Commons Sitting of 12 August 1879

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons) [No. 372].
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Report—Banking and Joint Stock Companies (re-comm.) [264]; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*.
Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—National School Teachers (Ireland) [246], and passed.
Considered as amended—Public Works Loans (No. 2)* [260].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices [288], and passed.
Third Reading—Blind and Deaf-Mute Children (Education) [93], deferred.
Withdrawn—Local Courts of Bankruptcy (Ireland) [146]; Poor Law (Scotland) (No. 2)* [252]; Supply of Drink on Credit* [224].

QUESTIONS.

  NEWSPAPERS—GOVERNMENT ADVERTISEMENTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. BATESasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will inform the House what is the annual amount paid by the Government through their appointed agent or agents to the proprietors of newspapers for inserting the Government advertisements, from every Department of the State?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, he had not been able to obtain the information asked for from more than three or four Departments. In the case of the War Office, the amount was £3,335; in the Admiralty, £3,059, an exceptionally heavy charge, as the average amount was about £2,000; in the Inland Revenue the amount was £4,160, and in the Customs £150. He would endeavour to get further information if it were moved for.

  ILLEGAL LOTTERIES.—QUESTION.
  MR. HOLTasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, in the present state of the Law, it is open to any individual to institute proceedings to recover penalties from persons engaged in promoting illegal lotteries in the United Kingdom, or such proceedings can only be

  815
  originated by himself; and, if so, whether he is aware that the Law is frequently and openly violated in this particular?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER): Proceedings to recover penalties from persons engaged in illegal lotteries must be taken in the name of the Attorney or Solicitor General. It seems, however, that it is open to anyone, on obtaining the leave of the Law Officers, to prosecute the keeper of a lottery as a rogue and vagabond. See "Youdon v. Crooks," 22, Justice of the Peace, 287. In answer to the last part of the Question, I have to say that I believe the letter of the statute against lotteries and "little goes" is sometimes infringed by persons holding bazaars, or endeavouring by other means to raise money for charitable objects; but I am not aware that the law is frequently violated by other persons,

  ARMY—BRIGADIER GENERAL SIR EVELYN WOOD.—QUESTION.
  MR. CALLANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Brigadier General Sir Evelyn Wood was seconded as Lieutenant Colonel of the 90th Light Infantry, on appointment to the Staff, in accordance with the Royal Warrant; and, if not, what is the reason that such course was not taken?
  COLONEL STANLEY,in reply, said, that on the 20th of April last, Lord Chelmsford reported the appointment of Sir Evelyn Wood to be brigadier general, local rank being conferred upon him by Sir Bartle Frere under his powers as Lord High Commissioner. Brigadier General Wood was not seconded as Lieutenant Colonel of the 90th Regiment, as it was not customary to second officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel, the local rank of brigadier general having been conferred under the powers given to the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa by Article 155 of the Royal Warrant. A lieutenant colonel was not seconded when appointed to the Staff, but was placed on half pay; but as the appointment of brigadier general was local and temporary, and not in exchange for a Staff appointment of five years, it seemed to the military authorities that it would be hard to deprive General Wood of his regimental position.

  ARMY (INDIA)—BEER SUPPLIED TO TROOPS.—QUESTION.
  MR. RITCHIEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that the troops in India are supplied with beer in the proportion of three-fourths Indian and one-fourth English brewed beer; whether English brewers have the opportunity afforded them of competing with Indian brewers in all contracts which are made for the supplies required; and, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the particulars of the contracts entered into both in India and England for the supply of beer for 1878 and 1879, giving the prices and conditions?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: All food for the troops in India is obtained locally if possible. Some of the troops are supplied entirely with Indian beer, and I am informed that it is liked. The Government of India buy a considerable quantity of beer in the Punjab and neighbouring districts, for the supply of which Indian brewers alone compete. The particulars for which my hon. Friend asks would not afford the means of making a fair comparison between the cost of English and Indian beer, because the cost of inland carriage, which is very heavy, ought to be taken into account. But the Secretary of State will be ready to make a careful inquiry into the matter; and if my hon. Friend will supply any information which he possesses on the subject, we shall be much obliged.

  BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—THE RULES.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. MELLONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Board of National Education in Ireland have any rule or form to the effect that managers of schools cannot take declarations as to salaries of teachers or result fees from the next of kin of deceased schoolmasters; and, if so, when did such rule or form come into force; is there any printed or published rule or form to the effect that when a rector is a manager of a school he cannot take such a declaration which then must be made before a parish priest or a magistrate; and, if so, how long such a rule or form has been in force; whether there is any

  817
  objection to produce such rules or forms, and the form of declaration used in such cases; and, whether, if any rule exists preventing the manager of a school if a rector or parish priest taking such a declaration, such regulation will be altered?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: There is a private form in use for the purpose referred to in the Question. It is the same as is used in other Departments. There will be no objection to produce it; and if the hon. and learned Member will move for it I will lay it on the Table. There is a Bill that prevents the managers of schools from taking the declarations referred to, and there are sufficient reasons for it.
  MR. MELDON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to lay on the Table a copy of the Rule?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I will do so.

THE IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES COMMISSIONERS—SALE OF LANDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been called to the Petition presented by Dr. G. Sampson, of Moynoe, in the County of Clare, setting forth the circumstances under which certain rights enjoyed by him as sub-tenant of lands were abrogated by the sale of the said lands by the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland; and, whether he will lay the allegations of the said Petition before the said Commissioners, and obtain from them a statement of their views thereon?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: The Commissioners of Church Temporalities appear to have acted in this matter with great consideration for the parties. When the legal time had expired during which they might have given the notice, the Commissioners caused their attention to be specially drawn to the fact that the notice had not been given, and that the legal time had expired, and they then gave them further time for taking the prescribed steps. All the parties were bound to know the provisions of the law affecting their interests; but the Commissioners issued a Circular, a copy of which can be produced, calling their attention to the steps that should be taken. Notwithstanding that, no steps were taken by the gentleman named in the
  818
  Question, or by the other parties, until after the sale had taken place; and, under those circumstances, the Commissioners felt themselves unable to vary the decisions that have been published.

ARMY (INDIA)—CASE OF CAPTAIN CHATTERTON.—QUESTION.
MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he will lay upon the Table the following Correspondence relative to the case of Captain Chatterton, late of the Bengal Army—viz., the letter of the late Lord Sandhurst, containing the charge against Captain Chatterton upon which he was compulsorily placed upon half-pay, the subsequent orders of Lord Sandhurst and of the Divisional and Brigade Generals contradicting the charge, together with the Medical Certificates and Hospital Record upon Captain Chatterton's case, similarly contradicting the first letter of Lord Sandhurst?
MR. E. STANHOPE: Captain Chatterton's case has been very carefully considered and decided by several successive Secretaries of State, and it has been finally settled not to re-open it. Under these circumstances, it would be useless to publish the huge mass of correspondence relating to it, and unfair to publish those portions only which the hon. and gallant Member has indicated.

ARMY—THE PERAK EXPEDITION— MEDALS—QUESTION.
MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to extend the North Frontier Indian Medal to the officers and men who served in the Perak expedition?
COLONEL STANLEY: Yes, Sir; they will get the Frontier medal with the special clasp.

MERCHANT SHIPPING—THE "VORTIGERN."—QUESTION.
MR. RATHBONEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he is aware that the ship "Vortigern" has been detained by the Resident of Aden, he admitting that he was not competent to take cognizance of the claims in support of which he has acted; that he has declined to release the ship until such time as the salvage and other claims are

819
determined by the Admiralty Court in London; that he has been informed, in reply to telegrams to the Admiralty and Admiralty Registrar that there is no jurisdiction; that the claimants, although the injunction was issued in February last, have taken no steps to establish their claim in any of the Courts in the country that are open to them; that the parties interested in the vessel have offered to give bail for or deposit the whole amount of the money claimed; that the Resident refuses to release the vessel unless the money is paid to be distributed without adjudication; and, whether he can do anything to put an end to such conduct on the part of the Resident, and to protect the commerce of this Country passing to the East?
MR. E. STANHOPE: Yes, Sir; my attention has been repeatedly called to the case of the Vortigem. The Resident appears not to be acting under any Admiralty jurisdiction, to which he puts forward no claim; but we assume that he is acting judicially, and subject to an appeal to the judicial authorities in Bombay. In these circumstances, I must decline to express any opinion upon the case, especially as the Secretary of State might expose himself to legal proceedings if he were to interfere in the matter.

THE METEOROLOGICAL COUNCIL AND THE SCOTTISH METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY—QUESTION.
MR. M'LAGANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If any communications have taken place between the Meteorological Council and the Scottish Meteorological Society regarding the conducting of special researches by the latter Society or the prosecution of meteorological inquiry; and, what payments have been made to the Scottish Meteorological Society during the past two years for the conducting of special researches, as suggested in the Report of the Treasury Committee on the Meteorological Grant?
SIB HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: I understand that in the spring of 1878 communications passed between the Meteorological Council and the Scottish Meteorological Society, with a view to arranging the terms on which the Society should co-operate with the Council; but that the Society has declined to accede to the conditions on which alone the
820
Council could, consistently with the principles laid down by the Treasury Committee, make any payment to the Society out of the Vote, those conditions being that—
"No payments should be made to independent Societies out of the Vote except for results sought for by the Council."
In consequence, no sums have been paid to the Scottish Meteorological Society out of the Vote during the last two years; but the Secretary of the Society has been appointed by the Council its Inspector for Scotland, at an annual salary of £150; and, further, the Council has promised to allow the Society £100 a-year towards the maintenance of an observatory on Ben Nevis, if one is established.

ARMY—HORSE GUARDS STAFF.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that the officers who at present hold the appointments respectively of Adjutant General to the Forces, Deputy Adjutant General to the Forces, and Deputy Adjutant General (as Inspector General of Auxiliary Forces) held appointments on the Horse Guards Staff on the 1st January 1874, as Quartermaster General, Assistant Military Secretary, and Deputy Adjutant General; and, how many of these officers have held appointments on the Horse Guards Staff since 1st January 1874?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Yes, Sir; the statement in the first part of the Question is correct. With regard to the second part of the Question, two of these officers have held their present appointments from the time at which they relinquished their former posts. The present Adjutant General, I should say, was off the Staff from March until November, 1876. I consider it a great advantage to have at Head-quarters officers who have had previous experience in other capacities in connection with Head-quarter Staff duties.

DOMINION OF CANADA—CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.—QUESTIONS.
MR. PULESTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is proposed to guarantee a further loan for the construction of the Canadian Pacific

821
Railway, or whether an application for such guarantee has been made to Her Majesty's Government by the Canadian authorities?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I understand that it is the intention of the Canadian Government to make some proposals to us upon that subject, but no proposal has yet been received.
MR. FAWCETT: The right hon. Gentleman says he understands that such an application is going to be made, and we know that a deputation is in England at the present time. I wish to ask him, Whether he can give the House an assurance that such guarantee shall not be promised until Parliament has had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Of course, if the Government enter into any arrangement of the kind, it will have to be ratified by Parliament.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS—THE ROYAL COMMISSION.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the proceedings of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into Agricultural Distress will be open to the public, or whether investigations of the Commission will be prosecuted with closed doors?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That will rest with the Commission; but it has not been the practice with Royal Commissions to hold their inquiries openly, except on very rare occasions. I may mention with regard to the names of the Commissioners, that a gentleman has been added—Mr. John Bryce, a large tenant-farmer of Richview, near Charleville, county Cork.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYD: I may point out that Wales is not represented on this Commission, and I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will take care that Wales shall be represented upon it?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid there are many parts of the country besides Wales—Lancashire, for instance—which may be said not to be represented. But, undoubtedly, arrangements will be made by the Commission to take care that so important a portion of the country as Wales is carefully inquired into; and I
  822
  have no doubt that in the arrangement of Sub-Commissioners, there will be some special arrangement with regard to that part of the country.

PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS—INSPECTION OF CONVICT PRISONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. A. MOOREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he intends to adopt the recommendation of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the working of the Penal Servitude Acts, for the independent and unpaid inspection of convict prisons?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he had every intention of carrying that recommendation out; but he did not think any legislation would be necessary on the subject.

TURKEY—THE NEW EGYPTIAN FIRMAN.—QUESTION.
SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDasked, Whether the new Egyptian Firman issued by the Porte, and which had been referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech last night, would be laid before Parliament?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, there would be no objection to lay it on the Table as soon as it was published; but, at present, only its general substance, and not its text, had been received.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question with reference to the arrangements which he proposes for the Business of this week. The right hon. Gentleman, Iunderstand, suggested to my hon. Friend the Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Grant Duff) that, instead of discussing the Afghan Treaty, which he intends to do, on the next stage of the Appropriation Bill, he should bring forward a Motion on the subject, and the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give him Thursday for the purpose. I now ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will move that the Orders of the Day be postponed, in order that the Motion in question may be made? I also wish to ask, Whether the Govern-

823
ment will undertake to keep a House for my hon. Friend, which, of course, at the period of the Session, it is impossible for my hon. Friend to do himself?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I should be perfectly prepared to move that the Orders of the Day, on Thursday, should be postponed for the consideration of the Motion of the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs, provided there are any Orders of the Day. If there should not be any Orders of the Day, I propose to place a Notice on the Paper for Thursday, for the purpose of making the Sessional Order, passed at the beginning of the Session, a Standing Order. That Sessional Order was passed for giving the Government power to go into Supply on Mondays, on certain conditions, without previous Notice. The Notice for making that into a Standing Order I shall place on the Paper, so that there may be some Business before the House of a somewhat important character. We should, of course, give precedence to the Motion of the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs. Whether there are any Orders of the Day of Thursday will depend upon the progress we make with the Business to-day. The Government, of course, will be very glad if there should be none. If we are to rise on Friday, it will be necessary for us to pass the third reading of the Appropriation Bill to-morrow, and also the third reading of any other Bills which this House may have to send up to the House of Lords. To-morrow, we propose that the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) should have precedence for his Motion on the subject of the Water Supply of London. I apprehend that the hon. Gentleman will make his Motion this evening, so as to be able to bring it on as an adjourned debate to-morrow. I give Notice, as a safeguard against accidents, that I shall move, at the beginning of Business to-morrow, to suspend the Standing Rule which provides that on Wednesdays Business shall close at 6 o'clock, so that the House may tomorrow sit later, if necessary.
MR. NEWDEGATEasked, Whether the Government contemplated that the House should sit on Friday and Monday next?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I venture to say that, in all probability, before Monday next Her
824
Majesty will have sent us about our business.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEgave Notice of his intention to oppose the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the suspension of the Rule regulating Wednesday Sittings.
MR. FAWCETTthanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman had made in reference to his Motion in connection with the Metropolitan Water Supply.

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.

  QUESTIONS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in the case of the Scotch Poor Law Bill, which was the only Scotch Bill among the Orders for to-night, he would consent to withdraw all contentious matter, and thus secure its passage into law, especially as the main object of the measure was only to give to Scotland the same medical grant and the same provisions for medical officers as were given in England?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, the hon. Member seemed to forget that two hon. Members representing Scotch constituencies had taken steps, in accordance with the Forms of the House, to prevent the Bill being proceeded with after half-past 12 o'clock; and, therefore, if the Bill was lost, the onus of its not coming on would rest upon those two hon. Members, and not upon Her Majesty's Government.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: But will the right hon. Gentleman drop the contentious matter?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Unless a stage is taken to-night, the Bill cannot be passed this year.
  MR. ANDERSON: As the object of the Bill is only to increase the medical grants to Scotland, I wish to know, Whether it is necessary to pass the Bill at all; and whether the object in view cannot be obtained without any such measure?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: If it had not been desirable to pass the Bill, I should not have brought it in.
  MR. ANDERSON: But is it necessary?
  [To this Question no answer was given.]

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. GREGORYappealed to the Government not to proceed further this Session with the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts Amendment Bill.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would consult the Attorney General as to the course which was most advisable to be taken.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BANKING AND JOINT STOCK COMPANIES (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 264.]
  (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  BANKING AND JOINT STOCK COMPANIES (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 264.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he regretted that it should be incumbent on him to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill that day three months. But he had carefully weighed the Amendments he had placed on the Notice Paper, and, considering their nature and extent, deemed it more frank to make such a Motion in the first instance, as it would enable him to express, as a whole, his objections to the present Bill, which he had no opportunity of going into since the altered Bill was placed in the hands of hon. Members. The original Bill was introduced on the 21st of April by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in Committee of the Whole House, on a Motion—
    "To bring in a Bill to amend the Law with respect to the liability of members of Banking and other Joint Stock Companies; and for other purposes."
    The right hon. Gentleman availed himself of that opportunity for explaining the circumstances which called for legislation, and he used these words—
    "According to the provisions of the Joint Stock Companies Act of 1862, it has been optional for any company to register itself either as limited or as unlimited…It was believed that that power was a continuous one; but they found, on taking legal advice, that it was not possible for a bank which had once
    826
    elected to be registered as an unlimited company to become limited."—[3 Mansard, ccxlv. 791.]
    That was an intelligible statement, and a cogent argument in favour of some measure. No one could even attempt to refute the proposition that something ought to be done to remove the technical difficulty complained of, unless, indeed, he took up the ground that the Companies Acts of 1862 and 1867 were altogether wrong, and he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) was not at all disposed to take any such grounds; but the grounds on which he based his present Motion were that the Bill before the House went far beyond the scope of the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated, and that it introduced principles at variance with the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1867, which were the last deliberate pronouncement they bad to guide them in legislating on this exceedingly critical subject. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) would ask the attention of hon. Members to what he was now about to say. The latest law which applied to the subject of the reduction of the liability of shareholders in public Companies was the Companies Act of 1867–30 & 31 Vict. c. 131. That Act was passed on the basis of the Report of the Committee of the same year. The Committee made its Report on the 28th of May, 1867, shortly after which the Bill was brought in and passed through Parliament, and received the Royal Assent on the 28th of August. He would say a few words as to the constitution of the Committee, which was a very strong one. Of its Members there was not one who had come forward to support this Bill; and there was notably one Member—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard)—who did not regard this measure one degree more favourably than he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) did. Now, what did that Committee recommend? It recommended that Companies should be allowed to reduce their capital, or to reduce the amount of their shares, or to reduce both their capital and their shares, on the following conditions:—Notice to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies; advertisement of notice in such manner as the Board of Trade might direct; the consent of all parties being creditors of the Company at the

    827
    date of the reduction. Or, as an alternative, payment to the creditors; or, in case of absence or legal incapacity of creditors, that the amount in cash of their claims be invested in Government Stock, or, in the names of trustees, lodged in the Bank of England under conditions to be approved of by the Board of Trade. These were the conditions recommended by the Committee bearing on the subject of the reduction of capital of Joint Stock Companies. The enactment which followed on these recommendations was comprised in the 9th to the 20th sections of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 131—the Companies Act of 1867, which were as follows:—
    Reduction of Capital and Shares.
    "9. Any Company limited by Shares may, by special Resolution, so far modify the Conditions contained in its Memorandum of Association, if authorized so to do by its Regulations as originally framed or as altered by special Resolution, as to reduce its Capital; but no such Resolution for reducing the Capital of any Company shall come into operation until an Order of the Court is registered by the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, as is here-inafter mentioned.
    "10. The Company shall, after the Date of the passing of any special Resolution for reducing its Capital, add to its Name, until such Date as the Court may fix, the Words 'and Reduced,' as the last Words in its Name, and those Words shall until such Date, be deemed to be Part of the Name of the Company within the Meaning of the Principal Act.
    "11. A Company which has passed a special Resolution for reducing its Capital may apply to the Court by Petition for an Order confirming the Reduction, and on the Hearing of the Petition the Court, if satisfied that with respect to every Creditor of the Company who under the Provisions of this Act is entitled to object to the Reduction, either his Consent to the Reduction has been obtained, or his Debt or Claim has been discharged or has determined, or has been secured as herein-after provided, may make an Order confirming the Reduction on such Terms and subject to such Conditions as it deems fit.
    "12. The Expression 'the Court' shall in this Act mean the Court which has Jurisdiction to make an Order for winding-up the petitioning Company, and the Eighty-first and Eighty-third Sections of the Principal Act shall be construed as if the Term 'Winding-up' in those Sections included Proceedings under this Act, and the Court may in any Proceedings under this Act make such Order as to Costs as it deems fit.
    "13. Where a Company proposes to reduce its Capital, every Creditor of the Company who at the Date fixed by the Court is entitled to any Debt or Claim which, if that Date were the Commencement of the winding-up of the Company, would be admissible in Proof against the
    828
    Company, shall be entitled to object to the proposed Reduction, and to be entered in the List of Creditors who are so entitled to object.
    "The Court shall settle a List of such Creditors, and for that Purpose shall ascertain as far as possible, without requiring an Application from any Creditor, the Names of such Creditors and the Nature and Amount of their Debts or Claims, and may publish Notices fixing a certain Day or Days within which Creditors of the Company who are not entered on the List are to claim to be so entered or to be excluded from the Right of objecting to the proposed Reduction.
    "14. Where a Creditor whose Name is entered on the List of Creditors and whose Debt or Claim is not discharged or determined, does not consent to the proposed Reduction, the Court may (if it think tit) dispense with such Consent, on the Company securing the Payment of the Debt or Claim of such Creditor by setting apart and appropriating, in such Manner as the Court may direct, a Sum of such Amount as is herein-after mentioned; (that is to say,)

    "(1.) If the full amount of the Debt or Claim of the Creditor is admitted by the Company, or, though not admitted, is such as the Company are willing to set apart and appropriate, then the full Amount of the Debt or Claim shall be set apart and appropriated:

    "(2.) If the full Amount of the Debt or Claim of the Creditor is not admitted by the Company, and is not such as the Company are willing to set apart and appropriate, or if the Amount is contingent or not ascertained, then the Court may, if it think fit, inquire into and adjudicate upon the Validity of such Debt or Claim, and the Amount for which the Company may be liable in respect thereof, in the same Manner as if the Company were being wound up by the Court, and the Amount fixed by the Court on such Inquiry and Adjudication shall be set apart and appropriated.

