Star.
London, England, 1817-05-17 00:00:00

SA VlNtis BANKS.

On the motion that the Report of the Savings
Banks Bill be recommitted, •
General V-lORNTON expressed the hope that
the Bill would not be allowed to proceed any further;
at all events that the Honourable Mover of it (Mr.
Rose) would withdraw it for the present Sessioli.--
The measure, as it now stood, went to impose an ex-
prise on the public, and to that he could not agree.
Mr. ROSE was surprised at :his opposition. Only
three Petitions had been presented against the Bill,
namely, from the Parishes of St. Paul, Norwich, and
Herelord ; and those Petitioners, he had every reason
to believe, were now satisfied with the Bill.
The Bill was then recommitted, in which the se-
veral blanks were filled up, after remarks from Mr.
LAMB, Mr. PHILLIPS, Mr. BROUGHAM, Sir C. MoxcK,
Mr. Dicstessoo, Mr. HI.:3ICISSON, Mr. G. Rosa, Sir
J. NEWPORT, &c. ch.efly on the mode of securing the
funds of the Saving Banks, some being in favour of
an investiture in the Public Funds, and others for
security in Exchequer Bills.
On the clauses being proposed, which provided
that a bonus should be given to those persons who,
for a certain number of years, shall contribute to
Savings Banks without receiving any pariah relief ;
and to enable Magistrates to order parish relief to
such persons, in case they should be reduced to such
a state as to require it, although they might have an
the Savings Bank a deposit to a certain amount.
Mr. BRAND opposed these dailies, because' he
thought the principle of them objectionable: But
even if it was not allowed that the principle was bad,
it must be allowed that this was not the proper occa.
sion fur such an enactment, as it would cothe'more
regularly under the attention of the. Houae dining.
the discussion on the Report of the Co mMittee lOr the
revision of the Poor Laws.

• Mr. BARCLAY spoke shortly in favour of these
clauses.
Mr. HUSICISSON defended the clauses, on the
ground that they would tend to eticritmige a spirit ot
frugality and industry among the poor. • lie con-
tended that the• only rhtlical remedy for the defects
of the present system of our Poor Laws, WAS to be
found in instilling into the minds ot the lower classes
the necessity of industry and frugality—in teaching
them the means by which' they could look forward
to their future comfort Irony the ssvings•of their pre:
sent wages. It would be with the.utmost regret that
he would see these clauses rejected, because he was
firmly convinced that they 'would have the most•hc-
neticial effects. •

Mr. PHILLIPS spoke against the clauses. If •it
were thought proper to introduce clauses of this kind,
it might be done at some future time. , In the 'pre-
sent (ha they were certainly out of place.
Mr. C. GRANT, jun. thought that•the effect oil
the cliusee would-be; to tro away with the great evil
of the Poor Laws, by making a distillation between
the virtuous and vicious poor.
MY. BROUGHAM said„ that he would consent
to the clause which allowed Magistrittes to. order pa-
rish relief to persons having sums in Saving Banks,
under the circumstances mentioned in the clause. But
as• to the clause which went to the payment of abonus,
out of the Poor Ravi to contributors to Saving. Banks,
who should not have received parish relict tor a cer-
tain time, be objected to it Entirely. Its etf cc was
to divert the Poor Rates to a purpose for which they

ha never yet been applied—name 7, to those On.
were not panperi, and svhn did not weJ relict Ihm •
the parish. On this last clause he was resolved to
Lake the sense nt the Cnmmittee.

Mr. WILBERFORCE spr,ke shortly in favour of
the clause, empowering parish relief to those who
hai a small sum in .a Savings Bank ; but expressed
eoty.iderable doubts as to the other chose respecting
the bonus.

The clause allowing them to receive parocl!ial re.
lief, was then agreed to. The clatt+e for giving
them a premium wal negatived without a division.
The other clauses were agreed to.aad the Report was
ordered to be received on Monday.

CLERGY recstorNcE BILL.
On the motion of Mr. MANNERS SUTTON,
for the House to go into a Cordmittee on this Bill.
Mr. BA BINGTON objected to the general prin.
ciples of the Bill, on the ground that it would not
answer the great end intended by it. It did not ade.
goately provide lc:- the evil of non•residence, and still
left the Cietgy at Vie ra2rcy of the informers. HI!
took a vie wsof the number of- non residents for 4 aeries
of years, and said that he was hippy to find that the
number of residents had mtterially iucrersed within
the Ittst year. He regretted that the P.;11 nil 110 clause
to promote residence ; hut he must leave the retts:dy
to abl.ei heads ; he could n,tt say t!)at he had any
!tom front the B li before the House as to the general
principle.
.•

