Mr. Rosebrought in a bill for the better protection and encouragement of provident Institutions or Banks for Savings. It was read a first time, and on the question that it be read a second time to-morrow, the right hon. gentleman said, that the bill which he now brought in was precisely the same as that which was entertained last session, and went through that House, although it did not pass into an act. The objection raised against this bill was, that it was unnecessary, because it had not been solicited by those whom it was intended to protect; but the House would see, on a little reflection, that it was not very likely that application would be made to parliament by persons in that condition of life, the improvement of which was contemplated by this measure. Both the principle and the detail of such an institution were beyond the common ideas of persons engaged in daily and manual labour. In the year 1795, it would be recollected, that a bill passed both Houses of Parliament on the subject of Friendly Societies; at that time no application for relief or assistance was made by the parties immediately interested, though it must be remembered that the measure which then passed into a law was of the very highest benefit to the lower orders of society. Nor had 349 he any doubt, that if a law of similar spirit were passed with respect to saving-banks, similar and even greater results would follow. Not only would there arise from this parliamentary interference a protection and security for the poor man's savings, but what was better, habits of industry, honesty, and sobriety, would be encouraged and matured among the lower orders, and one leading evil of inferior life would be checked, if not prevented—he meant the contracting of early and improvident marriages. The two points on which a difference of opinion prevailed last session, were first, the mode of depositing the money in the public funds; and secondly, whether a person who had placed a certain sum in one of these banks should still be deemed a fit object for parochial assistance. He was unwilling to leave out these clauses in the first instance; but if any difference of opinion respecting them still prevailed, it might be discussed when the bill should go into a commitee, where all alterations as to the operative details of the bill would be best made.
§ Sir John Newportexpressed a wish that Ireland, in the purview of the proposed bill, should be disjoined from England. All the clauses relative to the poor rates could have no application to Ireland, while there were many points necessary for that part of the kingdom that would not apply here. Under these circumstances, friendly as he was to the principle, he wished to be understood, as giving notice of his intention to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the protection of Provident Institutions in Ireland.
§ Mr. Calcraftobserved, that he still retained his objections to the proposed Bill. He therefore expressed a hope that the second reading would be postponed until the week after next. The House would recollect that the most obnoxious clause, that respecting paupers, had in the last session been disapproved, but that in a subsequent stage, the right hon. gentleman with his friends contrived to get it reinserted.
§ Lord Miltoncould not acquiesce in the conclusion drawn by the right hon. gentleman, respecting the diminution of the poor's-rate by the bill. In his judgment, its immediate operation would go to place on those rates persons otherwise not entitled.
§ The Bill was ordered to be read a second time tomorrow.