COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 08 April 1861 vol 162 cc261-93

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Postmaster General may direct Officers in Post Office to receive Deposits),

MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT

said, he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant to favour the Committee with any further information on the details of the Bill than that he had already given, but it seemed to him that Parliament was left almost in total ignorance of the manner in which it was proposed that the sys- tem should be worked. The three first clauses of the Bill gave the Postmaster General power to establish a post-office savings bank in any part of the country wherever a money-order office at present existed. He proposed to take the power to establish by the machinery of the Bill a great national bank with branches all over the country, at any one of which branches it would be in the power of any person to deposit any amount of money, and receive in return a certificate or piece of paper, duly stamped at the central office, on the production of which at, any subsequent period he would be entitled to have his money back again. Such was what he understood to be the effect of those clauses, and it was all the information which the Committee and the country had with regard to the machinery of this system. They did not know how many clerks were to be employed, or what would be the expense of its management. He could quite admit the inconvenience of imposing restrictions on any department which was about to try a new experiment and from which he hoped good would arise; but still he thought it was desirable to make the new system correspond as far as it was possible with the existing system of savings banks. Under the present system there were certain limits imposed on depositors, so that no man could deposit more than £30 in one year nor have more than £150 in all. He understood it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman that all the restrictions and limitations imposed by the present law were to apply to the depositors of the new post-office savings banks. But he did not see how it was possible to ascertain that those limits had been reached in the case of any one depositor. How was any one to know how much stood to a depositor's account in more than one post-office? What was to prevent a man from depositing one sum at Falmouth and another at Newcastle, and on producing his papers at any one of these banks he would be entitled to receive back his money? On all these points very little information had been given. He had read the paper which Mr. Sykes, who took credit for being the immediate suggester of the scheme, put forward, and he had also had the pleasure of some information on this subject, but still he was at a loss to comprehend how the great scheme of a central bank was to be brought within the limits of the present law. Again, every depositor in a savings bank was en- titled to have his account made out as often as he pleased; but how was that to he done by a central bank in London, especially in the case of an individual who might he constantly moving about from one part of the country to another? Again, how would the accounts of the post-office savings bank be made up—what check or audit would there be—who would know whether the accounts were correct or not? In the case of the ordinary savings banks a depositor was generally a known man; but nothing of the kind would take place under the new system. They would have no hold on the depositor or the depositor on them. He must frankly say he could not see from all that was yet before them how the accounts could be correctly kept from year to year, and he would be very glad of information on these points.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that although he was of opinion that it would be more convenient to to enter into the explanations of the various parts of the subject, minute and complex as they were, upon each clause as it came on for discussion, he thought it right at the same time to make a reply in such general terms to the right hon. Gentleman as might be deemed a sufficient answer to the questions which he had just put. The scheme, then, on which the new system would be based was one in accordance with which the savings banks' accounts of the different depositors would be kept in London, those accounts forming portion of the general cash transactions taking place between the several local postmasters—who would merely be the recipients and transmitters of the money through the Post Office—and the head of that department. For the due conduct of the new business which the Bill would create there were already a set of rules in existence relative to credit and the control of accounts, which, he believed, would be found amply sufficient for the purpose without the introduction of any new principle. The Postmaster General, for example, as matters now stood, took security from his subordinate in charge of a money-order office; and if it were found that, under the operation of the Bill that security did not correspond with the augmented amount of money passing through his hands, then the Postmaster General might, as he constantly did at present, require that the security should be increased. He might add that it was matter of astonishment that the working of the money-order system was so safe that while £330,000,000 had under it been transmitted from all parts of the country to their various destinations, the amount of the defalcations had reached only £6,000—an amount which was, he believed, more than covered by the sums represented by unclaimed money-orders which remained in the hands of the public. But be that as it might, the mode in which the new system would be carried out would be that the accounts of the depositors would be kept by the Postmaster General in London, the whole of the different sums being transmitted by schedule from day to day as the local postmaster received them, and the Postmaster General would acknowledge the receipt to the local postmaster. The depositor would be provided with a form which, when desirous of reclaiming his money, he might transmit to the Postmaster General, who would thereupon authorize the local postmaster to refund the sum demanded in the event that the state of his account showed the depositor to be entitled to its receipt. He might further observe that it was his intention to propose the omission of Clause 8, an omission which no doubt would receive the approbation of his right hon. Friend. He also intended to fix the rate of interest payable on deposits under the Bill at £2 10s. per cent, thus dealing, in his opinion, in the most effective manner with the objections of those who had an interest in the existing savings banks, and who might very naturally and justifiably entertain a fear that if the present rate of interest were maintained under the new system an undue temptation to depositors to withdraw the sums now inserted in their names would be afforded. By taking the course, however, which he had indicated all suspicion of unfairness would be avoided.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (Legal title of Depositor to repayment),