    "15. The Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, upon the production to him of an Order of the Court confirming the Reduction of the Capital of a Company, and the Delivery to him of a Copy of the Order and of a Minute (approved by the Court) showing with respect to the Capital of the Company, as altered by the Order, the Amount of such Capital, the Number of Shares in which it is to be divided, and the Amount of each Share, shall register the Order and Minute, and on the Registration the Special Resolution confirmed by the Order so registered shall take effect.
    "Notice of such Registration shall be published in such Manner as the Court may direct.
    "The Registrar shall certify under his Hand the Registration of the Order and Minute, and his Certificate shall be conclusive Evidence that all the Requisitions of this Act with respect to the Reduction of Capital have been complied with, and that the Capital of the Company is such as is stated in the Minute.
    "16. The Minute when registered shall be deemed to be substituted for the corresponding Part of the Memorandum of Association of the Company, and shall be of the same Validity

    829
    and subject to the same Alterations as if it had been originally contained in the Memorandum of Association; and, subject as in this Act mentioned, no Member of the Company, whether past or present, shall be liable in respect of any Share to any Call or Contribution exceeding in Amount the Difference (if any) between the Amount which has been paid on such Share and the Amount of the Share as fixed by the Minute.
    "17. If any Creditor who is entitled in respect of any Debt or Claim to object to the Reduction of the Capital of a Company under this Act is, in consequence of his Ignorance of the Proceedings taken with a view to such Reduction, or of their Nature and Effect with respect to his Claim, not entered on this List of Creditors, and after such Reduction the Company is unable, within the Meaning of the Eightieth Section of the Principal Act, to pay to the Creditor the Amount of such Debt or Claim, every Person who was a Member of the Company at the Date of the Registration of the Order and Minute relating to the Reduction of the Capital of the Company shall be liable to contribute for the Payment of such Debt or Claim an Amount not exceeding the Amount which he would have been liable to contribute if the Company had commenced to be wound up on the Day prior to such Registration; and on the Company being wound up the Court, on the Application of such Creditor, and on Proof that he was ignorant of the Proceedings taken with a view to the Reduction, or of their Nature and Effect with respect to his Claim, may, if it think fit, settle a List of such Contributories accordingly, and make and enforce Calls and Orders on the Contributories settled on such List in the same Manner in all respects as if they were ordinary Contributories in a winding-up; but the Provisions of this Section shall not affect the Rights of the Contributories of the Company among themselves.
    "18. A Minute when registered shall be embodied in every Copy of the Memorandum of Association issued after its Registration; and if any Company makes default in complying with the Provisions of this Section it shall incur a Penalty not exceeding One Pound for each Copy in respect of which such Default is made, and every Director and Manager of the Company who shall knowingly and wilfully authorize or permit such Default shall incur the like Penalty.
    "19. If any Director, Manager, or Officer of the Company wilfully conceals the Name of any Creditor of the Company who is entitled to object to the proposed Reduction, or wilfully misrepresents the Nature or Amount of the Debt or Claim of any Creditor of the Company, or if any Director or Manager of the Company aids or abets in or is privy to any such Concealment or Misrepresentation as aforesaid, every such Director, Manager, or Officer shall be guilty of a Misdemeanor.
    "20. The Powers of making Rules concerning winding-up conferred by the One hundred and seventieth, One hundred and seventy-first, One hundred and seventy-second, and One hundred and seventy-third Sections of the Principal Act shall respectively extend to making Rules concerning Matters in which Jurisdiction is by this
    830
    Act given to the Court which has the Power of making an Order to wind up a Company, and until such Rules are made the Practice of the Court in Matters of the same Nature shall, so far as the same is applicable, be followed."
    He was quite familiar with the working of the present law, and there was not one of these restrictions which, in his opinion, could be safely dispensed with. Would any hon. Member now say that the Bill before them was simply one to extend those provisions to unlimited banks which were accidentally, or technically, debarred hitherto from registering as limited Companies? Could the right hon. Gentleman assure them that this was a mere extension Bill? Was it not rather a Bill to dispense with many of the positive precautions of the present law? Would it not, in fact, if it were to become law, fritter away the security on which the public at present tranquilly relied? He could not regard it in any other light. It was, doubtless, well intended, but good intentions were proverbially unfortunate. Now, he ventured to say few hon. Members had pursued their investigations much further than to read the Bill in their hands, and form a notion of what it proposed to do; but did many of them inquire or examine what it was that the Bill proposed to undo? He should endeavour, as briefly as possible, to explain. The 7th clause of the present Bill commenced thus—
    "Section one hundred and eighty-eight of the Companies Act 1862, is hereby repealed and in place thereof it is enacted as follows."
    Hon. Members could read what was intended to be enacted by this Bill; but he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) would read for them what it was they were repealing. It ran thus—
    "Every Banking Company existing at the Date of the passing of this Act which registers itself as a Limited Company shall, at least Thirty Days previous to obtaining a Certificate of Registration with Limited Liability, give Notice that it is intended so to register the same to every Person and Partnership Firm who have a Banking Account with the Company, and such Notice shall be given either by delivering the same to such Person or Firm, or leaving the same or putting the same into the Post addressed to him or them at such Address as shall have been last communicated or otherwise become known as his or their Address to or by the Company; and in case the Company omits to give any such Notice as is hereinbefore required to be given, then as between the Com-

    831
    pany and the Person or Persons only who are for the Time being interested in the Account in respect of which such Notice ought to have been given, and so far as respects such Account and all Variations thereof down to the Time at which such Notice shall he given, but not further or otherwise, the Certificate of Registration with Limited Liability shall have no Operation."
    Hon. Members could judge from that of the insufficiency of the substituted provisions of Clause 7 of the present Bill to render people aware of what was being done. Then, the 8th clause of the Bill commenced—
    "Section one hundred and eighty-two of the Companies Act 1862, is hereby repealed."
    Well, all that he had to say about that repeal was this—that it repealed a very simple provision respecting banks of issue reducing their capital, in order to re-enact the same thing in what appeared to him a somewhat more obscure and objectionable form. The hon. Member read Section 182 of the Act of 1862, which it was proposed to repeal, and asked the House then to peruse the clause proposed to be submitted for it. He would ask what possible advantage there was in repealing this portion of the Act of 1862, in order to enact it by the provisions of the present Bill? He would, however, admit; that the objects in view in both were identical. But they were proceeding further in the direction of repeal. The 9th clause of the Bill before them took the proposed reserve liability banks clean out of the most important of the provisions of the Act of 1862, as they applied to limited Companies. The 9th clause of the Bill commenced—
    "The forty-fourth section of the Companies Act 1862, shall not apply to a banking company registered as a reserve liability company, or registered after the passing of this Act as a limited company, and in place thereof the following section shall be enacted so far as relates to such companies."
    Now, that 44th section was to the following effect:—
    "Every Limited Banking Company and every Insurance Company, and Deposit, Provident, or Benefit Society under this Act shall, before it commences Business, and also on the First Monday in February and the First Monday in August in every Year during which it carries on Business, make a Statement in the Form marked D. in the First Schedule hereto, or as near thereto as Circumstances will admit, and a Copy of such Statement shall be put up in a conspicuous Place in the registered Office of the
    832
    Company, and in every Branch Office or Place where the Business of the Company is carried on, and if Default is made in compliance with the Provisions of this Section the Company shall be liable to a Penalty not exceeding Five Pounds for every Day during which such Default continues, and every Director and Manager of the Company who shall knowingly and wilfully authorize or permit such Default shall incur the like Penalty.
    "Every Member and every Creditor of any Company mentioned in this Section shall be entitled to a Copy of the above-mentioned Statement on Payment of a Sum not exceeding Sixpence."
    On a comparison of the effect of the provisions herein contained with those substituted in the Bill, it could not be doubted that that repeal and substitution would go to unsettle a carefully constructed framework already part of our mercantile and financial code and system, and to substitute for it new formulae, which were in no way whatever an improvement on the practice prescribed by the Act of 1862, and, in some respects, far less efficacious, as part of a disciplinary system. And now he would advert to another point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, on the 22nd of July—
    "Certain unlimited hanks are in this position—they have a very large nominal capital, and only a small proportion of it paid up, and they say, 'If we were to turn ourselves into reserve liability companies, there might be some difficulty as to what the amount should be;' and a wish has been expressed, on the part of some of them, that they should have the power of reducing their nominal capital."—[3 Hansard, ccxlviii. 981.]
    He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) would not now follow up the arguments that applied to this view of the case, as they might be modified by the course the Bill would take, and by what might now be said by the right hon. Gentleman; but he moved, in order that he might learn what were the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the House resolve itself into Committee that day three months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Sir Joseph M'Kenna,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was great force, no doubt, in much that the hon. Gentleman had said; but he thought the hon. Gentleman saw, as all hon. Members saw, that some measure must pass to enable the existing defects of the law to be remedied. He, therefore, suggested as the most practicable course that the Bill should be allowed to go into Committee, where, he apprehended, the hon. Member would not object to the passing of the clause providing for the registration of unlimited banks as limited Companies. Then they would come to the consideration of the clause respecting reserved liability, and to the special provisions to which he understood the hon. Member to take exception for doing away with the present system of giving notice to all creditors, and substituting a system of advertisements. With regard to the unlimited liability of the bank in respect to notes, he thought, when they came to that, they would be able to satisfy the hon. Member that they had better not go further with the matter to which he had drawn their attention. Accounts were matters of detail which they need not discuss. Other clauses had better be discussed in Committee, where suggestions could be more easily made and Amendments moved. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would not press his Motion.
    MR. SHAWquite concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in the opinion that the questions raised by the hon. Member for Youghal could be more conveniently dealt with in Committee; but it would, he thought, facilitate the progress of the Bill if some understanding were first arrived at as to the clauses relating to reserve liability, to which a very strong objection was entertained. He had no wish to prevent unlimited banks from limiting themselves, provided it could be done without injury to the depositors. Many unlimited banks, he believed, had called up a great part of their capital, and would not have sufficient margin, if they became limited banks, on which to found a large business. The public ought to see the position of a bank at a glance. He believed most of those in this country and in Scotland and Ireland were in a sound and healthy state, and were making the changes proposed. The House should be careful to do nothing
    834
    that should interfere with their stability. The question of accounts was one that might possibly wait until next year, because it would be a very difficult thing to compress all the accounts of the banks into one form. Many buyers of bank shares thought no more of the transaction than if they were buying stock; and the first result of this agitation would be that shareholders would look more closely after their own interests, and see the accounts were fully displayed. If a bank had £10 shares, and £7 were called up, the balance was not enough for a large business. There was no reason why such a bank should not make its nominal share £15, and so leave a wide margin. He had placed in his hands, within the last few minutes, a clause with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, no doubt, acquainted; and if the right hon. Gentleman were to adopt that clause he did not see why there should be any difficulty in passing the Bill.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDthought it very desirable that means should be taken for limiting liability; and provided that the circumstances were well known and published to the world, there was no reason why security should not be given to those shareholders. He did not think the House need hesitate to grant the change. It should be borne in mind, however, that in changing their character they changed the relations between themselves and their depositors, and it would not be right to make the change without intimating the same to each depositor. He objected very much to a reserve liability bank, because it was a thing that nobody could understand, and it conveyed no definite idea, and it seemed to him that in matters of this kind things should be as clear as they could be. Banks should do at once, while in a state of solvency, what they would be called upon to do in a state of insolvency—namely, to call together their shareholders, and to require from them large subscriptions in addition to their former amounts. This would only be fair to depositors when shareholders changed to limited responsibility. Notice should be given to depositors of the new character of the bank indicated. If these changes wore made he should be perfectly satisfied, and would give his support to the Bill.
    MR. RATHBONEwas disposed to think that it would be better to adopt

