The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-23 00:00:00

THE BUN, LONDOT-41 SATURDAY EVENING° STINE; 22, 1146()3

It was then t breach of privilege to publish the
debates, whereas now the press was officially recognised in
that house, and reported the proceedings with an accuracy
expedition, and fidelity which were the envy and admiration
of surrounding nations. Strangers now were admitted to the
galleries, and were no longer removed during divisions. For-
merly the members did not leave the house, but di-
vided to right and left of the chair, and were counted
by two gentlemen, and it was a breach of privilege
to publish anything in relation to the division. But now
the votes and proceedings of the House of Commons
were published to the world, and the House of Lords had a
copy of those proceedings on their table, and openly referred
to them—(" hear, hear," from Mr. Bright)—and discussed
them in their debates. The House of Commons, or the
country, if they wished to know anything that had taken
place in the other house, were obliged to appoint a commit-
tee to search their journals, tbough it was true the minutes
'of the Lords' proceedings were in the library, where they
were of no use whatever. He thought it would tend mate-
rially to the despatch of public business if these were offi-
cially laid on the table of the house, and if bon. members
possessed the power of referring to them.
Lord PALMERSTON—My hon. friend will recollect that
there are two sources from which documents are received on
which any action by this house can take place. One of
these is from the Crown when papers are presented by com-
mand or are officially laid on the table; the other source is
when they are furnished in obedience to the order of this
house for the production of certain documents. The pro-
ceedings entered in the journals of the House of Lords are
not in the possession of the Crown, which has no more cog •
nisance of them than we have, and therefore cannot order
any responsible Minister to lay these papers on the table of
this house. I apprehend it would be contrary to all the re-
' ciprocal usages and mutual privileges of the two houses for
either to order the other to furnish its proceedings. (Hear.)
Therefore, in nei her of these modes, which I imagine are
the only channels by which official records reach us, can
the proceedings of the House of Lords be laid on our table.
But my hon. friend is probably aware that by reciprocal
courtesy the minutes of each house are commu-
nicated to the other. About 16 copies of the proceed-
ings of_the House of Lords are daily transmitted to this
house—one copy for the library and the others for distri-
bution to different officers, and it will be perfectly easy
if it should be thought more convenient to have one copy
laid upon the table, instead of in the library. (Hear, hear•.)
It is quite true, as my hon. friend says, that the House of
Lords have founded resolutions of their own on the records
ofthis house, which were laid upon their table, and we might
undoubtedly pursue the same course. But, generally speak-
ing, I apprehend—and you, Mr. Speaker, will correct me if
lam wrong—it is not the habit of the House of Commons
to found proceedings except on documents that are officially
in our possession. (Hear, hear.) My hon. friend says the
proceedings of the House of Lords are well known to every-
body, from being reported in the newspapers, and that no
doubt can exist as to what has taken place. But that re-
mark applies much more extensively than to the proceedings
of the House of Lords. There are various matters of which
all of us have psrsonal cognisance, events of public noto-
riety, which are recorded in the newspapers; but with re-
gard to these before any formal act of this house can be
taken we require to have some written document officially
and responsibly put on the table, either invanswer to an ad-
dress from the Crown or by the order of the house, directed
to those persons who are bound to obey oar directions. I
therefore very much doubt—even if an arrangement could
be made by which one copy of the proceedings of the House
of Lords would be laid on our table, either instead of or -in
addition to that already in the library—whether the house
would be disposed to snake it a foundation for any serious
measure. (Hear, hear.) I think it would be a departure
from our ordinary course, and I confess I do not quite per-
ceive the value of the difference which it would produce on
our proceedings. My hon. friend says we ought to dis-
pense with the formal appointment of a committee to
search the journals of the Lords. But that course is a very
easy one ; there is no difficulty in the way ; it is a question
merely of a short period of time, and I do not see that we
should gain anything in point of expedition by sub.
stituting for the authentic report of the committee a copy
of the journals of the House of Lords. On the contrary, I
think the step would lose some portion of its weight ; for,
although everybody would know that the printed paper
was an accurate transcript of the minutes of proceedings in
the other house, yet, as a foundation for legislative action,
I think it would be more satisfactory to have the extract
taken from the journals themselves. Having stated what
the practice is, I apprehend, Mr. Speaker, there will be no
difficulty, under your directions, in having a copy of the
minutes of the House of Lords placed on the table of this
house, for the information of members, in addition to that
which may be consulted in the Usury. I think the house,
probably, will be disposed to leave the matter in your hands,
and will feel that you will make such an arrangement as
may be satisfactory to all. (Hear.)

Powers of Europe shall be consulted is to be carried into
effect."