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he wished to propose, by way of Amendment, the omission of the last member of the Clause but one—that which related to the Parliamentary title to be constituted by means of the Bill. The main object of the measure was to afford the depositor who might place his small savings in the hands of the Government the security of the State for the money thus invested. That being so, next arose the question how that security was to be created. It might be said that it could be conveyed by means of the acknowledgment which would be put in the hands of the depositor when making his investment, and by the entry in his book which it was provided should be made by the local postmaster and attested by the stamp of his office and the writing of his initials. But then came the difficulty, that if these documents were to constitute a sufficient title to immediate repayment of the sum lodged, the transaction would be subjected to the discretion and integrity of the local postmaster, unaccompanied by any effectual check. It was plain, he thought, that the security of the State ought only to be given by means of an acknowledgment from head quarters—in other words, from the Postmaster General in London, after the deposit had been received in London, and after it had been entered in the accounts at the chief office. The deposit book, therefore, ought not to give a statutory title at all, but the depositor ought to remain without a Parliamentary title until he received an acknowledgment from the Postmaster General of the receipt of his deposit. But then came the difficulty what was to be done for the depositor in the short interval between the time when he made his deposit and the time when he received an acknowledgment from London. That interval would be a very short one; in the vast majority of cases it would not exceed a couple of days; but, at the same time, the depositor ought not to be left even for a single hour in the position of being exposed to the possibility of fraud and loss by the defalcations of the local postmaster. For that reason he proposed to insert words in the clause to the effect that the moment a deposit was made the simple entry in the deposit book should for a limited time constitute a Parliamentary title. It was necessary to give the title for a limited time, because otherwise the depositor would have no interest in obtaining an acknowledgment from the Postmaster General, and in that case the Government could not reckon upon him as an ally in possessing himself of that which would constitute the only effectual check of the Postmaster General in London upon his officers in the country. Hence the necessity for giving him a motive for acquiring the acknowledgment of the Postmaster General and that motive could only be applied by limiting in point of time the security afforded by the deposit book, leaving the depositor, if he did not receive an acknowledgment from London within the period specified in the clause, to apply for a further extension of time till he did. The Amendment of which he had given notice provided that the deposit book should be conclusive evidence of title for a period of ten days only. Long before the lapse of that period the depositor would have received an acknowledgment from the Postmaster General; but, to provide for every conceivable case, he was to be entitled to apply for a further extension of time in the event of a delay in the transmission of the acknowledgment from London. Thus the clause as amended would give the depositor State security from the moment he lodged his deposit, and at the same time would place in the hands of the Postmaster General that control over his officers in the country which formed an essential part of the scheme. It would be observed that the clause contemplated the receipt of deposits as low as 1s. The receipt of such deposits, of course, would not of itself be remunerative; but he was satisfied that the average amount of deposits would be remunerative; and, on the other hand, the receipt of deposits as low as 1s. would be a material aid to the formation of habits of economy and providence among the poor. He would, therefore, conclude by proposing his Amendment, which was as follows:—In clause 2, after "Postmaster General," omit all the words down to "acknowledgment," and insert, And, in order to allow a reasonable time for the receipt of the said acknowledgment, the entry by the proper officer in the depositors' book shall also be conclusive evidence of title for ten days from the judgment of the deposit; and if the said acknowledgment shall not have been received by the depositor through the post within ten days, and he shall, before or upon the expiry thereof, demand the said acknowledgment from the Postmaster General, then the entry in his book shall be conclusive evidence of title during another term of ten days, and toties quoties.

MR. SLANEY

said, he thought the measure would be attended with the greatest possible benefit to the working classes, and he hoped it might pass into law without unnecessary delay. But he thought the minimum for deposits ought to be raised above the sum fixed by the right hon. Gentleman. If the interest to be paid in these banks was lower than the interest paid by the ordinary savings banks, he did not see why deposits should not be made by the same depositor in various places. He thought no limits should be placed on the providence of the labouring classes.

MR. VANCE

said, his constituents apprehended that this was, in some degree, a measure of centralization. The accounts with local postmasters in the case of the Money Order Office in Ireland and Scotland were kept in Dublin and Edinburgh by the Accountants-General there; but the Bill seemed to provide that the accounts of the post office savings banks should be kept in London alone. He saw no reason why there should be a difference between the two departments in this respect.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he thought there was no ground for the hon. Member's apprehension. The course of money transactions would be the same under this Bill as under the money-order system. Though London would be a centre, yet Dublin and Edinburgh would be subordinate centres, because one part of the business could not be separated from the other parts. But he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would make further inquiry, and would be prepared to let the hon. Gentleman know exactly how the matter stood.

MR. AYRTON

said, that having been absent from the House at the beginning of the discussion, he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had expressed his views of what was likely to be the charge of carrying this Act into execution. He (Mr. Ayrton) had given notice of a Motion to which the right hon. Gentleman had objected owing to the state of public business, and the Motion had been deferred and now stood for the following day, just one day too late for the discussion. The object was to obtain an estimate as to the probable charge of this new system, and as to the means which would be available for the payment of that charge. The right hon. Gentleman had assured the House in general terms that the measure would be self-supporting; but they would be guilty of a great dereliction of duty if they did not obtain from the Minister some more definite statement, some positive information which would enable hon. Members not conversant with the details of the Post Office to judge whether his conclusion was well founded. Under the Bill a deposit of 1s. might he received; it might be demanded back in a fortnight; he understood there would be no interest payable in that case; but the gain to the country would he rather infinitesimal—perhaps the fiftieth part of a farthing. The smallest deposit must be transmitted to the Postmaster in London, who must open a ledger account for every customer, and the amount might have to be written off again and retransmitted to the depositor at the end of the fortnight. It might be said that, generally speaking, the sums would be much larger and deposited for longer periods, so that the operations would be remunerative; but he wanted to know on what data the Post Office had proceeded in estimating first the cost of remitting the deposits to and from the Post Office, and next of conducting the National Bank in London. The right hon. Gentleman might think it a small matter at present, but if the scheme reached such proportions as he anticipated, the bank required in London would be an institution larger than the Bank of England. An account must, as he had stated, be opened for every customer; it must be balanced and checked every year, or every half-year, and interest computed on every transaction, which would require a large number of clerks, and a very expensive establishment. The right hon. Gentleman, then, ought to lay on the table some distinct statement of what he calculated would be the charge of carrying out the scheme. It was all very well to talk of projects being self-sustaining, and even economical, but under such statements the Civil Service Estimates had, within the last thirty years, grown up by millions. Hon. Gentlemen might cry out about that increase, and write letters to the Prime Minister on the necessity of taking some steps to check it, but of what use was all this if, when a scheme came before them which must increase the public expenditure, they did not take the trouble to inform themselves on the subject? If they voted now without information they would have no right afterwards to complain if the expense turned out to be £200,000 a-year, as had been the case with the county courts. A scheme for granting retiring annuities to the Civil Service had been brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman behind (Sir James Graham); it was described as self-supporting, deductions being made for that purpose of 5 per cent from the larger and 2½ per cent from the smaller salaries; but the Civil Service officers combined, they waited on Members of the House of Commons, reasoned with them, appealed to their sympathies, and placed them under such a pressure that in spite of the Government a Bill was passed to relieve them of this 5 per cent and 2½ per cent. and their retiring annuities were thrown on the public funds. So with regard to savings banks; they had been in operation for forty years, but no Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever had the courage to come down and bring before the House the question of subsidizing them. On that account they were annually paying a sum varying from £10,000 to £100,000, but Chancellors of the Exchequer did not call on the House to make it good out of the annual revenue; they avoided the question by adding the charge year after year to the national debt. The right hon. Gentleman proposed, in the meantime, to give only 2½ per cent in the shape of interest, but if he got £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 of money into his hands would he be able to restrict the interest to that rate? They could not continue to pay £2 10s. while the fundholder received £3 5s. per cent if other investments yielded £4 or £5 per cent, or even a higher rate of interest. They must look at the rate of interest allowed by other bankers, for, by the measure, the Government would constitute themselves bankers. His argument was not a mere fanciful one, because it had been used by Mr. Huskisson himself, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, to induce the House to allow the poor depositors in the savings banks a higher interest than that obtained from Consols. The £2 10s. would therefore soon be raised to £3; and if the rate of interest continued high it would reach £3 5s. The maximum rate invariably became the standard, the minimum being regarded as an injustice. The scheme of a national bank, however plausible it might look at the outset, would lead to the most serious consequences. The Committee which sat on the subject, and of which he was a Member, came to the decided and unanimous opinion that it was desirable to separate the operation of banking for the people from the national Treasury. It was thought that these national banks would act as a powerful inducement to the working men to intrust their money to the Government rather than to their own benefit societies, which were always identified with those trade societies which some hon. Gentleman regarded with so much aversion and horror. For his own part, he believed that those benefit and trade societies had been the means of regenerating the people of this country, and that their social influence was most conservative. It had been admitted by a great advocate of Parliamentary Reform that the minds of the working classes were at present entirely preoccupied with the subject of those societies. Those institu- tions had made the people connected with them thoughtful, and during the late distress in London it had been found that no persons belonging to a trade or benefit society had applied for relief from public charity or through the medium of the poor-houses, because their members, from a feeling of self-respect, had engaged to maintain each other in sickness or in want, without having recourse to extraneous aid. It was therefore not expedient to discourage these societies by means of a national bank. In his opinion, the present savings banks, with all their imperfections, were infinitely preferable to a great Government institution. It was desirable that the country gentlemen of England should take an interest in the welfare of the labouring population by which they were surrounded, and to supersede their exertions by the services of mere stipendiaries of the State would weaken that social system on which the liberties of the people were mainly founded. If, however, the present scheme was to be persisted in, care should be taken to prevent it from sliding into the condition into which all other projects of the same kind had fallen, and sufficient guarantees ought to be provided for its continuance on its original footing. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would give them some practical and definite information as to the cost of carrying out his scheme, and how he proposed that it should be defrayed.