    835
    the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and defer the discussion until the House went into Committee; hut, as the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) had pointed out, if they could come to an agreement upon certain points, in all probability the Bill would pass in a short time with general concurrence; and he confessed he thought the hon. Member (Mr. Shaw) was right. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), that the first two clauses would be quite sufficient to carry out the intention of the Bill and meet the requirements of the case. The fact was, the House had before it a very difficult and delicate task. If they had to begin anew, then he thought it would be perfectly easy, because the limitation of liability would lead to the limitation of credit. People, unless they knew there was an unlimited amount of capital at the back of the bank, would not give credit on an insufficient basis, as it was known they did in the case of the City of Glasgow Bank. A number of transactions would, under these circumstances, have been brought to a stop much sooner under limited liability. But the position in which they were was this—they had unlimited credit built on the foundation of unlimited liability, and if the House were not careful they would strike away their unlimited liability in the first place, and unlimited credit would come to an untimely end. That was the difficulty pointed out by the hon. Member for Cork, and the two first clauses would not meet that position: There were many banks whose great credit was founded on their known good management and the fact that they had unlimited liability at their back. Suppose a bank had liabilities amounting, say, to £25,000,000, with a nominal capital of £3,500,000. Would anybody say it would be safe to do away with that bank's unlimited liability, and leave the bank with such a capital as that? In a list of 27 banks, there were more than half of them with capital paid up; but in many of these their good credit was founded on their good management. How would the Bill apply to such banks as these? But it was said it was absolutely necessary to do something. There would be the pressure which would be put upon Directors by shareholders to constitute their banks under limited
    836
    liability; and there would be the temptation to banks whose subscribed capital would not furnish sufficient security for their liabilities. Yet there was the state of feeling only recently excited by a considerable amount of distress, and which would not easily pass away; and if liberty were extended to banks to transfer themselves to limited liability without reserve it might lead to a very bad state of things indeed, and this was why there was a necessity for such clauses as the "Reserve Liability" clauses to enable banks to do away with their unlimited character, and yet preserve liability sufficient to meet the amount of their credit. He could see no valid objection to these reserve liability clauses, and he believed they would be very useful, and it would be an advantage that banks should ascertain the amount of capital they were able to call on. The clause proposed by the hon. Member for Cork was a good one, and might be proposed as an alternative if the clause of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not accepted by the House. They must not run the great risk of having banks driven by the feeling amongst their shareholders to adopt a principle of limited liability without sufficient capital to justify the state of liability in which they were in, and would probably remain in. There would be a source of serious evil unless some such provision as that proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was accepted.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSagreed with a good deal that had fallen from the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone). He had stated, the other day, that this was not, and must not be looked on as a banker's Bill at all. It must be looked upon as a Bill for the public generally. Many persons bought bank shares as they bought Consols, without considering the risks they ran. In consequence of the state of things in the last 12 months, these persons had begun to look about them, and to find that they had a real practical responsibility. This had gone on to such an extent that shareholders were unwilling to hold their shares subject to unlimited liability, as in the case of the City of Glasgow Bank, and were wishing to get rid of their shares. If that took place, the good shareholders ran out of the banks, and that was not for the public interest. Therefore, it was in the

    837
    interest of the public that this Bill was brought before the House, and he hoped hon. Members would not look upon it as a banker's Bill. If good shareholders got rid of their liabilities, the shares were likely to get into the hands of men of straw, who had nothing to pay with. Care must be taken that if unlimited banks changed themselves into limited they should not be allowed to throw off too much responsibility. It should not be possible for those banks to call up all their capital and have nothing left to fall back upon. Some years ago, when he went carefully into the matter, a bank that had called up £10 or £20 held it to be absolutely necessary to have £20 more that could be called up, leaving £60 out of the £100 share that could not be called up, except in the case of accident to the bank. The Bill did not overlook that point, and the question was only as to whether the clause of the hon. Member for Cork, or the provision of the Bill was preferable. The hon. Member for Cork suggested that limited liability Companies should have the same privilege as unlimited liability Companies. But there was a considerable difference between the cases. The unlimited liability shareholder could not object to his liability being lessened; but the limited liability shareholder would very fairly object to his liability being increased. Of course, if the limited liability shareholder consented to his liability being increased, no one could object; but it would be impossible to effect that object merely by introducing the words "limited or unlimited" into the clause. He quite agreed that this conversation had done good in bringing them together, and might facilitate the progress of the Bill through Committee.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had been brought to the conclusion that something approaching a Reserve Liability Clause would be necessary to be introduced into the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had said it was more for the public interest than in the interest of the banker; but his opinion was that the public interest was best preserved by allowing the bankers to make what bargains they could, and, therefore, he was strongly in favour of the unlimited banks being allowed to deal with their creditors as best they could. But then, of course, came the
    838
    position of some banks with a capital very nearly paid up, and he would not venture to make them unlimited unless there was a reserve. He agreed with the Home Secretary that they could hardly increase the liability without the consent of the shareholders. Then came in some provision in the Bill to enable an unlimited bank, the capital of which was nearly paid up, to make a call upon its shareholders; and it appeared to him to be a very fair thing that the general body of shareholders should do that; but he confessed he would prefer seeing a clause in the Bill similar to that of the hon. Member for Cork, rather than the clause that already existed in the Bill. The effect that was desired would be entirely gained by the clause suggested by the hon. Member for Cork.
    Mr. MUNTZconcurred in what had been said as to the necessity for providing unquestionable security for the depositors in a bank which limited its liability. When the joint-stock principle was adopted a number of private banks had failed, a fear as to their solvency having caused a run upon them; and it was to prevent such panics occurring that shareholders were rendered liable for every penny they possessed in the world. In his opinion, the reserve to be provided for in the Bill ought not to be restricted to an amount equal to that paid up, but ought to extend to two or three times the amount paid up.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought a reserved liability would be very good for the shareholders, but would afford no reliable security to the public, for it might be the case that a large proportion of the shareholders would be men of straw. There wore many banks in which the value of the shares altogether did not amount to one-twentieth the amount of the deposits.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Preliminary.
    Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Act not to apply to Bank of England) agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Construction of Act) agreed to.
    Registration Anew as a Limited Company.
    Clause 4 (Registration anew of unlimited company as limited company).
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he had an Amendment which he would submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although he feared there was not much chance of its being adopted. He might say, in the first place, that he introduced his Proviso with the assumption that the House would not be content with a mere advertisement of change of character for a bank, and would insist on retaining the notice already provided for in the Act of 1862. By that Act a notice of the conversion into limited liability would have to be sent out to every creditor of a Company, informing him of the change. Assuming that that condition was fulfilled, he ventured to suggest that the principle of limited liability should, after a certain time, apply to all creditors of banks; because, otherwise, they would have a series of very difficult questions arising, known to lawyers under the name of novation; the point at issue being whether a creditor had, or had not, accepted a new limited liability bank in place of the old unlimited bank. In the country, especially, there were many cases where people left money and received a deposit note, or even a bill, or perhaps a book, which was brought in, year after year, and interest paid on it, nothing being said as to any change made; but if the creditor had received a notice of the change, which he assumed would have been given to him, he thought, after a lapse of three years, it should be a matter of law, not to be disputed, that the depositor had accepted the limited liability Company in substitution for the previous bank; and that in the case of a current account, where transactions were constantly happening, that after 12 months a customer might be assumed to have accepted the new Company in substitution for the other. He need not tell the Attorney General or the Chancellor of the Exchequer that most vexing questions had arisen where, after the lapse of a great many years, Companies supposed to have been absolutely defunct had been resuscitated, for the purpose of providing funds to meet the
    840
    demands of persons who had apparently accepted, and had gone on accepting, substituted Companies for very many years. The necessity of producing evidence fixing these people with absolute consent to the change, which had to be decided from their acts, had given rise, in the cases of the "Albert," and the "European," and certain other well-known cases, to great difficulties in liquidation. This would certainly arise in the liquidation of any bank, especially any country bank, after its conversion into a limited Company; and, of course, he need not say that questions always were arising as to the period at which outgoing partners became released from their liability. For this reason, he ventured to suggest that they should accept the Proviso he wished to add to the clause—namely, in page 1, line 23, to add—
    Provided, however, that, in the case of any banking company, such limit of liability shall apply to any debt existing or arising as a balance of an account current at the expiration of one year from the date of such registration, and to any debt existing or arising as a balance of a deposit account at the expiration of three years from such date of registration."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, he was very well aware that many questions did arise on this doctrine; but he did not himself believe that there would be any difficulty in regard to this particular Bill, for its provisions were clear on the subject. The creditor would have the same remedy and the same power as he had supposing the change had not been made. If a man had an account current and a sum due to him, and chose to let the account go on after having received a notice of the change from the bank, and payments were made to him from time to time by the bank in the ordinary course of business, those payments would be an acceptance of the limited liability; and, at all events, within a very short time the payments would extinguish the earlier liability on the account current. Thus, very soon that account would be obliterated altogether, and then whatever money was due would be due under the altered arrangement. The customer, of course, could not complain of the alteration in the arrangement if he could not say that he was damnified by the bank being turned from an unlimited into a limited Com-

    841
    pany; because that would have been done under the provisions of an Act of Parliament. Neither could it be said that there was no notice on the part of the creditor; the matter would have been accomplished under the provisions of an Act of Parliament. He would have received his notice; and if, when he received his notice, he did not like the change, then he might have withdrawn his account and ceased to deal with the bank; but the notice having been given, if the creditor allowed his account to run on, he did so under the understanding that the liability of the bank to him would have been altered by Statute. These observations with reference to an account current would apply with less force to a deposit account. The payments made on that account, from time to time, would extinguish the earlier liability, and any further sums deposited would be placed to the account, on the understanding that they were governed by the limited liability. It seemed to him, although he quite acknowledged the attention the hon. Member for Liskeard had given to the Bill, that this provision would produce a much greater complication, and much greater evil would be produced by its adoption than there would be good gained by it.
    MR. MUNTZobserved, that the Attorney General had scarcely replied to the remarks of the Mover of the Amendment. It seemed to him that the result would be to confuse the customer, and he would not understand what he was about. The liability of the old bank and the liability of the new might last for four or five months, and a customer would scarcely know who were liable to him. In all these cases, it seemed to him that the straightforward way was to give notice. He had given Notice of an Amendment to Clause 7, providing that these notices should be sent to all creditors. There could be no difficulty about this, because every customer had a pass-book; and if he could receive that, he could receive a notice, and the bank could easily make the change from unlimited to limited.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)thought that the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) had not quite done justice himself to the speech of the hon. Member for Liskeard, and did not quite understand his argument. He himself did not deal with the
    842
    question of notice in his speech, although he quite admitted that some reasonable notice ought to be given, because the hon. Member stated his case on the assumption that notice would be given. Assuming that, he thought, also, it was desirable to add this provision to the Bill, while he himself took the opposite view.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYthought it was extremely desirable, in the interests of the shareholders of banks, that there should be some fixed period for determining the liability of the old bank. In a great many instances depositors left money in unlimited banks, for which they took receipts, that lay in their drawers for an indefinite period. It would be, therefore, impossible to say when the liability of an unlimited bank became limited; and it would be unknown to the public when the change took place, although the notice must be given to the customers of the bank. Many of these banks held deposits for many years; and it would be impossible to determine, within a certain period, whether the bank had become limited or unlimited, and whether it was not still liable for considerable amounts.
    MR. RATHBONEwas of opinion that the change could do no harm; and, therefore, he thought they might adopt the provision.
    MR. MARTENsaid, the proposition was most pernicious, because the whole of the arguments in favour of the provision was that they were not to alter existing contracts. Now, this Amendment proposed to take away the remedy creditors otherwise possessed, and to apply limited liability to existing contracts. A more monstrous proposal he had never heard. A creditor deposited money while the bank was unlimited; a change was made; and after a year, if he kept a current account, or three years, if he was a depositor, the bank was to be a limited liability bank as regarded him, without any other provision on the subject whatever. No security was to be given, no funds were to be set apart to meet the creditor's claim; but the creditor, without his consent, and without any substituted security, was to be deprived of the security of the shareholders' unlimited liability, which formed part of the consideration of the original contract. The whole basis of this act would be upset if they were to introduce