Now, I wish the house to bear in mind that from the date
of that despatch—the 6th of March—to the 21st cf June,
no answer to that question, with respect to which the noble
lord expressed a wish an explanation should bo obtained by
Lord Cowley, has been returned. (Hear.) That is, I con-
tend, a very lax way of conducting the foreign affairs of
the country---•(cheers)—particularly in reference to a ques-
tion affecting in so important a degree a State whose neu-
trality England as well as the six other great Powers of
Europe had guaranteed. (Hear, hear.) I will not at the
present moment enter into a full consideration of this ques-
tion, because I believe we shall at a future time be fur-
nished with an opportunity of having with respect to it
ample discussion. I cannot, however, allow this day to
pass without entering, in the name, I will not say of Swit-
zerland, but of every man who is desirous of seeing the
principles of honour observed in the conduct of public
affairs, my protest against the policy which the Emperor
of the French has in this matter pursued. (Hear, hear.)
We must recollect that not only was the neutrality of
Switzerland guaranteed by the great Powers, but that it
was distinctly laid down no troops whatever should enter

into the neutralised province of Savoy, whereas, under pre-
sent circumstances, not only are there troops at Chambery,
but the Pont Beauvoisin, St. Jean de Maurienne, Albert-
ville, aid Moutiers will forthwith receive detachments.
(Hear.) On the other hand, troops are going to Annecy,
which is situated in the neutralised provinces. The garrison
of Annecy will furbish detachments to Thonon and Evian,
on the Lake of Geneva, in the Chablais, at Bonneville in
Faucigny, and St. Julien in the Genevois, so that you will
have troops in that very district in which their maintenance
is strictly opposed to treaty engagements and inconsistent
with the due protection of Switzerland. (Cheers.) I would
ask the house, in dealing with this question, not to lose
sight of the important fact that the King of Sardinia, when
the treaty of Turin was framed, base and iniquitous as it
was on his part to sacrifice what I may call the berceau of
of his family, distinctly stated that, although he assented
to the ce-sion of Savoy to France, yet Sardinia reserved to
Switzerland her co •operation in the steps to be taken on
the subject of the neutralised provinces. (Hear.) Now,
without entering more at length into the question, I main-
tain that Switzerland has not been consulted in this matter,
and that if the Government of this country have been con-
sulted they have given an opinion with respect to it without
the consent of the House of Commons. I believe lamin a
position to state positively, and upon high and important
authority, that in the month of February an offer was made
to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the effect that France
was prepared to cede those portions of territory adjoining
the Lake of Geneva, in the hope that by means of that pro-
posal arrangements might Le quietly made for the cession
of the rest " Now, the cession of Nice and Lower Savoy to
France is a matter which perhaps does not materially affect
us. One Power may cede to another, there being a
mutual understanding on the subject, a portion of her ter-
ritory without an infringement of the law of nations, but
when such a course is taken with respect to a territory whose
neutrality has been guaranteed by seven Powers of Europe,
in a most sacred and solemn manner, as is tho case with
Faucigny, Chablais, and Genevois—l say f is degrading
to the councils of this country, and an insult o the charac-
ter of England, to allow such a policy to be carried out
without entering against it a determined protest in the
name of the English people. (Cheers.) I hope the noble
lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs will be able to stand
up in his place to-night and to state that he has received
no communication such as that to which I have alluded—
but, in orthr to refresh his memory on the matter—(a
laugh)—l would refer him to a despatch written by Lord
Cowley on the 9th of February, in which he distinctly tells
the noble lord that the Emperor of the French is prepared
to cede the territory in question, in the hope that the an-
nexation of Savoy and Nice might be amicably arranged.
I regret that I have felt it to be my duty to trouble the
house with these observations—(hear)—but, as hon. mem-
bers aro probably aware, I have been recently in the loca-
lity of which I am speaking, and I can assure those who
have not, that we in this country can scarcely realise the
feeling of the inhabitants of those provinces when they see
an enemy at their gates, and their rights and liberties being
wrested from their grasp. (Hear, hear.) These people
are brave and love freedom. They are anxious to enjoy
the popular institutions which they have, but they know
perfectly well, from the teachings and experience of his-
tory, that the progress of France on that side of Geneva is
fatal to their aspirations, and that if she once obtains pos-
session of the Lake of Geneva the independence and in-
tegrity of the Confederation will be greatly endangered, if
not absolutely and immanently annihilated. (Hear, hear.)
It was only last night that I saw at a meeting in the city
of London the whole colony of Swiss over here, I myself
perhaps being the only Englishman who was present on
the occasion, and I can assure the house I could not help
responding from my heart to the sentiments which ani-
mated those men when they saw the standard of Switzer-
land floating over the chair of the president, and heard
from the lips of their Minister that the greatest danger
threatened their country. (Cheers.) I could not, I repeat,
help feeling from my soul the greatest sympathy with those
men—Sayoyards and Swiss—whose rights are now, to my
mind permanently menaced by the cruel hypocrisy of
France. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. SCULLY, referring to the proclamation or police
notice, whichever it might be, which had been recently
issued by the Government in Ireland, said he had been
asked whether it was illegal to subscribe for certain pur-
poses, and ho had mentioned the name of the noble lord at
head of the Government as an authority that the best way
to obey the law was to break it, inasmuch as he had heard
the noble lord state that he had formerly subscribed to-
wards the prosecution of a revolutionary movement in a
foreign State—Greece—a proceeding which the right bon.
gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, after
what fell from him in that house, must regard as a breach
of the law. (A. laugh.) When he was lately applied to in
Ireland for advice in a similar instance, he said he never
advised a breach of the law ; but as the noble lord had
stated that ho had broken the law without being prose-
cuted, perhaps they would follow his example. (A. laugh.)
He told the parties, however, to be sure not to quote him
as their adviser. (Laughter and cries of " Question I")
He had a question on the paper which he wished to put to
the Attorney-General for Ireland. Before putting it, how-
ever, he would say, with reference to the question of the
hon. member for Finsbury, that he could see no possible
objection to the proceedings of the House of Lords being
laid on the table daily. He wished, in the next place, to
know how the Rag Committee were getting on. (Oh, oh.)
They did not seem alive at all. (Question.) They were
very mate ; they had now been appointed four or five weeks,
and they had heard nothing of their proceedings. (Ques-
tion.) His question related to the transfer of land in Ire-