MR. THOMSON HANKEY

said, the matter before the Committee was the second clause of the Bill; and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets need not have gone into the general question with regard to the Bill. But the hon. Member had spoken of the expenses that would be incurred by the working of the scheme. Now he (Mr. T. Hankey) apprehended that there would be no necessity for any additional book-keeping. The hon. Member had assumed that there would be two sets of books at each post-office; one being such as were now kept by the savings banks, and the other being such as were kept by the post-office money-order offices. But there was no such intention, as he believed. The hon. Member had also remarked that these small deposits would be left in the hands of the Government for so short a time that the system would not be remunerative. But in that respect he believed the same rule would be followed that was adopted by the existing savings banks, and their experience showed that it was not the habit of the people to deposit a shilling and then to withdraw it in a fortnight. Taking the average time for which deposits visually remained in the hands of bankers, it was sufficient to make that a remunerative business. The object of the Bill was to give the poor the same accommodation that was given them by existing savings banks, but to enable them to avail themselves of it in an easier manner. He had made these observations because he was unwilling to submit in silence to the insinuation that he had given no consideration to the matter, but had voted blindfold for a scheme that might lead to unlimited expense.

MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY

said, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would give a full reply to the observations of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, as the question of expense, both present and future, was a most serious one. As one conversant with figures he ventured to say that if the scheme were carried out the national establishments must be greatly augmented, and if it proved successful the establishment that would be required would be of the same gigantic proportions as the Bank of England. It was true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a low rate of interest; but the argument of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was that when the deposits had swelled to millions the depositors would not remain satisfied with a lower rate of interest than was paid to the national creditor. He (Alderman Sidney) believed that the depositors would ignore the working expenses of the plan, and the country would be asked to defray the cost of a philanthropic scheme and give the highest rate of interest. He believed that the scheme was founded upon error; that it would interfere with the self-working of existing establishments, and would entail a large expense upon the country at large.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that he must beg to be excused from undertaking the task of giving a full reply to the speech of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, that being a duty beyond his powers. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets often gave to the House notable examples of his discursive powers; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) never knew an occasion on which the hon. Member had more signalized himself than on the present. When the hon. Member rose into the air on eagle wing he passed over the limits of time and space, and was not subject to any of the conditions that bound the efforts of ordinary mortals. He would, therefore, confine his reply to that portion of the hon. Member's speech which seemed to bear practically on the working of the Bill. It might, however, be observed, that both his speech, and that of the hon. Member who had just sat down, as they were directed entirely against the principle of the Bill, could hardly be quite in place on that occasion in Committee, when they were discussing the question whether the depositor's book should be conclusive evidence of title for ten days or for a longer period. But the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) had already given an answer to part of their objections. He (Mr. Gladstone) would at once admit that the consideration of expense was vital to the measure. It would be absurd for the Government and Parliament, even for the purpose of encouraging provident habits among the poor, to make the working classes of the country pensioners on the Exchequer. To such a principle he should be altogether opposed; and if such were found to be the operation of the Bill, it would be their duty to check and limit its operation, so as effectually to prevent so enormous an evil. But the hon. Member had alleged that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had showed some disinclination to produce returns from the departments of the Post Office, giving the calculations, statements, and figures by which the officers of that department had satisfied the Government that this would be a self-working and self-supporting system. Although it was, undoubtedly, in the power of the House of Commons to call for the most minute statements from every permanent officer of the Government as well as from the Ministers of the Crown, yet such was not its practice; and if the House were to alter its practice in that respect the effect of it must be to divest the responsible Ministers of all responsibility, and place it where it ought not to be. He begged the House to bear in mind that the present was an experimental system, while two opposite objections were made to it—one that it would do but little good, and the other that it would rise into a system of such enormous magnitude that it would require in time an establishment as large as the Bank of England to carry it out, and that it would create a great deal of patronage. Now, with regard to the question of patronage under the Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have nothing to do. He would not appoint a single clerk, and not half a dozen clerks would be appointed for a length of time after the passing of the Bill. If the system were to grow, the appointments would be made by the Postmaster General exclusively. He did not think they could altogether get rid of the system of patronage, but it might be limited, and that appointments of this kind should be made by free and open competition was what he desired to see. He was, therefore, entirely impregnable on the score of patronage. As to the expense of the system, any calculations on that point must be of an entirely hypothetical character. They must depend on certain assumptions as to the amount of business the savings banks would have to transact. Although he had hopes, and sanguine hopes as to the successful operation of the system he had not the slightest conception as to the amount of business that would be done. He did not know whether it would be moderate or exceedingly large, and he felt reluctant to deal with figures by anticipation that might be falsified by the result. What he wished the Committee to observe was—first, that the operation of the Bill would be gradual; and as the first year's expenditure with the result of the measure would be laid before the House, the House would be in a position to judge of those results, and whether the system was likely to become self-supporting or to entail a charge on the public. The next point was that whatever was the expense of the system it would be an expense that would he precisely adjusted to the extension of its operation. It was not proposed to create a large and new establishment under highly-paid officers. The framework already existed, and everything would fall in with the existing machinery of the Post Office. It might admit of an extension, but that extension would be in precise proportion to the demand. As to the expense, he confessed he attached more weight to the experience of the Post Office authorities in the business of their department and what it had already accomplished than to mere calculations of figures however plausible. The modern Post Office started upon the