    843
    so serious a modification of existing contracts. He thought it was quite unnecessary with regard to depositors. The banks had only to give notice that they would pay off the depositors or commence a new account, and in the case of current accounts to close them, and then the whole matter would be done with, and the limited bank could begin afresh.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought there was no occasion for this provision, for they would find the Act of 1862 went quite far enough in its 194th section. That provided all the machinery, and made all the preparations necessary, in a matter of this kind; and, in any circumstances, it would be scarcely a good thing to further complicate the clauses of the Act now in contemplation. There could be no very strong objection to the proposal; and if they had two months before them the matter might be fairly discussed and settled; but as the measure must be passed that night, having given the matter great study, he thought there would be no advantage derived from the clause, and therefore they had better drop it.
    MR. CHADWICKalso recommended the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment, and believed it would be almost impossible to carry it out, and he also believed that Clause 7 made ample provision for everything that was wanted.
    MR. COURTNEYwould ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, although he was still of opinion that it would be a very great convenience if it were adopted. The hon. and learned Member for Gambridge (Mr. Marten) had been very severe on what he was pleased to call his high-handed interference with contracts, forgetting that for 12 months the creditor had full security and could withdraw his account. He did not wish to do anything except with ample notice; but the effect of not inserting a provision of this kind in the Bill was simply to make work for lawyers. In consequence, they would have a great deal of difficulty in schemes for winding up, which might have been prevented, in order to ascertain whether a particular depositor had accepted the substitution of the new limited Company for the old unlimited Company. That was a question which could only be settled by lawyers, and they were the only class who would profit by the uncertainty of the present
    844
    law—an uncertainty which, in spite of the assertion of his hon. Friend the Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), was not covered by the Act of 1862.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Reserve Liability Companies.
    Clause 5 (Establishment of reserve liability companies).
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA moved to strike out the clause, observing that he thought the machinery provided was unnecessary.
    MR. THOMSON HANKEYwas understood to be entirely in favour of striking out this clause.
    MR. GREGORYthought there would be some difficulty in working it.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he should very much regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in deference to the wish of certain Members, should withdraw the clause. He believed the principle involved in it was a very sound one, and it had already been found to work admirably in our banking system. While he had nothing to quarrel with in the suggested clause of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw), he thought he did not see that, by maintaining the word "limited," they would have, as a result, banks of limited liability with every shilling of their capital called up; and they would also have banks equally called limited, and under exactly the same denomination, with only half their capital called up. How were they to distinguish between the two? How were the public—especially the ignorant public, for whom they were legislating—to tell the difference between a limited bank with the reserve, and a limited bank without a reserve? The principle of reserve liability, as set forth by the clause as it now stood, was in actual working order throughout our Colonies, and was working there admirably. Throughout the whole of the Australian group it had received abundance of trial; and the principle had this advantage over a limited bank—that there was a margin in a limited bank which might be called upon, or could be financed by the Directors, or dealt with in some way or other, although not called upon; but here, in these reserve liability banks, they had, as a security for the depositor

    845
    and the creditor, this reserve actually untouched and uncalled, except in the case of the bank failing to meet its engagements. That, he thought, was a great security for the public, and would always give great confidence to shareholders, and he could not see why there was any objection to it. It was not as though they were starting a new principle, for most of their chartered banks were on this principle; and it was one on which nearly all the Australian banks and the New Zealand banks trading in the City were based. There were no banks, he might remark, too, trading in this City or any other, that stood higher for credit, or were better managed, or had a better proprietary than those banks. Then, let them remember, also, the great advantage they gained by having a bank share, say of £25, with a future liability of £25. By such means they secured a good proprietary—men who knew the amount of their liability, and who went into the business with their eyes open, and were not afraid to meet that liability if called upon. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would firmly maintain his clause, as, thereby, he would be establishing a good system, and he could see no reason why it should not be carried out.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAobserved, in reply to the hon. Member's criticism, that they would, no doubt, have two descriptions of limited liability under the same name, and that some banks would have the whole of their capital called up, and some only part; but that system was in existence even at the present time, and there was no objection to it on that score. And, with regard to this reserve, it was not a capital reserve; it was simply a limit by guarantee, and the guarantee of a floating body of shareholders. There was never anything more calculated to suggest to his mind the idea of throwing dust in the eyes of shareholders than by having a reserve figuring on paper. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted facilities for applying the Acts of 1862 and 1867 to the present emergency let him apply for them; but he did not think that the matter should be dealt with in the way proposed. The result would be to have a new course and a new departure in business, and a now species of intermediate aristocracy in the banking
    846
    world. He hoped the clause would not be pressed; for if the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not give way he certainly would not get his Bill as rapidly as he wished. He thought that omission, on the other hand, would simplify matters very much.
    MR. CHILDERSwished to do his best to enforce what the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had said as to the advantage of the limit of liability usually fixed in the case of the chartered banks. Those banks were very well known all over the world; and the difference between them and ordinary limited and unlimited banks was that the limit of liability was double the amount of the banks' capital. The Government now suggested that banks of this kind should be called "reserve liability banks." He did not quite know how they had come to that term; but, whatever its name, the thing was perfectly well known all over the British Empire. He spoke with some experience on this subject, for he had been for many years a Director in one of those banks, although not so then, and he knew that they could not get a better proprietary than those banks did obtain. They did business in all parts of the world; they had generally a sound proprietary, and did their work in an eminently satisfactory way. He ventured to say that everyone who had had experience of these banks, or who knew anything of their work in different parts of the Empire, would say that the chartered banks, with liability of twice their nominal capital, were satisfactory institutions. He, therefore, should very much regret if the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave up this clause; but if he was compelled to give it up, he thought the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) was the best suggestion. He did hope, however, that the Government would first make a point of ascertaining the feelings of the House, and would adhere to the principle which, whatever the name—"a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"—had been found to be a practical and most convenient form.
    MR. MUNTZremarked, that the previous speaker had said that banks of reserved liability were in operation in the Colonies. He had had a considerable experience in the Colonies; but he had never heard of them.
    MR. CHILDERS: They are banks under Royal Charter, with exactly the limited liability now proposed.
    MR. MUNTZ: Oh, yes; but, then, they had those in London also. Now they were to have four different kinds of banking enterprize. They were to have "Limited," and "Unlimited," and "Charter," and new banks with the name of "Reserve Liability." That was what he objected to. He objected to a new-fangled word—the public did not understand it—it took 20 years to make the people understand limited liability. The public understood it now. They saw how much capital was to be called up, and they gave their confidence to the bank; but let them start banks with a new name, and they would puzzle all the mass of the provincials, and a good many Londoners. Hon. Gentlemen must remember that the mass of mankind were not very intelligent. Intelligent men might at once learn; but how were small farmers, shopkeepers, small depositors, and all the spinsters and widows who knew nothing about business, to understand the meaning of this new phrase? He did not object to the principle of reserve liability; but what he did protest against was the addition of this new phrase, which, he maintained, would cause great confusion, and could do no possible good.
    MR. GOLDNEYasked what was to prevent a number of persons associated together declaring, if they chose, that their shares should be also liable for a certain amount of reserve? Could the law interpose to stop that? The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) had argued that there were limited and unlimited banks, and they could not go further.
    MR. MUNTZbegged to explain. He did not say that. His contention was, that as they had already limited and unlimited it was not desirable to have a new name.
    MR. GOLDNEYthought, if the whole matter resolved itself into a question of a new name, the designation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer might stand.
    MR. COLLINSsaid, he was sorry to disagree with his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz); he (Mr. Collins) thought the name was of some importance and was well chosen, because the object of the Act was to introduce the new principle of a reserve into limited
    848
    liability banking. That being so, how better could they introduce those principles, and, at the same time, express to the public that there was associated with this limited liability a reserve fund provided for their protection, than by adopting the proposed designation? He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would retain his clause, for the principle involved in it was most valuable and important. Next to it, doubtless, the proposition most acceptable would be that of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw); but there was a wide difference and distinction between the two propositions. The Committee would do well to consider that the clause, as it stood, left a discretion as to the amount of reserve to Banking Companies intending to come under the Act, and was thus of a conveniently elastic character: it might be availed of to the extent of the circumstances and requirements of each bank profiting by it. There were many large banks to which the public entrusted considerable sums of money as fixed deposits, and it was said of some of these great institutions that they were desirous of altering their organization, and of re-constituting themselves under limited liability with an ample reserve beyond their nominal capital. No doubt, when re-organizing under this Act, they would consider how the change would be likely to affect their credit with depositors, and they would take measures to provide against distrust on their part. The result would be that the elasticity of the clause would be recognized, and in the case of largo banks holding immense deposits the amount of the reserve would be determined as any other essential element of re-construction. It was quite possible that some of these institutions might make a reserve of two, or three, or four times the amount of their nominal capital, in order to give such security and confidence to their depositors as might be entirely satisfactory. In dealing with the subject, due weight must be given to the interests of the public; at all events, they ought to be considered as fully as those of shareholders. Credit and importance were usually attached to banks according to the reserves they were able to appropriate and retain for the protection of shareholders and of the public; and the advantage of this clause would be that without calling up unnecessary capital

    849
    and paying dividends on it, keeping money idle, or comparatively so, at moderate rates of interest, depositors would have as much protection in the event of difficulties as if reserves had been accumulated out of profits. Of course, it was open to discussion whether there was not a difference between holding a large sum of money as a reserve in a bank and allowing it to remain in the hands of proprietors; but the effect of there being a reserve created would be practically nearly the same, for the purpose of establishing confidence in the institutions contemplated by the Bill.
    MR. SHAWhoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to the withdrawal of this clause. By doing so he would accomplish two ends. He would get the Bill through very quickly, and he would please a great majority of country banks. They had no objection to the principle; but there was a very strong objection to these clauses. There was confusion enough in banking already. They had chartered banks in Scotland, with no liability beyond the share capital. There were chartered banks in the Colonies, which had double the amount of liability of their capital. They had limited banks; they had unlimited banks, and now it was proposed to have another description of bank, which would only end in bringing about confusion and in injuring the banking business of the country. The simpler they could make the change they were about to make the better. He thought the new clause he had suggested met all the difficulties which had been raised, and he could not imagine how anyone could object to the proposal.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, it was clear they would have to deal with the broad question of reserve liability in this clause, and he must say he hoped the Government would not proceed with it. There was a broad and plain difference between limited and unlimited banks, and everyone knew it; but when they had to deal with reserve liability banks they had first to find out what reserve liability was—which might mean anything or nothing. They had to investigate the accounts of the bank to find what it amounted to, and what it consisted of, and how it was limited, and how it was reserved; and in respect to any reluctance of the banks to accept limited liability he did not believe it.
    850
    Some of the most successful of the banks were those with limited liability; and if another, which was now unlimited, chose to change and accept the other system, he did not see why it should not say so distinctly and carry it out.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the question which is before the Committee is one upon which I confess that I am more anxious to arrive at a tolerably unanimous opinion than to press for a particular conclusion. It has been a question with the Government for several months what would be the best form of providing a constitution for such banks as desired to place themselves upon a footing similar to those of the chartered banks of the Colonies, of which we have heard. We believe it is a most excellent principle that banks should have the power of forming themselves upon a footing of having reserve liability—upon a footing on which they are liable in the case of winding up, not only to the amount of their capital, but to a further amount. I do not know why that should not be called a limited liability by itself—in one sense, everything that is not unlimited must be limited; therefore, we might make an exhaustive division of banks into these three categories. On the other hand, there seems to be among many of those with whom we have been in communication, and those who have been interested in this subject, a desire to adopt a name which would show that banks adopting this particular kind of constitution were on a somewhat different footing from the ordinary limited banks. We have framed the Bill with a view to give effect to the desire, and have bestowed a great deal of attention on the subject. I think myself that the Bill, as it stands, would have provided a very fair and workable constitution for banks of that kind. At the same time, it is impossible to deny that there is a good deal of difference of opinion on the subject; and I must say that if we pass this clause by a majority—I do not know how it will be, but the Committee may be pretty equally divided upon the subject—if we pass the clause by a majority, I am afraid we shall have before us a good deal of trouble on subsequent clauses which go into the status of reserved liability. I have considered the question, and I should not think much of that if I saw any real serious difficulty in principle between the two