land. That was perhaps the most important matter that
had been or could be discussed this session. (Question,
question.) While he made jokes for the amusement of

the house honourable members gave him a very atten-
tive hearing, but the moment he began to talk rational
common sense ho was met with cries of "Question." Ho
would not trouble the house further. (Go en, go on.)
He was in the hands of the house. (Question.) He
would, then, defer discussion till the Attorney-General for
Ireland brought forward his bill. Tfie notice with refer-
ence to that bill bad been on the paper twenty times
at least. (Question.) He did not say this in any unfriendly
spirit to the Attorney-General for Ireland. He knew the
difficulties he had to contend with, having regard to the
business of the Government. (Question.) He would not
ask any question. (Laughter.) He would sit down.
(A. laugh, and Hear.)
Sir J. ACTON wished to know when there would be pro-
duced copies or extracts from the despatches of Mr. Lyons
in 1855, 18.50, and 1857, respecting the Government and
condition of the Roman States ?

Mr. B. COCIIRANE wished to put another question to
the noble lord. On the IGth of February he understood the
noble lord to say that " the Government of which he was a
member would be prepared to maintain the neutrality of
Switzerland ;" and, he added, that the districts of Chablais
and Faueigny were guaranteed under the treaty of Vienna,
and, in fact, he said, " they form part of the guarantees of
the neutrality of Switzerland." He wished to know whether
the noble lord was now prepared to harry out the assurance
be gave on that occasion? (Hear, hear.)

Lord J. RUS SELL—The first question that has been
asked me was put by the hon. gentleman the member for
Devises (Mr. Griffith) with respect 10 the accounts which he
supposes have been received that a Neapolitan frigate had
captured two vessels presumed to be carrying reinforce-
ments to Garibaldi. So far the Government has received
intelligence that two vessels, supposed to lie carrying re-
inforcements to Garibaldi, were captured by a Neapolitan
vessel and carried into Gaeta. But with regard to the fur-
ther question, I can of say whether that capture was
effected by the hoisting of English colours and offering to
tow them into Palermo. I have seen another statement in
the newspapers that it was by hoisting French colours; but
her Majesty's Government have not received any corrobora-
tion of either statement. Of course, if the Neapolitan
frigate used English colours the act was a wholly unjusti-
fiable one. I now, sir, come to the question put by the hon.
baronet (Sir R. Peel). And first, as to his statement, that I
was not here last night t 4 answer questions. I believe lam
generally in the house al►uost every day at a quarter past
4 o'clock. (Hear, hear.) Perhaps the hon. baronet himself
is not here quite so frequently or so punctually as I am.
(Hear, hear.) Every one at all acquainted with the Foreign
Office must know that there are at times questions of con-

sidemble urgency, and which take up time at the very mo-
ment one is preparing to do some other business. (Hear.)
It so happened yesterday, just as I was about to leave the

Foreign-of:lee to cone down to the house, I was consulted
by the Under-Secretary of State on a question of great im-
portance respecting papers to be laid before Parliament,
and I remained discussing the matter with him till past the
hour when questions are generally answered. (Hear.) The
only question that was on the notice paper was that of the
hon. baronet the member for Carlow (Sir J. Acton) who has
just spoken with respect to the correspondence of 1856 and
'67. That was not a very urgent matter, and I desired a
notice to be sent to tha hon. baronet that he might have the
papers if he would move an address to the Crown. The hon.
baronet does not seem to have correctly underatoood that

message; but he may move anyday for papers. It has taken
some time to collect them, being parts of a correspondence