assumption, which was not believed at the time, that it could receive, carry, and deliver letters with a profit at a uniform rate of 1d. To the carriage of letters the Post Office added the book post, and showed that it could receive and carry more weighty matter. It then added the money-order office, and although the profit on that was almost infinitesimal, considering the amount of business done, it still left a profit of some £20,000 or £30,000. The Post Office authorities had carefully examined all the steps of the process under which deposits would be received, transmitted, kept, retransmitted, and returned to the depositors when demanded, and calculated the charge at which that could be done. The result at which they arrived was that one halfpenny on the receipt and another on the reclamation of each deposit would be ample remuneration for the local postmaster. This was independent of the penny for the transmission of the letter. It was quite true, as the hon. Gentleman stated, that deposits of one shilling wonld be unremunerative, but by the Bill they were not compelled to take a shilling. They might do so, but it was not the particular deposit that they must look to, but the average of the deposits. If the hon. Gentleman saw from the first balance-sheet that the result of the measure was unsatisfactory, it would be competent for him or for the Government to step in in order to stop the slightest appearance of the charge upon the public for the transaction of the business. The Post Office authorities in their calculations had adopted two modes of comparison—the labour involved in, and the cost of the money-order office, and that performed in the existing savings banks; and in both points of view the result was satisfactory as to the result of working the proposed measure. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last said that by reducing the interest from £3 5s. to £2 10s. he gained £750 on every million, but he might have made a more favourable management of his figures, and he would have at the same time been more accurate if he said he would have gained £7,500. It was the opinion of competent persons in the Post Office that they could transact the business more cheaply than the money-order office; and with regard to the existing savings banks the result of the calculation was that that which cost the existing savings banks one shilling per transaction would cost sevenpence per transaction under the system about to be established. These were statements on which the Committee might venture to rely. These were the views with which he trusted the House would be disposed to make a trial of this experiment, reserving to itself, of course, the powers and the duty of correcting any tendency to excess if it should exist. All calculations based on an assumed number of deposits were only probabilities; it was better to rely on the estimate of the cost of the additional details of work to be done in an establishment already existing. He bad a sanguine hope that every statement he had made would be verified, and that the measure would entail no charge on the public. He could not agree with the invective of the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) on the savings banks; they might be far from perfect, but they had proved a great advantage to the depositors, and had enabled successive Governments to effect an economy in the management of the public money transcending ten times over any charge the State had been put to.

MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT

said, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had treated the two hon. Members who had spoken somewhat hardly. He had complained that they both made speeches which were much better suited for the second reading of the Bill than for going into Committee. But the right hon. Gentleman ought to hear in mind that the second reading of the Bill was brought on at such an hour that Gentlemen who took any interest in the matter were prevented from offering any observations upon the Bill; and the hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Tower Hamlets was, he (Mr. Estcourt) believed, among the number. The hon. Member had asked for details of the expense, and he thought he was perfectly justified in asking that question, for they were discussing both the machinery and the expense of the machinery for carrying out the Act, without any foundation or basis upon which any Gentleman could make up his mind, seeing that they were speaking of an entirely hypothetical question. He should be much better satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman could tell them that an estimate had been prepared, that the minutest particulars had been investigated by the Post Office authorities, that he had had reports from them in regard to expenses under different heads, and that he could give something like an idea of the probable expenditure to the Committee. He was not so unreasonable as to call upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay before them a specific estimate of the expense of the machinery, but if he had received positive information from the Post Office and other quarters which would enable him to give him a general view of the ex- penditure it would be very satisfactory. He confessed that the statement which the right hon. Gentleman had made in reference to the eighth clause had created a great difference in his apprehension of the risk which the public would incur of having expense entailed upon them under this Bill, but his objections in regard to the principle of the Bill, and which he took the liberty of mentioning on the occasion of the second reading, were not varied. He certainly thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to give the Committee some of the particulars, sufficient to enable them to judge of the expenditure with respect to which he seemed so satisfied in his own mind. He dare say what had satisfied the right hon. Gentleman would satisfy the Committee, but unless they had some further information in regard to the expenditure he trusted the Committee would not pass a Bill which involved so great a risk of saddling the people with an additional charge.

COLONEL SYKES

inquired, whether the hours during which these post-office savings banks would be open, would be the same hours as the money-order office hours? He thought that to enable such banks to do any good, the hours must be such as would enable the public to attend and deposit their money without any loss of time or other expense.

MR. BRISCOE

said, that he had paid much attention to the subject, having been the manager and trustee of two savings banks. The subject was a difficult one, and he thought very few Members of the House understood the merits of the question. He should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended the measure as auxiliary to or subversive of the present system of savings banks? That was an important question. In one large city alone there was nearly a million of money deposited in savings banks, and a large establishment was kept up. Now they had been told that no additional books would be necessary in order to keep the accounts under the new system. The management of a savings bank required great care and attention, and when a large sum was periodically transmitted to the Commissioners of the National Debt accounts had to be kept, and, no doubt, individual accounts would be necessary under the present system; but the Commissioners of the National Debt did not keep individual accounts of separate depositors. It was admitted that the measure was an experimental one—then why not try it on a limited scale? There were no less than fifteen counties in which no savings banks existed, and the measure might in the first instance be applied to those counties and the question of public approbation tested. Without wishing to speak in any unfriendly spirit, he wished that the measure had received more mature consideration by the House and the country, and he suggested that separate accounts should be kept of the transactions which took place under the Bill, so that the House might know the advantage and disadvantage of the new system.