    851
    propositions; but in principle the clause suggested by the hon. Member for Cork is as nearly as possible, and is, in fact, the same thing, as reserved liability. The only question is, whether you are to give it a different name, or the same? Under the circumstances, I think the objections of those who dislike the introduction of the new name are stronger than the predilections of those who wish for the new name; and as there is no principle involved I think we shall be best consulting the feelings of the Committee by withdrawing the clause.
    MR. THOMSON HANKEYwas extremely glad at the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The withdrawal of the clause removed all the objections he had to the Bill, and remedied, he had no doubt, a great many of those in the minds of others.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 6 (Nature of reserve liability company) negatived.
    Special Provisions as to Banks.
    Clause 7 (Before registration of unlimited banking company as reserve liability or limited company notice to be published).
    MR. J. G. HUBBARD MR. J. G. HUBBARD moved the omission of the words—
    "Section one hundred and eighty-eight of the Companies Act 1862, is hereby repealed, and in place thereof it is enacted as follows."
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, it was consequential upon what had already been done to strike out this clause altogether. It was not required at all.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the 4th clause enabled those Companies which could not take advantage of the Companies Act of 1862 to take advantage of it. They had passed a clause which enabled an unlimited Company to limit itself, and he could not see that this clause was wanted.
    MR. THOMSON HANKEYhad asked the Solicitor General whether there was any objection to have the provision which was in the Companies Act of 1862, whereby every depositor was obliged to have notice, instead of merely advertising in The Gazette, as was proposed in the Bill? The hon. and learned Gentleman had told him distinctly that it was absolutely neces-
    852
    sary to have this clause repeated, for reasons which might, perhaps, be known to the Attorney General, but which he would not repeat in the absence of the Solicitor General. But the hon. and learned Gentleman saw no objection to every depositor having notice. The Gazette notice might never be seen, and he thought that a notice should be given to every depositor individually. It must be remembered that when an unlimited Company became limited the status of every person who had deposited money with the bank became altered; and, therefore, an opportunity should be given by which a man might have the power of withdrawing from his position.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, from practical experience, he had never had any difficulty in giving notice. It was essential that everybody should have a perfectly honest and straightforward story of what was being done.
    MR. HEYGATEsuggested that they might do without all the rest of the Bill. With regard to the two clauses which followed, they might as well do away with the notice. The unlimited liability, as far as issue of notes was concerned, was provided for already by the 182nd section of the Companies Act of 1862, now proposed to be repealed; and he thought the progress of the Bill would be facilitated by leaving out the two clauses. And as to the form of accounts suggested in the Schedule to the Bill, he feared the discussion would absorb more time than they could afford it. He understood that various forms of accounts had been agreed upon by various authorities on such subjects; but the form contained in the Bill differed from them all, and was not exactly approved by anyone outside the Government. All they had to do was to take the clause suggested to the Committee by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw), which would very well meet the case.
    MR. SHAWhad no doubt that bankers would act wisely in taking their customers fully into their confidence.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, he could not assent to the opinion given by his hon. and learned Colleague that it was desirable, on the change of liability of a bank, that the operation should be brought to the attention of the customers of the bank

    853
    not by notice, simply published in newspapers, which customers might never read, but by personal notice, and that the same sort of notice as was provided by the 188th section of the Companies Act of 1862 should be given under the present Act. No doubt, many hon. Gentlemen thought that that was, perhaps, a correct opinion; and it was quite possible that his hon. and learned Friend was perfectly right in thinking that the object would be compassed by allowing the section to remain unrepealed. But he was not quite sure that it would be so. The difficulty was that the Companies Act of 1862 only contemplated the registration, for the first time, of unlimited Companies, and did not apply to the registration of a Company registered under the Act of limited liability. Therefore, it might be that, strictly speaking, it would not be sufficient simply to allow the provisions of Section 188 of the Companies Act of 1862 to stand. It might be said by some astute lawyers that these provisions did not apply to cases where a bank of unlimited liability registered as a Company of limited liability. It seemed to him that the matter might be easily arranged by inserting a provision in the present Bill, to the effect that the provision with regard to notice contained in the 188th section of the Companies Act of 1862 should apply, under all circumstances, to the notice to be given under this Bill. If it turned out, upon reflection, that such a provision was desirable, it could be easily prepared. He trusted his right hon. Friend would, therefore, withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause negatived.
    Clause 8 (Unlimited liability of bank of issue in respect of notes).
    MR. J. G. HUBBARD MR. J. G. HUBBARD moved the omission of the words—
    "Section one hundred and eighty two of the Companies Act, 1862, is hereby repealed, and in place thereof is enacted as follows."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought no advantage would be gained by leaving out these words. The Committee would see that the object of the clause was to substitute for the 182nd section of the Companies Act of 1862 another clause which would carry out the exact intention with which that clause was passed, and which they
    854
    hoped, in doing so, to make clearer. There had been some confusion as to the exact meaning of the section in question, and it had been thought better, in consequence, to repeal it.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAagreed with the view taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If it was understood that an Amendment should be brought up on Report, or that the words should be struck out, then he would suggest that the clause should be read in this way—
    "Section one hundred and eighty-two of the Companies Act, 1862, shall not apply, but in lieu thereof, &c."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. MUNTZ MR. MUNTZ moved, in page 4, line 20, to leave out "as a reserve liability company or registered."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. COURTNEY MR. COURTNEY moved, in page 4, line 35, to leave out—
    "Including, in the case of a reserve liability Company, the amount of the reserve liability."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MUNTZ MR. MUNTZ moved, in page 4, line 38, to leave out "as a reserve liability company, or."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. RATHBONEsaid, it would be seen that the paragraph he proposed to add to the clause was purely permissive, and would allow those banks which wished to give substantial security to do so. The proposed Amendment would create a great security to the public. He moved to add the following words at the end of the clause:—
    "The foregoing provisions of this section with respect to unlimited liability for notes shall not apply to any bank, the authorised issue of which is fixed and which gives security by deposit to the satisfaction of the Treasury for not less than the whole amount of the authorised issue of such bank. The deposit shall be made in such manner and in the names of such persons, corporation, or officer, and shall consist of Consolidated Three-per Cent. Annuities, or of such Government securities of such amount and valued in such manner as the Treasury from time to time determine, and the fact of the issue being secured by such deposit shall, at the request and expense of such bank, be certified on the notes of the bank in such manner as the Treasury from time to time determine. The holders of notes of a hank which has given security under this section shall have a first charge on the deposited securities for the whole amount of the

    855
    notes and the expenses of recovering that amount, subject only to the rights of any other creditors to whom the bank was indebted at the time of giving the security. To the extent (if any) to which the claims of holders of notes are defeated by the claims of such other previous creditors. The provisions of this section shall apply with respect to unlimited liability notwithstanding the deposit of securities.
    "A bank of issue may give security by deposit under this section for an amount less than its whole authorised issue, but in that case its authorised issue shall thereafter be reduced to the amount for which the security is given."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdid not think it would be well to enter upon the large discussion which would be raised by the proposed Amendment, and thought the hon. Member for Liverpool would act wisely in not pressing it.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment at that moment; but in the event of its being proposed when a subsequent measure was brought forward he would give it all the support in his power.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 9 (Accounts of banking companies).
    MR. HEYGATEsuggested that the clause might be omitted for the reasons he had already given.
    MR. SHAWwas strongly of the same opinion as the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate), and hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would strike out this clause.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, it was absolutely necessary either to strike out the clause or the words "as a reserve liability company, or registered." He would move that the words be omitted from lines 2 and 3.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought the nature of the accounts required by the Companies Act of 1862, then in force, were quite as good as those required by the present Bill. They had, at any rate, stood the test of time, while the present clause was a mere experiment. He considered it better to strike out the whole clause.
    MR. CHADWICKwished to enter his protest against the withdrawal of the clause, and pointed out to the Committee that the present was the proper
    856
    time to insist upon having uniform balance-sheets. These were already furnished by Railway and Insurance Companies; and it was most important, in the interest of the shareholders and the public, that all bank balance-sheets should have some general groundwork of uniformity.
    SIR JAMESM'GAREL-HOGGagreed with the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) that it would be much better to strike out the clause and leave the law as it stood.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERthought the clause, if passed, would not obtain the uniformity desired, because it would only apply to Companies registered after the passing of the Act. It seemed to him that, with regard to all those clauses, they were rather going beyond the Business of Parliament, and treading upon the business of banking, and that they were, to some extent, open to objection in doing so.
    MR. MUNTZsaid, no forms that they could fix would secure the credit of a bank, which must rest upon the character of the Directors. It was impossible for creditors to get at a correct understanding of the accounts. How could they estimate, at their true value, the bills of exchange in the hands of a bank. He had seen hundreds of those that were not worth a £5 note.
    MR. M'LARENwas of opinion that this clause was one of the best parts of the Bill. There was no doubt whatever that the first Banking Companies in England and Scotland had adopted a form very nearly the same as was indicated by the clause. But there were many banks which did not disclose to the shareholders a full and particular statement of account. That was just what was wanted, and hence the advantage of this clause.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would agree to the omission of the clause, which was introduced principally with a view to the class of banks originally contemplated.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause negatived.
    Clause 10 (Audit of accounts of banking companies).
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA moved, in page 5, line 37, to leave out "as a reserved liability company or."
    MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, it was impossible to prescribe by Act of Parliament the form in which the auditors should manage their accounts, and he objected entirely to this being laid down in the present Bill.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSdid not agree with the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Thomson Hankey) that the clause laid down the form in which the auditors were to audit the accounts. The object of the clause was that the accounts should be audited. He agreed that to put upon an auditor the duty of stating the actual position of a bank was to put upon him what no human being could perform. But the clause imposed upon the auditor only the duty which an honest man could do—namely, of stating to the shareholders that, to the best of his belief, the balance sheets submitted contained a full and fair statement of the assets and liabilities of the bank as these appeared from the books of the Company. He should be sorry to see the clause struck out.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, if the clause remained he proposed to make an addition at the end placing the auditor under certain restrictions. He thought that the part of the clause relating to the business of the auditor might very well stand.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDthought that the accounts to be audited under this clause would be of such a formal character as to give a very imperfect notion of the state of the banks.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERdid not see anything to object to in the wording of the clause; but thought the clause itself was open to the objection that, by adopting it, they were stepping out of their proper province in interfering with the management of banks, and that the results might be precisely opposite to those at which they wished to arrive. It was perfectly easy to comply with every word in the clause; and yet he could not help thinking that the Directors might avoid the searching examination intended. The fact of the matter was, it was impossible for them to do the work of the shareholders, and to secure that they should have an audit of this kind.
    MR. SHAWthought the changes proposed to be made with respect to banking accounts unnecessary. Bankers who were registered under the Limited
    858
    Liability Acts were already obliged to publish a very full account twice a-year, and hang a copy up in their offices.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, if the 182nd section of the Companies Act remained unrepealed there was no occasion for the clause, the old machinery being quite sufficient.
    MR. MARTENhad no doubt that the banks referred to by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw), in presenting their accounts, did so in accordance with their Articles of Association, which, when properly drawn, always contained a clause providing for audits. But the object of the Bill was to make it imperative upon the banks that there should be an audit, and the terms proposed were very much in accordance with the corresponding article in the model form in the Schedule to the Companies Act of the Articles of Association.
    MR. MUNDELLAagreed with the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) that they could not, by any precaution which might be taken, make Boards of Directors honest. But he also agreed with the Home Secretary in thinking that, had the system of accounts proposed by the Bill been adopted before, many frauds which had been perpetrated could not have taken place. If the Act of 1862 made this system of accounts compulsory, then, of course, there was no need of its being re-enacted; but he believed this was not the case; and, in that event, the present clause was one of the best in the Bill for the protection of shareholders and the public generally.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought it would be a great pity to omit this clause. At the commencement of the Session, and before it began, there had been a great outcry for audits in the case of Banking Companies. That was a matter which he had steadily set his face against. Neither did he think it wise that Parliament should attempt to prescribe a particular form of audit, or to impose upon auditors a duty which they could not discharge. But it was quite within the province of Parliament to take care that, while they were reducing the securities possessed by the public, they should give an additional security with regard to the proper conduct of the business of banks. The clause provided that an audit should take place; and as it had been