with a former Secretary of State ; but they are now in odor,
and the hon. baronet can have them whenever he likes to
move for them. With regard to the hon. baronet the mem-
ber for Tamworth, I can only say, if he has any question
to ask which he thinks urgent with reference to foreign
affairs, his correct course is to do as other members do, and
to give notice of his intention to put such a question. The
hon. member might have had the courtesy to send me a
note to say that he was going to ask his question, and then
I should certainly have endeavoured to attend in my place
to answer it. (Hear.) Well, omitting all matters relating to
the Conspiracy Bill, which has hardly any bearing on any
subject now before us, it appears that the hon. baronet has
seen a report in the newspapers.tliat a note has been trans-
mitted to us from M. Thouvenel, containing, among other
things, a very strong hint that France would not submit
to any diminution of the territory of which she is now
in possession, viz., Savoy and Nice. Sir, I could
not have answered the hon. baronet, on that
point yesterday, because I had then no knowledge of
any note from M. Thouvenel; but at half-past
three o'clock to-day I saw the French ambassador, and he
placed in my hands a copy of a French note ; and as to
any such intimation as that stated in the newspapers,
namely, that France would not consent to any diminution
of that territory, there is not a word of that kind in the
whole despatch. (Hear, hear.) The purport of the de-
spatch is to this effect :—lt is,stated in the Treaty of Turin
that France will come to an understanding with the other
Powers with respect to the neutralised portions of Savoy;
and, according to the view of the French Government, that
understanding is to be arrived at by endeavouring to recon-
cile the second article of the Treaty of Turin with the 92d
article of the Treaty of Vienna. The French note then pro-
ceeds to say that this may be done in one of these three
modes—either the Powers who signed the Treaty of Vienna
may meet in conference with the French Foreign Minister,
or identical notes may be exchanged, the French note stating
that France is ready to take upon herself the whole of the
obligations by which Sardinia has been bound dining the
time she held Savoy. And here I may mention, in answer
to the question put to mo by the hon. gentleman who spoke
last, that the despatch says that France is ready to make
this neutral territory part of the neutral territory of Switzer-
land in the same manner as Sardinia did. The third
mode would be by leaving it to France and Switzer-
land to effect such a substitution for the former en-
gagements as France and Switzerland might mutually agree
upon. The note then goes on to say that if there should
be a conference, most of the Powers have already said
they think that Paris would be a convenient place in which
to hold it, and that it should meet on the points I have
mentioned. Such is the substance of the note we have
received only to-day; and of course her Majesty's Govern-
ment have not yet answered it. It remains for them to
answer it in such terms as they may think it requires. But
it appears to me the whole question rests upon this—that
the Great Powers of Europe were willing to engage upon a
guarantee for this portion of Savoy being held, like the
other parts of that country, by Sardinia. Sardinia was a
State with whom the Allied Powers were ready to agree upon
such terms, and they might at all events be quite sure, when
they had engaged with Sardinia upon those terms, that Swit-
zerland was safe, and that these obligations would be binding
upon Sardinia. But the case is very much changed when a
great Power like France come into possession of the terri-
tory that was held by Sardinia. (Hear, hear.) And it is
not the same thing—although it is so represented by France,
and although, indeed the words are the same, the technical
engagements exactly the same—for France to say, "We will
undertake to fulfil the obligations of Sardinia, and to place
this neutralised territory in the same position as it stood in
before." (Hear.) That is the answer which we have urged
more than once to this proposal. Really, the hon. baronet,
who speaks frequently and with great ability on these sub-
jects, should endeavour to be more accurate ; because, be
it observed, the engagement of the treaty is not that there
should be no troops at any time in the neutralised provinces.
' On the contrary, the specific engagement is that the Sar-
' dinian troops, in the case of war with the neighbouring
' Powers, shall evacuate this neutralised territory, thereby
implying very clearly that during peace the Sardinian troops
are at liberty to occupy it. This, therefore, is the position
of the question. We have an opinion—and it is a very
decided opinion—as to the mode in which, supposing France
to have obtained, as she has done already, the cession of
Savoy, a substitute should be provided which would, as I
believe, be an efficient substitute, and one that would be
satisfactory to Switzerland, for the engagements which have
hitherto subsisted. But lam sorry to say that at no time in
any of our discussions has France shown any disposition to
adopt that substitute which seems to us to be the only one
which would be an equivalent, in point of efficiency, to the
security which the treaty of 1815 created. It would be
impossible for us, therefore, to state that we shall be satis-
fied with or shall accept this treaty as affording an' equi-
valent security to Switzerland for that which she has pre-
viously enjoyed. (Hear, hear.) I don't know whether
the bon. baronet really means to say that we should not
have given any opinion on the subject without obtaining the
sanction of this house—(" No, no," from Sir R. Peel)—
but that is not the usual way of carrying on such correspon-
dence. Tho Cabinet must obtain the consent of the Crown
to such despatches and communications as they may feel it
their duty to prepare, and on afterwards presenting the
papers to this house their authors must submit to any
opinion which the house may think fit to pass upon them.
Iu this case the papers are rather voluminous; but I hope
very soon to place at least a portion of them, bringing the
correspondence down to this time, upon the table. For
France having now, according to her own view, accom-
plished the annexation, and French authorities and French
troops having taken possession of Savoy and Nice, as far as
that point is concerned we have at length reached the stage
at which it is fitting to produce to this house the correspon-
dence which has passed on the subject. With respect to
the offer to which the hon. baronet alludes —viz., that
the French Government would give up Chablais and Fau-
cigny if we would consent to the cession cf the rest of
Savoy to France, I can only say that the French Govern-
ment has never made any such offer to the British Govern-
ment. (Hear, hoar.) Ido not think it would have been
becoming in us to accept it if such an offer had been
made to us. But what took place was that in the early
part of February the Emperor of the French and his Mini-
sters declared that they were ready to yield Chablais and
Faucigny to Switzerland. But in a very short time after-
wards the Emperor declared to a deputation who went to
Paris that he should not consent to what he called the
dismemberment of Savoy, and that Chablais and Faucigny
could not be separated from the other provinces. Lord
Cowley spoke to the French Minister for Foreign Affairs on
the subject, and was told that the Emperor had been willing
f the population of these territories had consented to such
an arrangement—to cede them to Switzerland ; but that
there had been such a strong disinclination, and repugnance
even, evinced to being parted from the rest of Savoy that
the Emperor found himself obliged not to proceed with that
cession. (A. laugh.) Lord Cowley likewise said, he did
not think that the engagement to come to an understanding
with the Powers of Europe had been fulfilled. M. Thou-
venel stated that he thought Lord Cowley was not very
reasonable, that all the other Powers of Europe seemed to
think the despatches which had been written by France
were satisfactory on that point, and that the engagement
had been fulfilled. I have now answered the question of
the hon. baronet. The hon. baronet, always presuming
upon certain facts without ascertaining whether they are
correct, goes on to make some comments. He 'says that, if
the French Government have made a communication to us
in the terms whit h he has seen in the newspapers, it is very
insulting to the British Government and ought to be pro-
tested against. But, as he is wrong in his facts, his infer-
ences fall to the ground with them. The remaining ques-
tion for the Government to consider I must say amounts to
little more than this :—how we can best use our influence
to maintain the neutrality of Switzerland, and whether
there be any terms which Switzerland is likely to accept
----that can now be proposed. But if there be no such terms
if France offers nothing further than that she will under-
take the same engagements towards Switzerland and to-
wards Europe which were undertaken by Sardinia, her
Majesty's Government can only say—and they will say so
in the strongest and most formal manner—that they do not
think the engagements of the 92d article of the Treaty of
Vienna and the 2d article of the Treaty of Turin can in
that way be reconciled. (Hear, hoar.)