MR. AYRTON

denied that he had passed any severe strictures upon the present savings banks. On the contrary, he was particularly well pleased with the present banks, and regretted that anything should be done to diminish their usefulness and efficiency.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had only understood the hon. Gentleman as objecting to the system, and not to the local management. With regard to the remarks made upon the haste with which this Bill had been pressed, he should be sorry to have it supposed that he had wished to prevent hon. Gentlemen from expressing their opinions on the principle of the measure. He had made no attempt to force it through the House, and if upon the second reading any hon. Member had objected at that late hour to go on with the Bill he would at once have postponed it. With regard to the time during which the post-office savings banks would be open, they would not be absolutely tied to the hours of the money-order offices, nor would they in all cases be confined to those offices. Those points would be left under the control of the Postmaster General, who would make such arrangements respecting the days and hours in particular cases as would suit the convenience of the working classes in the district. He had been asked whether the Bill would prove auxiliary to or subversive of the existing savings banks. Now, that was so general a question that he could only give to it a general answer. He could not tell what the relative merits of the new system would be as compared with that now existing. His opinion was worth little, but he thought it probable that one class of depositors, who desired secresy in their investments, would prefer the new institutions; while another class, who wished to act under the immediate view of their local superiors, would prefer the existing savings banks. He could not say whether the Bill would be auxiliary or subversive. His only feeling in bringing it forward was that it would give to large numbers of people in this country facilities for investing their savings which they did not now possess. That was the sum and substance of all he had to say. As to the suggestion that the Bill should be limited to the fifteen counties in which there were now no savings banks he could by no means concur in it. What were those counties? They consisted of two or three in England, several in Scotland, and some in Ireland, with a very small population and a very insignificant trade; and by limiting the plan to these you would exclude all the great masses of population and all the important centres of trade which were not sufficiently accommodated by the present savings banks system. As to giving more definite information of the probable results of the measure it was impossible to give any as to the amount of business which would be done, except in a form more or less hypothetical. Taking any given number of deposits—say 1,000,000, it would, of course, be possible to say that on that million so much would be the expense of remuneration to the local officers, so much for the transmission of letters, and so much for the cost of the central estsblishment in London where the banking business would be carried on. Those items would include all the elements of the calculation, and probably he could furnish something in the shape of an estimate so far. But with regard to the amounts in which deposits would be received, and the length of time they would be left, it would be absurd to venture to present an estimate.

MR. HERBERT

said, that as the representative of a county (Kerry) in which very severe distress had been caused some years ago by the failure of two savings banks, he rose to tender his grateful acknowledgements to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the new experiment which he was about to try. A Committee of the House of Commons which had sat on the subject of those failures had recommended considerable changes in the law, but so great were the difficulties in the way that no Chancellor of the Exchequer had been able to grapple with them. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, had adopted a very wise course, as the old system apparently could not be mended, to give the people their choice between that and a new one. No doubt at the present time savings banks were very well managed, and the chance of failure was the exception and not the rule; but so long as loss was possible under the present system depositors ought to have a choice between it and a system under which loss would not be possible, and he hoped the experiment would succeed.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, the real question was whether the measure was a safe experiment. It involved high financial principles and ample time ought to be allowed for its discussion. Upon many of the principal points the right hon. Gentleman had left the Committee somewhat in the dark. It was not an easy thing to establish a bank of any kind, but it seemed to him that they were going to turn the Post Office into a sort of bank, and to make the Postmaster General—a political officer, and subject to constant change—a sort of banker. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not given the Committee sufficient information as to the probable effect of this great change, and the probable chances of its success. If the scheme were ordinarily successful the number of depositors would probably be numbered by thousands and tens of thousands, and he should like to know how provision was to be made for dealing with such a multiplicity of transactions as the change would involve. Again, there would be many cases of disputed claims involving difficulty of adjustment. The Bill would have the effect of closing up many of the existing savings banks. He believed they were all solvent at the present moment. Would it be wise to destroy existing savings banks? The expense of the proposed system would necessarily be large, as it could not be carried into effect without the employment of a numerous, well-paid, and honest staff of clerks. The Committee were also asked to assent to these monies being paid into the hands of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, but an ex officio Commission was not a proper tribunal for securing the successful operation of a new banking experiment, and he could not believe that the Committee would assent to such power being lodged in the hands of such a body. If the Post Office was to be turned into a bank somebody ought to be appointed to watch the proper auditing of the accounts.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he must repeat he could not undertake to give any estimate of the number of transactions. If it were small a little good would be done; if it were-large a great deal of good would be effected. He really had not the means of forming a trustworthy judgment, but those who had the best means of forming an accurate judgment thought that the number would be very considerable. With regard to disputed claims, they would be disposed of in precisely the same manner as at present, by the intervention of an experienced gentleman, Mr. Tidd Pratt, who had disposed of those claims without difficulty and to the satisfaction of depositors in the existing savings banks.

MR. PULLER

said, that it was necessary to contemplate a great number of cases in which oral and personal communication between the depositors and some confidential person appointed by the Postmaster General would be indispensable. Difficulties were constantly arising from the death or marriage of depositors, or from the joint deposits, on the part of friendly societies, by two or three officers who were either dead or removed. These cases were generally arranged after interviews with the claimants by the managers and trustees of the present banks. It was only when legal points were involved that the managers sent a written statement for the opinion of Mr. Tidd Pratt; but the depositors were quite incapable of drawing up such a statement, and it would be absurd to require them to make journeys to London in order to see that gentleman. The measure would be incomplete unless some local authority were appointed to settle the difficulties to which he had referred on the spot. The local postmaster, of course, could not be such an authority, but probably the local head of the revenue department might be employed for the purpose.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

observed that he had not said that in all cases of difficulty reference would be made to Mr. Tidd Pratt, but that reference would be made to him in cases of disputed claims. Where the intervention of a local officer was required the duty might very well be entrusted to the present district surveyors of the Post Office, who were able and intelligent men. It was not intended absolutely to confine the savings banks to the money-order offices, but to extend the number to places where there was a real need for such institutions and the postmasters were sufficiently qualified to conduct them. At the same time the number to commence with would be much less than the existing number of money-order offices. There was no intention to make a wholesale augmentation of money order-offices in order to open savings banks of this description.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Repayment to be made not later than the seventh day),

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

proposed an Amendment after the words "or any part thereof," to add, "if such part be one shilling, or some multiple of a shilling."