Sir W. scorr, on seconding the motion f the.
Committee, traced • the regulations respecting rest.
dente from the time of Henry VIII. It was an an.)•
maly, he s lid, to suppose that the administration v'
an Episcopal Clore!) was nut in the hands of the
Bis Lops. The actions hroitg'it by the com:non infor-
mer were nevn received by the law with m.nch cow:
tenance, as they were known to arise frommarce,
partly from farmers, chavine.l ablut t!;eir tith!,.
.ind partly with a view to °train money by fir hint
actions. It was more than ever necessary to invest
Bishops with ihe powers which this Act proposed to
give them, since they had been so much call; tuniated
for not enforcing residence. In a country lite this,-
where there were such a number of poor livings, there
must of necessity be pluralities, and of consewiehce
non-residence. Let us, said the Learned Gentleman,
do the best we can, not theoretically, but according
to existing circumstances, to render the Bill effectual-.
• Lord EBRINGTON contended; that the number
of non•residents had not been materially diminished
by the former. Bill of the Right Honourable and
Learned Gentleman, and Ise'veas afraid that the pre-
sent Bill would be equally ineffectual, 14 placing so
mach power in the bands of the Bishops, of either
enforcing residence or exempting from it. He would
not oppose the Committee, as he was anxinus to hear
their opinion.. •
Mr. DICKENSON said there were not less than
60(X) livings under £BO a year, and therefore how
was it possible to enforce residence t

General THORNTON said, it 11:0 Clergy were
incompetent to enforce residence, the Laity ought to
be called in to•assist them:
The House then went into the Conimittee.•
Mr. MANNERS SU'rfON argued in favour of
the clause for restraining the Clergymen from the oc.
cupation of more than fifty acres, with which quani,
tity he proposed to fill up the blank. - •
Mr. DICKENSON was against this limitation,
the quantity being in some counties 'worth little or
nothing. He would rather propose a compensation
of .itid or 870 a year; than any number of acres. He
proposed, as an amendment, to-fill up the blank with
the value of 4100 per annum.
Colonel WOOD obierve,i, that the Welch ClergY•
men were much alarmed at the clause of the 241 tact
year, for restraining them from farmitift" 'as much.
Land as they pleased. He thought tl,e. clause ut
' just and impolitic. ,
Mr. SU I'TON explained, that the Clergyman was
not cut dostn to the fifty acres, but miglif have :se.
much more land as he could, get a licence for. If
restraint was to exist, a milder one could not be.pos.
tressed than that of this clause.

Mr. WYNNE observed, that the ancient principle
of the law was intended to prevent the Clergy Iron)
making money by engaging in secular affairs. He,
argued in favour of fixing a discretion in•the Bishop.
to restrain any clergyman from renting' !nor- Allah •
i'loo a year. If he rentcd more, it must 'Noire a
degree of attention inconsistent with his clerical duty.
Mr. COURT ENAY thought, if the clause was to
stand, the least objectionable mode would be to
sert ti:ly acres; but he was-rather for omitting it al.-
togeth'e?, because he could not see the evil against,
which it was intended to provide. . _
'Lord MILTON proposed that the clause should
state fifty .acres, 'unless the annual value pl'ffle'llu4
should be under A'loa.a yeir. . •
Sir JOHN NIC,HOLL said, the. while object. of
the clause was to take off, and not to sidd, restraints, - •
and therefore the alarm of the Clergy, as stated .by; •
tire Honourable Colonel; was unfounded.
Dr. I'IIILLIMQ,RE was. infaeSur.of limitation .
tq a certain number of acres ; but objected to that
part of the clause that respected the recovering of'the
penalty, as there was no proviuon for ti.e disposal of •
it. The clause would go to the extent L.t introducing
a new jurisdiction.
Mr. BRAGGE BATI-ITJRST defended theprin-
ciple of allowing the Clergymen ro farm land, Ifit
did not proceed to such an extent. 7is to interfere iiith
his ditties, beyond which it ought not to • Ht:.
agreed that the fifty acres were sufficient. It *as nut
necessary for a Clergyman to oc:upy so much land-
as to luicorrie a farmer.

Mr. DAVENPORT disapproved of the those. .
Sir 'l'. ACLAND thought the clause wools! to
taken as an apProbaticifof the Clergy; takin.g to
titer trade as a matter of profit. It would be a sr,urce
-uf cmopetirion and jealousy between the Cie:gym:Ln.
and the Parishioners.

SMITH was against the clans:, on :ha
same grounds as the preceding speakers. But he
made %awe pointed observations on the reproachful
conduct of certain Clergymen in Essex, respect-
ing.tithes.

Lord PALMERSTON t:-as ts.Tair,st Ole clause.,
A division look place on an amendment proposed
by Lord EBKINGTON, to leave oor certain words
which authorised Clergymen to hold I.,:ms.
' For the Amendment 35—Against it 38-s-Ittajo-
thy in favour ofthe Clause as it stood in 3.

A convervetion ensued ewt qtr number of .t:res with yel
blink was t) Lord Esai%:;;-0•. prorosri

Agai vh!ch She
.:,0 .'cle.,

and Mr. Rave seer 100. The gallery saes afro cleared for a
division, but It did not take place, the number being agreed to be
fixed at se.
• A desultory &bare ensued on almost every other clause of the
Alt. and many verbal amendments were introduced.
Mr. M. A. IAYLOK declared himself a decided enemy to
the power given to the Bishops, and said he should watch the
Pfnervsl of it 5 Bill most narrowly.
The CI; AIRM A N at leugoh reported progress, and asked leave
to alt again on Monday.
The third reading of the Lottery Bill was postponed till
Mnoday.
• Mr. P. GILBERT brought up the Third Report of the Com-
mittee on Public Income aid Expenditure, which was ordered
to lie on chc table awl be printed.
NI:. LOCK HARI' pncroned the farther consideration of the
11-I,l:ruptcy Ante:di:lent Bin tilt the etb of June.
44,1jotreed at One o'Clock till Monday.
_