CEYLON RAILWAY.
Sir NV. GALL\VEY gave notice that on an early day he
would ask a series of questions respecting the Ceylon
Railway.

GAME LICENCES.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER intimated
that if the price to be paid for game licences was to be con-
sidered, it must be done on Monday night at eleven o'clock,
the Bankruptcy Bill occupying the rest of the evening.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
The motion for the adjournment of the house at its rising
until Monday was then agreed to.
SAVINGS' BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES
INVESTMENTS BILL.

' On the motion that the house do resolve itself into a
committee on this bill,
Sir 11. 'WILLOUGHBY called the attention of the
house to that portion of the report of the select committee
on savings banks, the 19th day of July, 11:58, which re-
lated to the investments of the moneys of the savings
banks, and specially to No. 10, p. 21, " That no sales, pur-
chases, or exchanges of stocks or securities held by the
commission shall be made, except as required for the pur-
poses of the savings banks, and that no funding of the
Exchequer-bills held by the commission, shall in future be
made without the authority of a special act of Parliament."
The provisions of this bill were in direct opposition to the
report of the select committee. The suggestions of the
committee were very clear, and might be summed up under
two heads, that there should be a bona fide commission of
five gentlemen, namely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
the Governor of the Bank of England, and three other
persons appointed by the Crown, of whom one should be
paid, and that the whole of the savings' banks money
should be treated as a trust, and that the finance minister
shculd not have the power of operating upon any portion of
the funds without the authority of the act of Parliament.
At the present moment the savings' banks money wa■
about £41,800,000, and the deficiency of the assets of the
entire fund was three millions and a half. The view which
Vie trustees and managers of banks took of this bill was,
that they wished the fund placed in a bona fide condition,