ME. AYRTON

said, he wished to ask for an explanation of the strictly legal character of the acknowledgment to be given to each depositor? It was to be conclusive evidence of the right to the money. Would it have to be given up when the demand for repayment was made? Could a lien be created upon it, or would it only be valuable to show the ownership of the money

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the postmaster's acknowledgment was to be evidence of the depositor's title, but nothing more. The surrender of the acknowledgment would not be a necessary condition of payment of the deposit.

MR. AYRTON

said, he wanted to know what voucher the postmaster would have that the person claiming the money was the depositor.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

replied, that the depositor must produce the acknowledgment, and the Postmaster General would be entitled to require possession of it, if necessary, in evidence of title.

MR. AYRTON

remarked, that in that case the acknowledgments would be documents on which a lien would be created, and would, in fact, form a paper currency bearing interest. Now, the great object of the savings hanks had hitherto been to withdraw from men the temptation of spending their money by interposing a little difficulty and delay in getting it out of the banks. But the new system would leave men exposed to the temptation, because the acknowledgments would be pledged to tradespeople and converted into a circulating medium. If a workman carried them about with him they would "burn a hole in his pocket," just the same as so much hard cash. And there would be the further evil that probably the vouchers would be disposed of under their value to satisfy the cravings of the moment. He did not see how the Postmaster General could deal with hundreds of people of whom he knew nothing, unless the acknowledgments were surrendered.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that it was impossible at present to prevent a depositor from pledging his book if he chose to do so, and the voucher of the postmaster would not be in the least more liable to that fate. The hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong in supposing that the acknowledgments could be converted into a circulating medium. His object in drawing the Bill had been to insert in it whatever related to the position and rights of the depositor as against the Government, but to reserve as much as possible everything as to the mode in which operations were to be carried on. The general intention of the Post Office Department was that a depositor who wished to withdraw money should make application in a form supplied to him for the purpose, and that he should insert therein the number of his book, the amount he wished to withdraw, and his full name and address. The application would be forwarded to London for examination, and the Postmaster General would generally be in a condition to forward a warrant for payment of the money. That would be the ordinary course of the transaction.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought that a good deal of the confusion arose from the want of further information as to the details of the proposed operation of the Bill. The clause, as it read, unquestionably said "the depositor or any body legally authorized." Now, those words involved the first question requiring explanation. What constituted, then, a legal authorization for a demand of the money? They were, then, wholly at a loss to know, except from the sort of casual information given, the particular form in which the demand was to be made. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the number of the depositor's book was to be sent up. The question then arose, was the number of the book to be specified in those receipts or acknowledgments? Because, if so, it appeared to him that it would be quite easy for any one who got hold of one of those deposit vouchers to make a demand on the Post Office for the money, and to give the number of the book. He thought it would be far better if the right hon. Gentleman gave more details in his Bill. He confessed, however, he should be glad to see the measure properly worked out, as he was favourable to its principle. Nevertheless, he thought it most important to prevent, if possible, a circulation of 1s. or 5s. deposit notes, which, in effect, might become a sort of bank-notes, and might be pledged for their amount. A system of that kind would be a source of much evil, and would lead, he thought, to constant attempts at fraud. Under such circumstances it was obviously most desirable to obtain fuller information as to how the provisions of the Bill were to be worked out. They were not told whether the acknowledgments were to be received as the only evidence of the depositor's claim. If the book were to be required as evidence also, there would no doubt be further security of the propriety of the claim. The bits of paper might be lost. He found by the first clause that the production of the book, and then the acknowledgment, were to be held as conclusive evidence of the validity of the claim; but it did not say whether a man would have the power to obtain the money without this acknowledgment. Now, that was a point on which it was most important to furnish the most complete information to the depositors.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he could not, of course, undertake to say that every contingency had been foreseen and provided for. But with regard to the meaning of the words "the party legally authorized to claim on behalf of the depositor," the construction of those words would be governed by the same principle as that recognized in the existing savings banks law in reference to similar cases. This was not a new code of savings banks law, but the introduction of a new principle in reference to that law. The acknowledgment was a document in favour of the depositor, which, when given to him, would become his absolute statutory title. It might be necessary that he should be required to produce it, and, therefore, the depositor would for his own interest see the importance of preserving it. He was not sure whether or not the acknowledgment would bear upon its face the number of the deposit-book to which it referred; but even if it did there would be this security against fraud, that the local postmaster would have to see that the signature of the person receiving money corresponded with that in the depositor's book.

MR. HENLEY

said, they were now informed that the signature of the claimant should be given, and that it should correspond with that originally made. So far so good. There might, however, be other details equally important for the public to know, and which were not inserted in the Bill. It appeared that the Committee were being gradually informed of them as the discussion proceeded.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he saw the object aimed at by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Reading. But if the words proposed were introduced into the Bill the effect would be to prevent the depositor withdrawing the fraction of a shilling. He would, however, make inquiry into the subject, with the view of ascertaining whether such an Amendment would have the effect of creating an economy of labour in the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill.

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

said, in that case he would consent to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

then moved that in line 21 the words "proper officer" should be omitted, and "depositor" inserted in their place.

MR. DENT

said, in the savings bank with which he was connected the great bulk of the working people received their interest regularly. He wished to know whether in all cases under the Bill it would be necessary for the depositors to give ten days' notice of their intention to withdraw

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

replied in the negative. The Bill merely provided that after a notice of ten days the depositor would possess an absolute title to receive his money. He apprehended that the Warrant would be sent by return of post; but it might so happen, on rare occasions, or when the money was to be repaid at another office than that at which it had been deposited, that a little time would be necessary for the verification of the signature.

MR. BRISCOE

said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that unfortunately there was a large portion of the working classes who were totally unable to write, and he wished to know how was their mark to be verified

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that in cases where persons were unable to write or sign their names, a similar course would be adopted for the verification of marks to that now pursued—namely, the attestation of a witness to the mark.

MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT

said, he thought that every care was necessary to prevent confusion arising in regard to the acknowledgments and books of deposits. The matter was of great importance, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider it, so as to give additional security to the money of the depositors. The original scheme of Mr. Sykes was that those certificates should have the value of money and bear interest. He (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) ventured to urge on the right hon. Gentleman that as the matter now stood there was hardly sufficient security given for the payment of the money to the proper party.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, that in his opinion the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had exercised a wise discretion in not inserting all these precautions which had been alluded to in the Bill. Such matters might very well be intrusted to the Government.

MR. AYRTON

said, he still feared that both depositors and the Government would be involved in inconvenience in consequence of the double element introduced by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, the passbook and the acknowledgment. Clause No. 2 declared that the acknowledgment by the Postmaster General of the deposit made to his officer should be conclusive evidence, not of the receipt of the money by the Government, but of the depositor's "claim to repayment thereof." No depositor could receive repayment without the production of that acknowledgment, which would be such a bit of paper as a poor person was likely to lose. The opinions of the Post Office officials on these subjects were based on the money-order system; but they were not more competent to judge of such matters than hon. Gentlemen who took part in the discussion on the Bill.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

remarked, that he understood the Bill to provide that, no matter who presented the tickets, the payments would be made to the depositor.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Name of Depositors not to be disclosed),

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would object to the insertion of words limiting the powers of the Commissioners in dealing with the money of the depositors? He strongly urged that these funds should only be dealt with in the exclusive interest of the depositors. He had prepared words to secure such a limitation, but he would rather leave the matter in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Experience in the case of other banks had shown the practice of dabbling with deposits to he pernicious, and he hoped the principle would not be revived in this measure.

MR. AYRTON

said, he wished to ask why there should be in all cases this peremptory secresy? He thought there ought to be some exceptions to it, and especially in the case of persons who became chargeable to the Poor Law. In those cases the facts relating to the deposits ought to be disclosed to the guardians. There ought to be some protection against persons obtaining relief from the parish, and at the same time being depositors in a savings bank.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he thought the point, though a new one, would be met by leaving the parish authorities to make application to the Postmaster General, who, he believed, would not be precluded from giving all the information required.

MR. AYRTON

considered that that would not be a correct construction of the clause. If a postmaster could not disclose the name the Postmaster General would not be able to do so. There ought to be a proviso enabling the Post-office authorities to give proper information in certain cases.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he agreed that on a proper demand being made the names should be disclosed. He would make inquiries upon the subject, and give further information on the bringing up of the Report.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Money to be paid to Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and repaid to depositors through the Post Office),

COLONEL SYKES

inquired whether there were to be any restrictions as to the way in which the deposits should be invested

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the Commissioners would deal with these funds in the same way as they did with the funds of the present savings banks.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to introduce words that would limit the power of the Commissioners in dealing with the money of the savings banks. If they were about to establish new savings banks, he trusted that the power of the Commissioners to use the money of the depositors for stock-broking purposes would be limited.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the hon. Baronet asked the Committee to reverse the procedure which had been acted upon by many successive Governments, and which had been sanctioned after repeated discussions by that House. He sought to revolutionize the system which had been long acted upon by a clause in the present Bill, and if he wished to destroy the Bill he could not take a more effectual course.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

insisted that although it might never have been intended that the monies deposited in savings banks should be used for stock-jobbing purposes, that such had been the practical result from the clause in the Act of Will. IV. That power of dealing with depositors' monies had been strongly deprecated in repeated discussions in the House of Commons. It could not be maintained that the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt had any right to get hold of these monies for the purpose of operating on the money market, irrespectively of the interests of the depositors. He should move the limitation he now proposed in a subsequent clause.

Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 6.

Clause 7 (Rate of Interest payable to Depositors),

MR. BUXTON

proposed an Amendment altering the date for the first commencement of interest on deposits from one month to half a year.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the introduction of such an alteration would benefit the Government by very much simplifying these transactions, but they had fixed a very low rate of interest, and he thought, in regard to the commencement of the payment, they should not place the depositor in a less favourable position than he enjoyed under the practice now prevailing.

Amendment withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 was omitted, and Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 (Investment of Funds received under this Act),

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he rose to repeat his objections to placing savings banks funds at the discretion of the Commissioners for the purpose of operating on the money market, and he should move an Amendment to the effect that whatever monies were invested by the working classes under the Bill should he vested in the manner required by the Savings Bank Acts, with the provision that no sales should be made except for the purposes of the savings banks. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would agree to the Amendment, and thus obviate the recurrence of unpleasant discussion. If such a power were to be delegated at all, he should prefer its remission to the Chancellor of the Exchequer eo nomine, and not a mere mock Commission; but he contended that it was unwise to allow the suspicion to be generated that a secret power rested with these Commissioners for operating on the stock market in the purchase or sale of stock and bills, without regard to the interests of depositors.

COLONEL SYKES

said, that in the principle expressed in the Amendment he quite concurred. The object of his previous question was to learn whether, in addition to the £40,000,000 which had been dealt with by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, they would have the same power to deal with the £20,000,000 which he anticipated would come into their hands under the operation of this measure. The Amendment provided that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have no power of dealing with the deposits.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he was entirely at issue with the hon. Baronet, and could not agree to the introduction of the words he proposed. Had the principle he advocated been adopted, Mr. Goulburn's suggestion in 1844 could not have been carried out, and we should now have been paying an extra £1,200,000 a year for the interest of the debt. The hon. Baronet deprecated a Commission for managing public business, and yet proposed one for this business. [Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY: An ex officio commission.] The hon. Baronet proposed a really substantial bodily flesh and blood Commission. It was apparently, he thought, forgotten that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no power to deal with these funds without the privity and presence of the Governors of the Bank of England; and the disapproval of those gentlemen would have a strong moral influence upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. For the purpose of showing the absurdity that would result from the adoption of the hon. Baronet's Amendment he would put this case. Last year the House of Commons passed a Bill for the purpose of enabling the Government to raise £2,000,000 for fortifications. The time when that money was wanted was rather uncertain. It so happened that up to the present time but £200,000 of it had been required. That amount had been taken up by the Commissioners of the National Debt. That would have been a good investment for the depositors as well as a convenience to the State. But it might have been required in larger and more frequent sums. Was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then, to go into the money market once a month, when he wanted money, and call for £100,000, £200,000, or £300,000, as the case might be, disturbing and agitating the market unnecessarily, and depriving these depositors of the benefit they might acquire from such an investment? It was positively too absurd a question to provoke an answer. The two questions—namely, as to the management and as to the finance of savings banks were most important questions, but nothing but confusion and mischief could arise from mixing them up with each other in a Bill like that before the Committee. The hon. Baronet had objected to what he had called the clandestine and irresponsible nature of the dealings with these funds. All he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could say was that he was responsible for those dealings; and as to their being clandestine there was scarcely ground for such an assertion, because the hon. Baronet, and any hon. Member who took equal trouble, was as well acquainted with them as he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could be. The words proposed by the hon. Baronet would put the conscience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—if the hon. Baronet admitted a Chancellor of the Exchequer possessed a conscience—in a most painful position, and, indeed, it would be impossible for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to act under such words if they were passed into law. The best way of regarding the interests of the depositors was, however, to make it certain to them that the Government would pay back their deposits with interest, and, if so, the less the depositors knew about anything else the better. It was impossible to have two systems of finance—one for post-office savings banks and another for other savings banks. He trusted that the hon. Baronet would not divide the House on words so ambiguous, and, on many accounts, so objectionable in their character.

