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

THE SUN,

was 8201, and the sum collected was 21. 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. EGEIITON said, the question to be asked of
other towns which might apply tor 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 wore not in the habit of pur-
chasing by telegraph, but by making their selections
themselves in bonded warehouses.
Mr. LA.BOUCHERE admittted that he had 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
he 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 completely
achieved, was accomplished in part; and out of the
struggle which took place came tho Bill which made the
concession to Manchester. Lie could nut admit that the
conduct of the Government on that occasion and on the
Fresent exhibited any inconsistency. His Right Hon.
riend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not said
that he desired to withdraw the privilege granted to
Manchester; on the contrary, if Manchester found the
privileges advantageous he wished her to continue to
enjoy them, but on such conditions as he thought indis-
pensable fur 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should deeply regret to see the privilege withdrawn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
ouuld 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-
ps, done no more than their duty in bringing the sub-
ject forward, but he hoped the rest of the House 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. SPOONER thought the question had been argued
on 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 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 had 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 his 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 sey 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, he said, " All his other objections had passed
away, 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—
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, 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 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 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
how 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 extend the same
measure of relief to the depositors in the late Rochdale,
Scarborough, Tralee, and Killarney Savings Banks
as has been already extended to the depositors
in the late Cuffs-street, Dublin, Savings Bank."
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, comprisirig 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 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
01803 of Killarney or Tralee to distinguish them from
the failure of any other bank The same principle of
justice that was conceded to the Cuffe-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 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 tat 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 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 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 supervise those institutions, wrote a circular to all the
trustees in England and Ireland upon this subject; but
in only one bank in the United Kingdom had that se-
sway bon entered into. It no Mr. Tidd Pratt's duty,

when be 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 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
had taken upon himself to recommend the publicaticu 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
imprission 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 the savings banks at periods when there
were no corresponding demands by drafts upon
the savings banks. An actual loss had thus oc-
eurred 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 3,350,000/. 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 1,750,0001., and the investments made by the
hands of the Commissioners amounted to upwards of
3,000,0004 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 H. 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. He (Mr. Her-
bert) was recently at a distribution of sums subscribed
by the trustees of savings banks in Munster-17,0001.
Ile 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 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.
He (Mr. S. (7rawtord) 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-
teuded 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 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
1344 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
he was receiving additional jinformation on the subject
every day. The prineiples of the measure which he con-
templated was the appointment by the Government of
a treasurer who should be responsible for the money ho
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 ho was in a posi-
tion to bring in the Bill ho would do so.
Mr. REYNOLDS protested against the vote of
30,0001. which was granted to the Cuffo-street Savings
Bank being regarded as an act of charity; it was but a
partial act of jusfice 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
i of it, he must say that the Hon.
Member for Kerry, n limiting his demand to 10s. in the
pound,
was compromising a good cause. He should de-
mand payment in full.
Mr. BRIGHT said that some regard should he paid to
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 Hous©, and
appeal to the generosity of the
country,
.and. ho 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 he 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 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
, in oases of thin kind, there was no telling where to stop.

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 et certain periods.
Mr. SLANEY said ho had never voted on a more
painful question than the present. He thought the
Hon. Member for Berry 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 of agency on its part.

Mr. J. A. SMITH could not regard this case in the
light iu 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 carrying 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 ...
Against it ...

... 56
... 63

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.

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 Montagu Cholmeley against.