and to be treated as trust funds. (Hear heat..) The deficit
began in 1828, and had gone on increasing since. He
wished to call the attention of the house to the existing
state of the law. It had been stated that the trustees and
managers of banks had no interest in this money after it
had found its way to the bank. lie (Sir 11. Willoughby)
could not concur in the statement of the right hon. gentle-
man that they had no interest in the good management of
their funds. At any rate they had an interest that the rate
of interest should not be lowered. By the provisions of the
present bill a very important power would be given to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. He maintained that they
should not place such great and extensive powers as this
bill would place in the hands either of a finance Minister,
or of an ex-officio commission. Could anything be more
unwise, mere contrary to common sense, than to trust such
power to a commission composed of the Chief Baron of the
Exchequer, the Accountant-General of the Court of Chan-
cery, and the Master of the Rolls, when it was well known
that those financial operations were carried on by some other
party ? He must say also, it was not right to place a power
over millions of the people's money under the control of a
Minister of Finance. He found that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had bought and sold out millions of the public
stock, for doing which he (Sir H. Willoughby) ventured to
say he had no power whatever. Were they prepared to vote
that the Finance Ministers of the day should have the
power to go into the Stock Market secretly and silently and
buy and sell to the extent of millions of the public moneyl,
without the house knowing anything of it? But above all,
he should advise the house not to entrust that power to such
a commission as he had referred to ; and if it were to be
placed in the hands of a commission at all, he should like
to see it placed in one composed of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, the Governor of the Bank of England, and
three others recommended by the Government. The
commission which considered the question recommended
that. He might refer to former years, as for instance to
1844, when the most extensive operations' wore carried out
on the Stock Exchange in the moneys in the savings banks
without any knowledge of them by this house until long
after. According to the evidence of Lord Monteagle,
extensive transactions to the amount of millions had been
carried on in the market, in the money in the funded debt ;
and it further appeared that the commission had gone so far
as to add anewto the debt an amount exceeding £2,500,000.
The funded stock in the country was about 436,000,000,
and as he understood the right hon. gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer was going to write, off £31,000,000
of stock, .and that for that stock he proposed to pay an
interest of three per cent. Now, he considered that it was
a very arbitrary proceeding to thus seize upon the money
in the savings banks. (Hear, hear.) There was also a sum
of twelve millions of money which, by the 4th clause,
would be in the power of the Finance Minister. The pro-
visions of that clause gave him power to buy and sell,
dealing in that money which was the property of the public
creditor. He considered that no such power should be
given him as that of selling stock and bills, for the pur-
pose of buying other stock and bills, and the sooner that
power was taken away from the Finance Minister the bet-
ter it would be for the depositors in savings banks, and for
the payers of taxes. (Hear.) There was not a shadow of
doubt that a bona fide commission ,would be the best to be
armed with a power to deal with those funds, which were
trust funds. (Hear, hear.) He had gone laboriously through
the effect of the operations between the years 1828 and 1844,
and had come to the conclusion that they had made a loss
of £120,000.
Mr. HANK EY said that in his opinion this bill was not
the proper mode of legislating upon this question, in refer-
ence to which it unsettled a great deal and settled nothing.
The object of the bill was certainly correct enough—to pro-
vide a fund to secure at all times the payment of deposits.
On that score, however, the bill was quite uncalled for, for
the deposits were perfectly secure. To carry the object out
the Chancellor of the Exchequer cancelled a certain amount
of stock, and then created a book debt. That was certainly
a novel proceeding. The only means by which it could be
attained was to provide an indisputable security, so that
the money should always be forthcoming, and that we
should not have to pay too high a rate of interest for it.
The great point was to reduce the expenses of management,
and to provide for theinterest when due. (Hear.) The can-
celling of a portion of the debt would no doubt settle it, but
the book debt should be equal to it in amount, and not
merely to a portion of it. By the bill, as had just been
pointed out by the hon. baronet opposite, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer would have control over the difference, and
that was objectionable. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer
requested the Commissioners for the Reduction of the Na-
tional Debt to invest money in the stocks he referred to,
they would do so, and a savingmight be effected from it, but
ho did not see where the saving was to come from at present.
The creation of a funded debt was objectionable, for it might
go on ad infinitum, whereas Exchequer bills must be met at
a given time, and so come regularly under the notice of the
house. The power which the Chancellor of the Exc' equer
retained over those stocks, and his being in a position to
" rig the market," was highly objectionable. It would
have been far better for him to have gone into the market,
and to have borrowed money on his Exchequer bills, and
pay a little more for his money for a short time. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer appeared to him to be determined
to ignore the labours and results of the committee which
sat in 1858. Nor did he rigidly fulfil the principle of a
trustee. He did not make those remarks in any unkind
spir.t towards the right hon. gentleman personally, and in-
deed, though he disapproved of the bill, he would say that
he at least deserved credit for being the first Chancellor of
the Exchequer who, for years past, had brought a savings
banks bill under discussion. He objected to the bill pro-
posed because it did not deal with savings as trust pro.
perty, and because it did not create a sufficient charge upon
the Consolidated Fund to pay the stipulated interests.
Mr. S. ESTCOURT said that, having been chairman of
a committee on savings banks which sat in 1858, and paid
great attention to the subject, he hoped the house would
allow him to say a few words upon the subject. He was
willing to believe that the right honourable gentleman
did not intend any digcourtesy to that or the other com-
mittees, because he said that their recommendations sub-
stantially received effect in the provisions of the bill.
Three or four bills had been introduced on this subject at
various times, but they only threw doubts on what was
before clear, and were rather a prejudice • than a support
to those excellent institutions. He had hoped, therefore,
that we might have a good bill, the path to which cer-
tainly had been in some degree smoothed by the inquiries
of the committee to which he had referred. When he saw
the present bill, however, he 'confessed he experienced a
considerable disappointment. It contained several serious
defects, among which might be mentioned this—that it
dealt with only the portion of a subject which ought not to
be dealt with piecemeal; for, if they dealt .I.'y m ;tit invest-
ments, as was proposed by it, Nell at chance was their of hav-
ing this question settled 1:_; a mature bill ? (liter.) His first
and greatest objection to the bill was, that it dealt with the
question of investment only, and left entirely untouched all
those other important questions in which the managers and
trustees of savings banks took so deep an interest.
Bud the right hon. gentleman had said, the committee, of
which he (Mr. Estcourt) was the chairman, did not make
any recommendations upon these questions in their report.
Why, the committee had dealt with tfietn in the only way
they could. They suggested the appointment of a commis-
sion, with power to give assistance and information to the
managers of savings banks, upon every point on which
there were doubts and difficulties. They proposed that the
three commissioners, in addition to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England,
should be empowered to frame regulations as to the mode
in which accounts should be kept and audited, and generally
to introduce a uniform and responsible system of manage-
ment throughout the country. Among other deeply inte-
resting questions which had been under their consideration,
and which were left wholly untouched by this bill, he might
mention the enforcement of an audit, the uniformity of ac-
counts, the investments by minors, the best means of pre-
venting defalcations, the determining in what manner the
usefulness of savings banks could be extended, by the adop-
tion, for instance, of such plans as tl.at proposed for giving
facilities for depositing money in the post offices. These, and
others enumerated in the 14th resolution of the committee's
report, were omitted in this bill, and believing that if it
passed in its present shape they would not have another op
portunity of dealing with them, ho should prefer that the
whole question should stand over until it could be fully dealt
with. (Hear, hear.) With respect to the main object of
the bill, the mode in which it was proposed in future to deal
with the funds of the savings banks in the hands of the
Government, he fully concurred with the views so ably ex-
pressed by his hon. friend the member for Evesham. 'rue
main principle of the bill was to convert the funds now in-
vested in various stocks into what the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer called a " book debt," upon which a fixed and cer-
tain amount of interest was to be paid. For his own part,
he did not see how that alteration would tend to prevent the
losses which the Government had experienced under the
present system, in consequence of the variation in the price
of stocks. When any large demand was made upon them,
they would be obliged to sell at the price of the day, and
according to that necessity they would either gain or lose
The fact then was, the bill would create a fixed and per-