MR. AYRTON

said, that since the Chancellor of the Exchequer had introduced a clause regulating the investment of these funds, it was not the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Willoughby) who had imported a question into the discussion which ought not to have been introduced. [The of the I must do something with the money.] The proper plan was to confine the present Bill to the establishment of these banks, and to bring in another Bill regulating the appropriation of the money.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, the issue he had raised was a very simple one, and was not to be got rid of by any offhand statement. He had suggested that if £100,000 was deposited by the working classes that amount should be invested in stock, bills, or bonds for the benefit of the depositors, and for no other purpose; also that the accounts should be well kept, strictly audited, duly circulated for the information of the House and the country. All he asked was that they should not extend what appeared to him a vicious system; that the £100,000 should be sold not for the benefit of their depositors, or to answer any call on their behalf—as had been the case, for instance, in the transaction of the Exchequer bills. He was surprised to have heard his right hon. Friend allude to that honest Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goulburn), for it had been through him that the House had been favoured with the information which had enabled it to denounce the system of using the savings banks money of the country for the purpose of investing it in the public stocks. It was Mr. Goulburn who had laid the voluminous statement on the table; and he had had the advantage of hearing his opinion on the subject, and it was in favour of the course he was now pursuing. With regard to the Commission which at present managed the savings banks funds, it comprised the names of several persons of eminent position, but who did nothing. It consisted of the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, the Accountant General, the Governor and the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but the only members who attended the quarterly meetings were the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. It was matter of common knowledge that the national debt of this country had been increased to the amount of £2,000,000 without the knowledge of the House of Commons, He desired to put a stop to such a state of things. Then he had moved for a Return showing how much of the unfunded debt had been changed into funded debt. The Return made was nil. But it afterwards turned out that £7,000,000 of unfunded debt had been so treated. Such laxity in the management of those funds showed the impolicy of allowing them to be dealt with without the authority of Parliament. It was against such operations that he protested; and, therefore, he asked that the savings of the poor should be kept as simple deposits, and should not be mixed up with state purposes and projects.

SIR JOSEPH PAXTON

said, he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn, for its proposition on the present occasion, involving as it did an enormous change in financial arrangements, seemed almost like taking the Committee and the Chancellor of the Exchequer by surprise The question was important, and if the hon. Baronet gave notice of a Resolution on the subject, it might then be fairly discussed. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets must on consideration see that the present clause was absolutely necessary; for it was no use to have money deposited without the power of investing that money somewhere.

COLONEL SYKES

observed that Mr. Goulburn had made a brilliant operation with the savings banks money, but succeeding Chancellors of the Exchequer had lost £3,000,000 by their employment of it.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, that as the present Bill was brought in to amend the previous system, the question arose whether the Commissioners ought not to act as trustees simply, and not as bankers.

SIR HENERY WILLOUGHBY

said, that as there appeared to be some fairness in one or two of the observations which had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should assent to the withdrawal of his Amendment, but not on the score of principle.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he must object to the withdrawal of the Motion on those qualified terms.

MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT

said, that while he concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Eversham in thinking that the mode of dealing with the savings banks funds as a whole was not satisfactory, he should yet be unwilling to take a course which would be calculated to have the effect of placing two systems of savings banks deposits—the present, and that which would be created under the Bill before the Committee—upon a different footing. He should, therefore, recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. MALINS

said, an appeal had been made to the hon. Baronet to withdraw the Amendment upon a technical point. He thought the principle was a very important one. The Government were anxious to become bankers and receive deposits, and it was contended for the first time that the depositors were to have control over the actions of the banker. He did not know what restraint should be put upon the public banker which was not put upon the ordinary banker. When they thought a banker was a sober-minded, discreet man, they trusted him with their money, and they did not ask him whether he invested the money in the 3 per Cents or Exchequer bills. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite right, and he thought the hon. Baronet should withdraw his Amendment, but not with the view of bringing it forward again.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

observed that the Government, in the present instance, were to be regarded not so much in the light of bankers as trustees.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses 11 to 13 inclusive.

Clause 14 (Provisions of Savings Banks now in force applicable to this Act except, &c.),

MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT

asked, whether the result of the audit and examinations of the savings banks accounts would be laid before Parliament.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

replied that the same course would be pursued as was adopted in reference to the other public accounts; the auditors would report to the Treasury, and the House could, if it so pleased, bring the matter within its own view. He, however, intended to move the appointment of a Committee of public accounts, and his opinion was that ultimately, though not at present, all that was done with public money should be under the revision of that Committee.

MR. HERBERT

intimated a doubt whether the mode of deciding disputes under the Bill was the best that could be devised. He alluded to a case under the present system of savings banks where awards had been made for £15,000 or £16,000, which had been afterwards pronounced by one of the Irish Judges not to be worth the paper on which they had been made. He thought there should be a power to have two arbitrators appointed.

MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT

said, he believed that the disputes would be of a different character from what had occurred under the ordinary savings banks. The former disputes had been between the depositors and the trustees of the banks, and unfortunately as they gave no security, the result was always unsatisfactory to the depositors. The only dispute that could arise now would be with regard to the falsification of a signature, or the withdrawal of an acknowledgment. The dispute would always he between the depositor and the central Government. He did not think it was the assistance of two arbitrators that would be required, but of a person best acquainted with the law. That being so, he thought it better to leave the matter in the hands of Mr. Tidd Pratt.

Clause agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.