.
Armstrong, Sir A. Hamner, Sir Joha Piney, Philip
Baines, M. T. Harris, Richard Rice, E. R.
Baring. Sir F. Hawes, Benjamin Rich, Henry
Bellew, it. M. Henley, J. W. Romilly, Sir John
Bouverie, E. P. Hodges, T. L. Seymour, Lord
Boyle, Colonel Holland, Robert Shafto, R. D.
Bramston, T. W. Hutt, William Shelburne, Earl et
Brotherton, Joseph Kershaw, James Smith, J. A.
Somerville, Sir W.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Lewis, G. C.
Christy, Samuel INrTaggart, Sta. Spearman, H. J.
Clay, James Martin, John Spooner, Richard
Cockburn, Sir A. Martin, C. W. Stanfield, W. R. C.
Craig, Sir W. G. Matheson, Colonel Stanton, W. H.
Dalrymple, Captain Musty", E. Stanton, W.
W.
Duncuft, John Mulgrave, Earl Wilcox, Brodie
Dundas, Admiral Mulling's, J. It. Williamson, Sir It
Elliot, J. E. Paget, Lord A. Wilson, James
Fairer, James Paget, Lord C. Wood, Sir Charles
Frewen, C. H. Palmerston, Viscount Wood, Sir W. P.
Grenfell, C. Pascoe Parker, John T
Grey, Sir G. Philips, Sir G. It. Ilay
Lord ter, W.
Grey, Ralph W. Pilkington, James Hill, M.

LADY EMILY POINIONBY'S New WORK.—The new
novel. entitled " CLARE ABBEY," by the distinguished
authoress of " The Discipline of Life," has just appeared. A
contemporary-, in reviewing it, observes,—" In Clare Abbey'
Lady Emily Ponsonby has constructed a charming romance.
Indeed one that, for purity of thought and chasteness of
diction, may take its rank with the works of Miss Austen,
and the other lady writers who have embellished the litera-
ture of fiction, delighting the fancy while improving the
heart, and elevating the standard of the morals of society.
The name of Ponsonby is not new to English oratory, states-
manship, and literature ; and Lady Emily Ponsonby adds
another bright leaf to the chaplet of its fame."

r ADVERTISEDLENT.]—Cure of an Ulcerated Leg by
Holloway's Ointment and Pills.—Mr. John Olive, well known
in Geelong, Port Phillip, publishes in the Melbourne Morning
Herald. of June 22, 1849, the following extraordinary case:
" I had been afflicted for three years with an ulcerated leg, and
had the best medical treatment in Melbourne and Van Die-
men's Land without experiencing any relief, when, hearing of
the wonderful cures effected by Holloway's Pills and Oint-
ment, I resolved upon trying them, and with gratitude I ac-
knowledge that, after using them and attending to the direc-
tions, I found my leg cured in a very short time. (Signed)
John Olive."— Sold by all respectable vendors of medicine
throughout the civilised world, and at Professor Holloway's
Establishment, 244, Strand, London.
THE OrENING OF THE NEW FISHMONGERS'
ALMSHOUSES AT WANDSWOETH.--This ceremony took place
yesterday afternoon, in the presence of the Rev. Joseph Ed-
wards, M A., one of the Masters of Ring's College, and chap-
lain of St. Peter's Hospital, but. commonly known as the
Fishmongers' Almshouses, Jainto Weston, Esq., the second
warden—and who officiated in the absence of Sir John
Easthope, the prime warden - tie! Court and Livery. Divine
service was then performed in the chapel by the rev. chap-
Nil. The Wardens and Livery, accompanied by Mr. Towse,
their clerk, proceeded to visit the domiciles of the pensioners
of which they expressed their unqualified approbation, and
authorised Mr. Towse to distril rate to each pensioner the
gratuity of ss„ After this their returned to Fishmongers'
Hall ; previously, however, parts ling of a cold collection in
the principal hall.