The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-21 00:00:00

THE SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY.

On the motion for the third reading of the London and
South-Western Railway (Kingston Railway Extension,
&o.) Bill,
Lord WYNFORD objected to a private bill, entitled the
London and South-Western (Kingston Extension, &c.)
BM. He presented a petition from Dorchester, complaining
of certain conduct of the South-Western Company. The
noble lord contended that the further powers which they
now asked for to make an extension at Kingston ought not
to be granted till some evidence had been given of their in-
tention to fulfil their former undertakings. With the view
of enabling the company to afford an explanation, he begged
to move that the third reading of the Kingston Railway
Extension, &c., Bill be postponed to that day three weeks.

Lord EBURY observed that the construction of the
Kingston Extension Railway was in no way connected with
the completion of a double line to Dorchester. It was a
most unusual course to prevent the formation of a branch
line in one portion of the country, because another branch
in a wholly different direction had not been completed.
Lord TAUNTON thought that when a railway company
did not keep faith with the Legislature, it was very desir-
able that 04e Legislature should keep in its hands the
power of punishing them for this breach of faith. He was
not fully informed, however, whether a breach of faith had
been committed in this instanee.

Lord REDESDALE was of opinion that no breach of
faith had been committed to justify an opposition at so late
a stage as the third reading of this bill.

The Earl of DERBY suggested that the third reading
should at least be postponed for a week, in order to enable
the Board of Trade to receive the return which, they said,
they had sent fora month ago.
Lord WYNFORD modified his amendment to postpone
the third reading until this day fortnight.
Their lordships divided, when the numbers were—
For the third reading 33
Against it
Majority
The bill was then read a third time and passed.
THE ROMAN STATES.

The Marquis of NORMANBY postponed the motion
which stood in his name on the paper, on the subject of the
condition and administration of the Roman States, from
Tuesday next until Monday week.

LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
TITHE COMMUTATION BILL.

Earl DE GREY and RIPON moved that the house go
into committee on this bill.

The Earl of DERBY objected to the powers of compul-
sory redemption given to the commissioners. The principle
was equitable, but its adoption should be left to the option
of the parties interested,
After an explanation by the Earl of RIPON,
The bill passed through committee.
On the report,
Lord REDESDALE objected that clergymen should be
obliged to accept a compromise in cases where the value of
the land was increased by its application to building pur-
poses.

Bill reported.
METROPOLITAN BUILDINGS ACT AMEND-

MENT BILL.

This bill was read a third time and passed.
MINES REGULATION AND INSPECTION BILL,

On the order for the second reading,

Lord RAVENSWORTH presented a petition against
portions of the bill, and was understood to propose an
amendment.

This bill was, however, read a second time.
TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.

This bill was read a second time.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH ACT AMEND.

MENT BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
INCLOSURE (No. 2) BILL.
This bill also passed through committee.
ISLE OF MAN HARBOURS BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
DOMINICA HURRICANE LOAN BILL.

This bill passed the second reading.
ADMIRALTY COURT JURISDICTION BILL.
This bill was also read a second time.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMQNS.—(YESTERDAY.)
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 Smith
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 (No.i2) 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 to sit and proceed on
Monday next.
SAVINGS BANK AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES

BILL.

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,
and 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 tha 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 several 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 expressing 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
e°._ono try would be pledged to pay the money so expended.
Nation
he did not think that the present bill made any al
on that point. The committee who had investi-
geattet_d.7this subject and the public had a very strong feeling as
Parliament
of jobbing, and there was but one view out
of
TPhol nent on. the bill.
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the.effect of this bill, as it stood, was to enlarge the income
of the savings bankfund, and to provide for its further
extension. That increase, after some years, would amount
to no less than ZIO,") or £•)0,000, and when they came to
the consideration of
another of the bill, it would be
seen that the extension of income would be effected.
The fact was that the op position. t the bill arose from persons
who were interested in the continuance of the present sys-
tem.. He alluded to those officers of
tot wish this bill, as it tended to dimsianNisinhgtshbe amount banks who did
ap-
plicadble to building and other Purposes
eial to the interests of the public.
houseil built for savings banks throughout the handsome
The; I:aowway benefi_
country.
which were used only two hours a day fur business, gad
occupied by the officers he described, who doubtless
did 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 *4IOY this :—The