manent interest, to be paid by the Government on the debt,
while the interest accruing from the investments of the de •
posits would be continually varying. He therefore could
not see how the Government would gain one sixpence by
this bill. He was sorry that the right hon. g ntleman had
brought forward the subject in its present, shape, and he
nrifeh:evvor,et-heearseY
must give his vote against the bill. It was introducing a
and by
new system, it gave no additional security, and it only dealt
with a part of the question, whereas it should be dealt with
as a whole. If they did not take this opportunity of so
dealing with all those matters which had been the subject
of complaint by the country for some years past,
which the operations of the banks had been circumscribed,
they would never again have the same chance of settling the
footing—rendering them
question upon this
to establish, much safer when established, and exterdin&
their benefits over a wader area. (Hear, hear.) He said °
wider area, for he believed there were only 600 savings
banks in the kingdom, whereas, according to his •
should be a bank in every village. (Hear.)

Colonel SYKES regretted that no attention had been
paid to the recommendations of the committee who had
vestigated and reported upon this subject. "Where was
the use of having gentlemen making such an inquiry if the
house'paid no attention to their recommendations ? lie

hoped that something would be done to give effect to their
recommendations.

Mr. 111 LINS thought the' savings banks funds should
be regarded as trust fhnds, and that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer should not be permitted to use those funds to go
into the market and buy up Exchequer Bills there at a dis-
count, thereby "rigging" the marketand giving a fictitious
value to that description of stock. He would ask the house
if it was right to allow those funds to be used for such a
purpose ? That which would not be right in private trans-
actions ought not to be tolerated on the part of a public func-
tionary. There also, he thought, should be a body of com-
missioners appointed as trustees to this national fund, who
would be able to devote their time to this important duty.
(Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
right hon. gentleman the member for Wiltshire complained
that savings banks were not properly regulated. He (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) admitted this, but the question
was as to the mode in which it could be done. But on the
22d of June, when the house was overloadel with business,
was it fair to ask the Government to solve all the difficult
problems connected with this intricate subject. When a
committee had been moved for on this subjeet it was un •
derstood that the management of savings banks was to
be the subject of consideration, but their report referred
only to the financial dealings of the money invested in
those savings banks, while no reference whatever was
made to the management of those banks, nor was
any one of the five Chancellors of the Exchequer summoned
to give their opinions before that committee. He, there-
fore, did not think that the report of the committee was en-
titled to the respect which an hon. gentleman supposed.
Lord Monteaglo was Chancellor of the Exchequer 24 years
ago, and yet he was not asked by the committee to give any
opinion. Sir Alexander Spearman had been referred to, and
although an able man he was not a responsible officer, and
the committee should have asked the opinion of men who
held responsible positions in connection with financial mat-
ters. The question was this, were they to be considered as
trustees or bankers. If in the former character they must
act with reasonable discretion, but he doubted if it was pos-
sible to place themselves in the character of trustees. The
sums in the savings banks were by law the property of the
Commissioners of the National Debt, and if they were to
make these funds the property of the depositors, the depo-
sitors would be liable to the fluctuations of the rise. and fall
of the funds. The assets in the hands of the Commissioners
of the National Debt were less than the amount of the liabi-
lities, and it would be a breach of public faith if they trans-
ferred the powers of the National Debt Commissioners to a
new commission. Further, ho would say that the mana-
gers of the savings banks should not be held liable for the
funds in the bank. The present commission was analogous
to, many other commissions which Parliament had thought
fit to constitute, where the responsibility was fixed upon
the adviser of the Crown to whose department the matter
belonged. There was not a power given by the bill at all,
except one or two provisions of which no notice had been
taken ; because, in point of fact, they were altogether minor
provisions. At the same time, many powers were with-
drawn from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A large
portion of the stocks at present under the control of the
Chancellor k f the Exchequer were placed by the bill en-
tirely beyond his control. He would not enter fur-
ther into the particulars of the bill except to re-
mind the house of what were its objects. At the
present moment there was no perfect title in law
attached to depositors of savings banks, although they had
a perfect and absolute title in all assets keld by the com-
missioners. The bill proposed to give them a perfect title,
first of all in all assets in the hands of the commissioners,
then in the State deposit account, and thirdly, if necessary,
upon the funds of the State itself. The next object of the
bill was to give a true account of the national debt and to
rectify that account absolutely once in every year. Ho felt
quite sure that the bill would continue to receive the fa-
vourable considera ion of the house through its remaining
stages.
Mr. T. BARING said the right hon. gentleman had
stated that this committee was appointed to the exclusion
of those whe ought to have been members, and complained
that no Chancellor of the Exchequer had been placed on it.
• (The Chancellor of the Exchequer denied that he had said
so.) The fact was the committee was appointed by a col-
league of the right hon. gentleman, and he believed the
Chancellor of the Exchequer was excluded for the reason
that the committee should report in accordance with the
feelings of the house. It was therefore too much for the
right hon. gentleman to throw discredit upon the report of
committees of that house. They wanted to knew whether
these funds were in the hands of the trustees for national
purposes, and he was glad to hear that every depositor was
secure in the deposit of his money. He had Government
security, and that was the best security he could possibly
have. The right hon. gentleman had said that this was a
bill to make things more perfectly secure, but he denied
that such was the case.
Mr. AYRTON said in point of fact the commissioners
had not reported very favourably on this bill, and he was
of opinion that the right hon. gentleman had made a mis-
take. This was scarcely a necessary bill, because, if the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had pledged himself to do
what this clause provided for, that would have been suffi-
cient.
Mr. COLLTNS said the general opinion of the house was
against the bill, and therefore he moved that the house go
into committee on the bill that day three months.
The house dtvided, when the timbers were—
For the motion
For the amendment
Majority
—27
Mr. TURNER defended the committee, of which the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, he regretted to say, had
spoken in rather disparaging terms. The report was ap-
proved of by the leading banks of the country, and there-
fore he hoped he would withdraw the bill.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS hoped the right hon. gentleman
would not withdraw the bill.
The house then went into committee on the bill.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY hoped the point as to the for-
mation of the committee would be discussed now. lie moved
that clauses 1,2, and. 3 should be postponed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER felt dis-
inclined to alter the practice of 40 years. He considered
that the proper way to proceed with the bill would be to
take the clauses in the regular order in which they stood.
It had been said that the country owed £800,000,000, but
the real fact was not that they owed £Boo,ooo,ooo—fee that
was not so—but that they owed a much less amount, and
the object was to secure interest of 3 per cent. upon that.
The course now proposed was only another mode to. effect
the destruction of the bill. (No, no.)