    859
    very carefully prepared lie thought it should be retained.
    MR. MUNDELLAwas personally acquainted with banks where there were no audits, and where the accounts were simply signed by the Chairman of the Board of Directors.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAmaintained that where the auditors were made perfectly independent of the Directors there would be no safeguard, beyond what was already provided by the Act of 1862. Under the circumstances, he thought the clause, as it stood, was perfectly unavailing.
    MR. BRISTOWEsaid, if the shareholders were content to accept balance-sheets signed by Directors only, they must be very remiss and blind to their own interest. It did not appear, by the 6th sub-section, that the balance sheet would show the amount of money paid and received; and it was quite impossible that the auditors could dive into all the accounts of the money in the hands of the bank. How, therefore, was it possible for them to make a full and fair balance sheet? They would be obliged to take the figures supplied by the Directors at the time of the audit. Neither could they ascertain whether the bills in the hands of the bank were genuine, nor place a value upon them. He thought it would be very much bettor to strike out the clause.
    MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the auditors could always ascertain whether the balance was represented by Consols in the possession of the bank, and whether there was so much cash to its credit in the Bank of England. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in saying that this safeguard ought to be given to the shareholders.
    MR. THOMSON HANKEYalso agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the clause should stand. It was not perfect, but it indicated a certain form and a certain examination to be gone through; and he believed that had the accounts been exhibited to the shareholders in the City of Glasgow Bank in the form indicated by the clause, the failure of the bank never could have happened. He did not quite agree that the balance sheets of banks signed by Directors were valueless. On the contrary, he was disposed to place more reliance in their assertions than in
    860
    those of auditors, who had only to give a certificate as a matter of form.
    MR. GREGORYagreed with the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Marten) that the present audits of banking accounts were only voluntary, and that without some provision under the present Bill there would, in fact, be no audit. The system of audit had certainly worked very well in the case of Insurance Companies, and was regarded as most valuable. The advantage of having a person to act on behalf of the shareholders was that if anything wrong was going on it gave the shareholders an opportunity of investigation.
    MR. COURTNEYsuggested to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if the clause remained its provisions should apply to the existing limited banks as much as to those which were about to register.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, that anyone who had experience of the auditing of accounts, either directly or indirectly, would know that the very fact that accounts were to be audited was, in itself, a safeguard. Had there been an audit of the accounts of the City of Glasgow Bank, that Company would have been bankrupt 20 years ago. No auditor in the Kingdom would have passed the accounts of the bank. He thought it was the duty of the House to make provision for the audit of bank accounts. The requirements of the Act of 1862, with regard to the audit, were optional, and were frequently evaded by Directors, on the ground that the shareholders had not asked for audited accounts in the proper form proscribed by the Act. There was, on the part of certain banks, a desire to evade giving full information to shareholders. Seeing, however, that the first-class banks were perfectly willing to supply this information, why should not the inferior banks be compelled to do the same?
    SIR ANDREW LUSK,while admitting the usefulness of a proper audit, thought that the Committee should guard themselves from enacting the provisions of this clause in a hap-hazard way. By the clause, as it stood, the auditor could, do just what he liked; inquire into the affairs of the bank, and then come upon the Directors and examine them. Of course, for these purposes, men of discretion might be obtained; but, on the

    861
    other hand, it was to be feared that persons of a different character might sometimes be engaged in the work, who would do more harm than good. The wording of the clause required very careful consideration to make it workable.
    MR. CHADWICKsaid, the hon. Baronet who had just spoken was under a misapprehension with regard to the audit of banking accounts, which would be no more difficult a matter than the audit of the accounts of a Railway Company. He saw very clearly that the present clause was essential to the Bill; and, if time permitted, he could give many good reasons why it should be passed.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the effect of the clause would be, as he believed, to improve the real security of shareholders.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. RYLANDSthought that it might be provided that the auditor should have a list of the books of the Company delivered to him, any of which he could inspect if he pleased. It was impossible, in the case of a bank where there were a great number of books, for the auditor to have all the books placed before him. He, therefore, begged to move to omit from the clause all the words after "auditor," in line 6, down to the word "and," in line 7, inclusive.
    MR. SHAWremarked, that the clause only meant the different classes of books. There were various sorts of books—cash books, ledgers, and so forth.
    MR. CHADWICKthought that those words might be allowed to stand in the clause, as they had been in the Act of 1862, and had never been found to work injuriously. It would be practically useless to insist that all books should be necessarily inspected by the auditor; but it was well to have a provision making it necessary that the auditor should know all the books which were kept.
    MR. MARTENsaid, that the form of Articles of Association of the Companies Act provided that every auditor might be furnished with a list of all books kept by a Company, and should, at all reasonable times, have access thereto. He wished to point out that it was impossible for an auditor to do any good, unless he knew what materials there
    862
    were which could be placed by the Company before him.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid that, technically, that was correct; but in the case of banks there were a vast number of books, many of which were kept at the branches. If it were understood that the clause merely contemplated that a general list of all books should be furnished to the auditor, then he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CHADWICKwished to call attention to the fact that one paragraph was omitted from the clause which he thought should be inserted. It was provided, by sub-section 3 of Clause 9 that—
    "Every such balance-sheet shall be signed by the secretary or manager, and by the director of the company, or three of them, at the least, and that a printed copy thereof shall, at least seven days before such meeting, be forwarded to every member of the company."
    He had been an auditor for the last 25 years, and had had great experience in these matters. He thought that if a further responsibility were thrown upon the managers and Directors it would have a very good effect. He begged to move, in page 6, at the end of paragragh 6, to amend the clause by inserting—
    "Every balance-sheet shall be signed by the secretary, or manager, or directors of the Company, or by any three of them."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSpointed out that the Amendment would not come in the clause in which the hon. Member proposed it.
    MR. BRISTOWEremarked, that if the balance-sheet was to be of any value to the shareholders it ought to be signed by the auditor, as well as by the manager, director, and secretary.
    MR. CHADWICKwas not disposed to withdraw the Amendment, for he was persuaded of its importance. He ventured to say that if his Amendment were adopted that clause would be the most important one in the whole Bill. From his experience, he could say that it would be of the greatest value that the balance-sheet should not be submitted to the auditor until it had been signed, not only by the secretary and manager—for that was usual—but by three, at least, of the Directors. He would venture to press upon the Go-

    863
    vernment the desirability of adopting his Amendment. If the Government would consider the matter he would bring up the Amendment upon Report; or, if thought desirable, he would have no objection to propose the Amendment as a new clause.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Application of Companies Acts.
    Clause 11 (Application of Companies Acts, 1862, 1867, and 1877).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER) moved, in page 6, to leave out all the words from the beginning of the clause down to the words "joint-stock companies," in line 38, in page 7.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 12 (Clause A.—Privileges of Act available notwithstanding constitution of company).
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that the Amendment which he had to propose was one calculated to make the whole Bill work extremely well. The proposition then before the Committee was that banks might be permitted to limit their liability to a certain extent. There was only one class of proprietors of a bank who could not be deceived, and who had not the same right to limitation of their liability as general shareholders. He meant the Directors. He thought that it would give the public three or four times as much confidence in its dealings with banks if the Directors were made liable, as he proposed, for one year after they had ceased to hold office. At all events, that provision should be applied, as he suggested, to existing Companies. He begged to move, in page 8, line 16, after "company," to insert—
    "But no director of any existing company which shall register under this Act, shall have or be entitled to any limitation of his liability, by reason of such registration, until one year after he shall have ceased to be a director, and then only provided that no order for winding up or resolution for the dissolution of the company shall have been in the meantime made or formally determined upon."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the objection to the
    864
    Amendment was that it would discourage men who would make desirable Directors from incurring the responsibility.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Forms and Definitions.
    Clause 13 (Applications of forms in Schedule) struck out.
    Clause 14 (Definitions) struck out.
    MR. MUNTZ MR. MUNTZ moved, in page 2, after Clause 6, to insert the following clause:—
    (Uncalled Capital.)
    "Every bank registering under the provisions of this Act shall, by its articles of association as then framed or as altered by special resolution, provide that its uncalled capital shall then be and shall remain not less than three times the amount of its capital called up at the time of registration."
    The object of the clause was that there should not be less uncalled capital than three times the amount of the capital called up at the time of registration, so as to give an ample security for the creditors. A good deal had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) with respect to Colonial banks; but he would point out that they were very different from London banks. It was proposed by the Bill to do away with the unlimited responsibility of shareholders, and to enable all joint-stock banks to become limited. They were going, at once, to take away the security from the creditors of those banks which they had hitherto enjoyed. It seemed absurd to suppose that persons would leave their money in the hands of banks when they had no security, by reason of the capital being called up. If £10 were called up per share, the shareholders ought to be liable for £30 more per share. The question had nothing to do with the reserve, but was solely a question of security. Banks had hitherto been unlimited, and persons had been liable for the full amount of their property. The present Bill was to relieve the scare that had arisen from the City of Glasgow Bank failure, and there was a disposition to rush too much to the opposite extreme. He thought that, as the Bill stood, they were taking away, to too great an extent, the responsibility of shareholders; and it seemed to him that it would be a proper provi-

