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

MPEItIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(Tms DAY.)

Tho 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, dm) ; Mid
Sussex and Midhuret Junction Railway Deviation ; Peters-
field Railway ; West End of London and Crystal Palace
Railway ; and Manchester and Milford Railway.
The Galway Harbour (No. 2) Biil 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,
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 fer financial operation/3, 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 banks4t 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.lEstcourt) in referenceite 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 ad-
vantageous 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 waii 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
country would be pledged to pay the money so expended.
Now, be did not think that the present bill made any al.
teration on that point. Tie committee who had investi-
gated this subject and the public had avery strong feeling as
the question.

[LEFT SPEAKING.'

THE REV. JAMES BONWELL'S CASE.

COURT OF ARCHES.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON V. THE REV. 7A:ISIES BONWELL.