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said the right hon. gentleman
was under a misapprehension in supposing that his object
was to effect the destruction of the bill. His object, au the
contrary, was to establish such a machinery as woulct take
it out a the power of any Chancellor of the Exchequer to
meldle with and deal in the funds in the savings banks
without the consent of the depositors, (Hear, hear.) He
trusted that the house would support him in his amend-
ment to postpone the three clauses in question for further
consideration and discussion.
Sir C. WOOD said the hon. baronet was mistaken in the
view which he had taken of the objects of his right hon.
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Sir C. Wood)
was of opinion that it was not deg]. able to postpone the
clauses, but to take them in the order in which they Atood,
and discuss them clause by clause; and if the course which
his right hon. friend proposed was adopted by the house,
the 'depositors in savings banks would have far better secu-
rity for their deposit than they had ever hitherto had,
namely, the national security for 3 per cent.
Mr. S. ESTCOURT was of opinion that the proposal of
his hon. friend the member for Evesham was right, and he
should support it.
After a few words from the CHANCELLOR of the V,IxciIE-
QUER,

Mr. T. BARING said his hon. friend the member for
Evesham was quite right in saying he would take the serene
of the house on the question of tho postponement of th e

three first clauses, and he hoped his bon. friend wouldprgo
his motion to a division.

After a few words from Sir F. GoLDsm D and Sir H.
WILLOUGHBY, the committed divided—.
FOr the postponement of clause 1 ...... 49
Against it ........ 73
Majority against ....... ....... —24
moTvl:de tChalitAtheCCEhLaiLrm°ann of the
reportproEgrlesCs,HaEndQUastßleaNtehetno
sit again.

s AND a
resumed.
COLLEGE ESTATES BL.
hoouulssterr thenewnE t into committee on this bill, the several
cljlaN:hhus;eVees house
of which were agreed to with slight verbal amend-
ments,
after :which the house resumed, and th lsiTl
.se was
pored.
RAILWAN CHEAP TRAINS, &c., BILL.
This bill was read a second time, and ordered lobe
com-
milted.

The amenTdit,ifelintEs
tCoOtMhillslUbiTllAwTelrOeNfußrtlhLerL.
considered,
and the bill or tiered to be read a third time.
cRINI/ NAL .LuNATic ASYLUMS BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
VOTES ro.'ll, DISQUALIFIED CANDIDATES BILL.
The bill w as read a second time.
REFEES FLMENT lIOUSES AND WINE LICENCES
(SCOTLAND).
The LOiltEl ADVOCATE moved that the resolution re-
ported front the committee of ways and means on the 15th
day of May last be read, and that leave be given to bring
in a bill for granting to her Majesty certain duties on wine
licences and refreshment houses, and for regulating the
licensing a refreshment houses, and the granting of wine
licences ' Scotland.
The moth on was agreed to, and the Lord Advocate after-
wards br( vtNght in the bill, which was read a first time.
The ho u:.° adjourned at a quarter before one oclock.

LONDON :: rintod and Published by MURDO YOUNG-
of No. 112 , Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112,
Strand, iy , the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of
Middle 4 , Saturday, June 23, 1860.