The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-20 00:00:00

MPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF L9RDS—(Tnis EVENING.)
The LORD CHXNCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Several private bills were advanced a stage.
THE SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY.
Lord WYNFORD objected to a private bill, entitled the
London and South-Western (Kingston Extension, &c.)
Bill. He presented a petition from Dorchester, complaining
of certain conduct of the South-Western Company, and
after reading the petition addressed the house at very con-
siderable length, but his speech was purely of local inte-
rest.
A prolonged discussion arose, in which Lord Ebury, the
Earl of Granville, Lord Redesdale, and other noble lords
took part, and the house was
[LEFT SITTING

HOUSE OF COMMONS.--(THIS DAY.I
The SPEAKER took the chair at half-past 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Lords' amendments to the following bills were con
sidered and agreed to :—Aylesbury and Buckingham Rail-
way (by the promoters) ; London, Brighton, and South
Coast Railway (Deviations and New Lines. &c.) • Mid
Sussex and Midhurst Junction Railway Deviation ; Peters-
field Railway ; West End of London and Crystal Palace
Railway ; and Manchester and Milford Railway.
The Galway Harbour (N0..2) Bill was read a second time ;
and on the motion of Mr. C. FORSTER, the following was
agreed to :—That the standing orders be suspended, and
that the bill be referred to the former committee on the
Galway Harbour Bill, with leave te sit and proceed on
Monday next.
SAVINGS BANK AND
ILL FRIENDLY SOCIETIES
B.
The house went into committee on this bill.
On clause 1,
Mr. S. ESTCOURT said he felt bound, from a sense of
duty, to oppose this bill, which he did with pain, as he
considered that this was a measure which should be in
the hands of Government. He objected to the entire
scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to
the bill, which was fundamentally at variance with the
recommendation of the committee. It was proposed to
deal with the whole stock created by the accumulation of
savings bank depositors for several years, and this stock is
held by Government as a security to local banks in the
same way as any other Government security is held in
reference to individuals. It was proposed also to
cancel stock to the amount, in round numbers,
of £29,000, and the bill had other provisions
which were very objectionable. He repeated the
arguments urged against the bill on the second read-
ing, and contended that all the objects proposed by Govern-
ment would be effected without the creation of a book debt,
as proposed by the bill. The matter involved was not a
mere savings bank question, but a question of public policy,
nd though he had carefully studied the subject he was
satisfied that the evils would exceed any advantages re-
sulting from the measure. He concluded by moving the
omission of the clause.
Mr. BRISCOE considered that if the Chancellor of the
Exchequer required money he should obtain it constitution-
ally, and not employ for State purposes the money confided
to his custody. He thought Government should not be
tempted to use such money for financial operations, but that
they should regard it entirely as trust property.
Mr. HUBBARD said if this bill were introduced simply
to confirm the rights of depositors with reference to money
deposited in savings banks, it was unnecessary, because at
present Government were obliged to return the money to
the depositors. But he considered it went further, and
proposed to simplify, amend, and improve the management
of savings banks with respect to the money in the hands of
Government. As regarded the objection of the hon. member
(Mr. Estcourt) in reference to the creation of book debts, he
drew attention to the fact that on the books of the Bank of
England would be found an item of £11,000,000 from Go..
vernment, and that was considered as good a debt as any
other security of Government, although nothing more
than a book debt. He strongly deprecated the use of the
money of savings banks for the purposes of financial in-
trigue, and he thought such a practice would be most dis-
advantageous to the interests of a Government. He also
strongly objected to the clause which gave the Chancellor
of the Exchequer the power to create a new stock, but
he denied that the bill was open to other objections which
had been advanced against it. If the Chancellor of the
Exchequer wished to have the money deposited in
Savings' Banks for financial operations, he would not
have introduced the present bill which frustrated any such
intention, if it were ever entertained. He was aware that
the measure was unpopular out of doors, but he had exa-
mined the roveral petitions against it which were all one-
sided, and were not really directed against its essence,
being founded on an entire misapprehension. He concluded
by expreseing his approval of the bill generally,
Mr. HENLEY asked who wanted this bill—had any •
one petitioned from any quarter for any bill of the kind ?
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer chose to waste the money
of the savings banks, or to do what he liked with it, the
country would be pledged to pay the money so expended.
Now, he did not think that the present bill made any al •
teration on that point. The committee who had investi-
gated this subject and the public had every strong feeling as
to the question of jobbing, and there was but one view out
of Parliament on the bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the effect of this bill, as it stood, was to enlarge the income
of the savings bank fund, and to provide for its further
extension. That increase, after some years, would amount
to no legs than £40,000 or £50,000, and when they came to
the consideration of another part of the bill, it would be
seen that the extension of the income would be effected.
The fact was that the opposition to the bill arose from persons
who were interested in the continuance of the present sys-
tem. He alluded to those officers of savings banks who did
not wish this bill, as it tended to diminish the amount ap-
plicable to building and other purposes in no way benefi-
cial to the interests of the public. They saw handsome
houses built for savings banks throughout the country.
which were used only two hours a day for business, and
occupied by the officers he described, who doubtless
did not desire to be deprived of such agreeable
residences. It was with these officers that the
petition against the bill originated, and he denied
that there was any hostility to the measure on the part of
depositors. The state of the case was simply this :—The
moral obligation of the country was full and absolute te
return the savings banks both principal and interest, which
was recorded 1u acts. of Parliament ; but there wasve ef no leect
gal
machinery to enable the Government to gi
extreme
f
to that obligation. If they supposed the
case that all the savings banks required their
money at the same time, the Government would
not be in a position to consider its payment. The Com-
missioners of the National Debt had no further power than
merely to realise their assets and hand them over towards
making up any deficiency, but by this bill the whole fun
bor-
ds
of the country would be answerable for any
money
rowed from savings banks. It was admitted that there
was a deficiency between liabilities and assets at present
which by this bill it was proposed to recover. The
deficiency to be dealt with amounted to £3,500,000 which
had to be filled up, and he did not consider that he was
justified in asking the public to assume that burden, in
addition to those heavy burdens under which it was at
furthee observatione ia aupport of the bill.
preeent labouring, The right hon.
Mr. ILtemey opposed, spud sir F. BARING supported the
bill.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said that the Chancellor of the
gentleman made some
Exchequer had described tbs Government as a banker in
regard to the fund now in question, but it assumed far
more extensive powers than those exercised by any
oter
banker in the kingdom. By the bill the Chancellor of the
ost
Exchequer had a right to change the securities, and a m
important innovation was attempted to be introduced. He
concluded by expressing a hope that the committee would
reject the clause.
After a few words from Colonel SIKES against the bill,
the committee divided—
For the clause ........................ 78,
Againet ........................ • • ... 11 8%
.. —33
Majori. .................
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, I
have only to move that you leave the chair, as the loss of
the first clause entirely destroys the bill.
(Cheers frora tp
The Chairman then loft the chair and the house resumed,
Opposition benches.)
but immediately went into committee.
REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENSES
(IRELAND) BILL,
Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive were agreed to.
On clause 6,
Lord NAAS moved an amendment to the effect that the
clause should not apply to night houses of a humble class