    865
    sion to make a shareholder liable for three times the amount of the called-up capital. Some bank managers, to whom lie had spoken, were of opinion that if the proposition he had made were adopted it would greatly increase the confidence of the public.
    MR. MUNDELLAremarked, that his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham proposed to introduce a new form of bank, and, while he wanted simplicity and uniformity, was really proposing to introduce a perfectly new and complicated system. The effect of his proposition would be to apply to limited banks provisions and restrictions that did not apply in any other case. He hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAdid not think that the proposal would work. He hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed.
    MR. GREGORYsuggested that the hon. Member for Birmingham should withdraw his Amendment, and move it after the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw).
    MR. MUNTZsaid, that he would take that course.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, he had upon the Paper, after Clause 7, to insert the following clause:—
    (Restriction as to hanks of issue in general.)
    "A hank of issue shall not register as a reserve liability company, or, after the passing of this Act, as a limited company, if and so long as it has any house of business or establishment as a bank in any part of the United Kingdom other than that in which the head office or principal place of issue is situate.
    If a bank of issue, at any time after it has registered as a reserve liability company, or, after the passing of this Act, as a limited company, opens or keeps open any house of business or establishment as a bank in any part of the United Kingdom other than that in which the head office or principal place of issue is situate, such house of business or establishment shall be deemed to be illegal, and may be prohibited by injunction, interdict, or other order of any competent court; and in addition thereto every director of the company opening or keeping open such house of business or establishment shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a penalty of five pounds a day for every day during which the same is kept open. Nevertheless, the limit of the liability of the members of the company shall not be affected, and such company shall continue to be a reserve liability company or a limited company, as the case may be."
    866
    That was a clause which was the production of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, and was introduced into the original Bill. It was the result of the conviction of the right hon. Gentleman, from his experience as Chairman of the Committee on Banking. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there were many hon. Members who were desirous of seeing a clause of that character introduced into the Bill. Owing to the changes that had been made in the form of the Bill, its scope had been diminished rather than enlarged, and the clause had been omitted. He did not propose to move it on that occasion; but he should be glad if, on some future occasion, the right hon. Gentleman should see his way to give the country the benefit of the clause.
    MR. SHAWproposed the insertion of the following clause, which he had mentioned at an early stage of the proceedings in Committee:—
    "An unlimited company may, by special resolution passed by the members when assenting to registration as a limited company under the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1879, and for the purpose of such registration or otherwise, increase the nominal amount of its capital by increasing the nominal amount of each of its shares; Provided, always, that no part of such increased capital shall be capable of being called up except in the event of and for the purposes of a liquidation."
    MR. GREGORYobserved, that the clause was merely permissive. A Company seeking to register as a limited Company might obtain all the advantages without making use of the clause. At present, the liability of banks was unlimited, and the Bill, whilst it allowed a limitation of this liability, would leave it to a resolution of the shareholders to increase the nominal amount of the shares as security to the creditors. He thought it would be rather dangerous to enable liability merely to be limited by a resolution of the Company. He very much doubted whether parties would not have the right to say that they objected to a resolution which interfered with the liability upon the faith of which they had taken their shares, and that whilst they accepted the limitation of the liability, they objected to an increase in the amount of their shares. He admitted, however, that if the clause of the hon. Member were made imperative, and the

    867
    provision were made a necessary part of the variation of the liability, there would be an end to his argument. He thought that it would be much better to provide for what was to be done by a clause of the Act itself, rather than allow it to be done by resolution.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that it appeared to him that the measure that had nearly got through would leave the shareholders and Directors of unlimited banks to settle with their creditors upon what terms they would think fit to allow them to limit themselves. They could not carry the thing through without the consent of their creditors. That clause would enable an arrangement to be made between the creditors and the Company seeking to limit its liability. He was of opinion that the clause of the hon. Member for Cork would be quite sufficient for the purpose.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, the fact was, that it was proposed to contract the liabilities of Companies in a certain manner. It was not to be done absolutely, but only within certain limits. It would be contrary to the spirit of the Bill and of legislation to make the matter compulsory; and it would be far better to keep the clause as proposed by the hon. Member for Cork, who had done good service by introducing it.
    MR. MUNDELLAwas in favour of the clause as proposed by the hon. Member for Cork.
    Clause read a second time.
    MR. MARTEN MR. MARTEN moved, in order to prevent any possibility of misapprehension, to amend the new clause by leaving out the word "limitation" at the end, and inserting "a company being wound up."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    MR. MUNTZinquired, whether he was at liberty to move his Amendment as an addition to the new clause?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member would be at liberty to move it when the other Amendment had been disposed of.
    MR. CHADWICK MR. CHADWICK moved the following new clause:—
    868
    "The balance-sheet of every bank shall be signed by the auditor, and by the secretary or manager, and by the directors of the company,' or by three of them at the least."
    MR. RATHBONEthought the clause would be extremely valuable. The effect of the provision would be that balance-sheets would be prepared with much more care than was sometimes the case at present. In his opinion, the Directors of banks were themselves the best auditors that they could have. He hoped that the Committee would adopt the suggestion of his hon. Friend.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought that the clause was a good one, and he was prepared to accept it, but with some qualification. The clause, as drawn by the hon. Member, applied to all banks, and not only to those to be registered under the Act. It might be right to make such a provision for all banks; but they were then dealing only with a particular class of banks. Those banks which did not propose to take advantage of the Act would not imagine that there was anything in the Act relating to them; and, in that case, they might be unexpectedly brought to book for non-compliance with the terms of the Statute. When the time came he should propose an alteration to remedy that defect.
    MR. SHAWobserved, that the proposed new clause seemed to provide a safeguard which he did not think it would really do. He apprehended that a Director was, at the present time, as liable for the truth of a balance-sheet as he would be if the clause were passed. Moreover, when the balance-sheets were published, the names of the Directors were always upon them. The danger of the clause was, that it would raise a question in the minds of respectable men—men of substance and of standing—as to their responsibility, for they would think that there was something hidden underneath the clause. In that way the clause might have the effect of deterring an excellent class of men from becoming Directors. Still, if the Government thought the clause, ought to be adopted, he would not object.
    MR. HEYGATEconsidered that the Government was somewhat hasty in adopting the clause. In many joint-stock banks there were a limited number of Directors. Six was a common number, and by the constitution of the

    869
    bank two were "managing" Directors, and they alone were permitted to inspect the accounts of individuals, while the other four only took part in what he might call the higher policy of the bank. In such cases it was hardly right to require three managing Directors to sign the balance-sheet. If the clause were passed, he hoped the number of Directors who should sign the balance-sheet would be limited to two, otherwise such signature would become a mere matter of form. If they wished to bring the responsibility home, they should be careful to place it on the right shoulders only.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSremarked, that it must not be supposed that the Government had adopted the Amendment hastily; they had had it under their consideration for a considerable time.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDthought it a very proper provision that the balance-sheet should be signed by three of the Directors.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAwished to say that he did not think it was fair to make any provision for the Directors of a bank, who were not allowed to see the books or to understand the private affairs. They could not provide that there wore to be Directors without any responsibility.
    MR. MUNTZdid not think that men ought to occupy seats at the Board of of Direction of a bank, unless they made themselves thoroughly acquainted with the concerns of the bank. Any Director who sat at the Board and did not understand its business deserved to be responsible.
    MR. MUNDELLAcould, not understand how any man could be a Director and know nothing about the working of the bank. He considered the clause a very good one, if only for the fact that it would put an end to the practice of Directors not interesting themselves in the concerns of the bank they managed.
    Clause read a second time.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved to amend the new clause, by inserting, after the word "bank," the words "under this Act."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    MR. MUNTZ MR. MUNTZ moved, at the end of the clause adopted on the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw), to insert—
    "Every bank registering under the provisions of this Act shall, by its articles of association as then framed, or as altered by special resolution, provide that its uncalled capital shall then be, and shall remain, not less than three times the amount of its capital called up at the time of registration."
    The object of the Amendment was to give such security as the public had a right to demand. He thought that it would be only fair and just to give the creditors a security of three times the amount of capital called up at the time of registration.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAdid not think that shareholders would obtain any additional security if the Amendment were adopted. As they had put the banks upon the terms of getting the assent of the creditors, he thought they might very well be left to themselves. The banks would have to obtain the confidence of the persons with whom they were dealing, and it was not right for Parliament to interfere in the matter. He thought that the matter might safely be left in its present condition.
    MR. MUNTZobserved, that the hon. Baronet the Member for Youghal had entirely misapprehended the meaning of his Amendment. He wished to provide that the creditors should have something to fall back upon beyond the capital called up at the time of registration. Many banks had all their capital paid up; and if such a bank chose to register under this Act, the shareholders would have no liability whatever. He only asked that banks, however much of their capital might be paid up, should be liable for, at least, three times the amount of capital paid up. By that means only, he thought that a sufficient security would be afforded to the public. But most of mankind knew nothing about banks, and it was necessary for the Legislature to give them some security.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham was directed entirely against the limitation of the liability of banks. A bank would have to obtain the confidence of the public by taking a certain amount of responsibility; and he did not think they would do wisely in attempting to enforce

    871
    a hard-and-fast rule, such as that proposed by the hon. Member.
    Amendment negatived.
    Schedule agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
    MR. RAIKEStook the opportunity of calling attention to the way in which the Amendments to the Bill, and to other Bills, had been put down on the Paper. There had been considerable carelessness in the way in which Amendments had been prepared, and a great many of them had been placed on the Paper in such a manner as to tend to produce confusion and to impede the progress of the Bill in Committee. He did not for a moment say that any exceptional blame attached to those whose duty it was to prepare the Paper; but he wished to point out that hon. Members ought carefully to revise their Amendments, and to see that they were put down in their proper places where they could be inserted in their proper order.
    MR. COURTNEYentirely agreed in the remarks just made by the Chairman of Committees.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES BILL.
(Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. Solicitor General.)
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES BILL.

  [BILL 288.] CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  MR. MONKsaid, he had given Notice of a Motion to the effect that the Bill should be taken into consideration on that day three months, not in order to prevent the passing of this measure, but that he might express his sense of the conduct of the Government in having introduced in the last week of the Session a new proposal respecting the tribunal by which Election Petitions were to be tried. He objected, also, to the proposal in itself, which, he said, was not called for by the country. It was true that in Ireland there had been an outcry for more than one Judge to try Petitions;
  872
  but in England no one had asked for such an arrangement. A very considerable and influential minority of the Select Committee had reported against the proposal now embodied in this Bill; and last Session the Attorney General, on the part of the Government, declared himself strongly against it, on the ground that the present tribunal for the trial of Election Petitions had, in the main, proved satisfactory. He thought the House had a right to know what had produced this sudden change in the mind of the Government on this question within so short a time. When the Bill came on early this morning for discussion the Attorney General was not in his place, and the House had to go through the Bill in his absence. He could not imagine a more inconvenient tribunal for the trial of the matters of fact and law involved in an Election Petition than one composed of two Judges. It was to be regretted that in what purported to be a Continuance Bill debateable matter should have been introduced, and that at a period of the Session when the subject could not be adequately discussed. There appeared, moreover, to be no immediate necessity for the Bill, seeing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that before a General Election took place it would be the duty of the Government to re-distribute certain seats now vacant.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, he remained in the House until a quarter past 6 o'clock that morning, in the expectation that this Bill would come on; but then, feeling a little bit exhausted, he thought himself entitled to some repose. He had not withdrawn from the House, however, until, as he fancied, he had watched away the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) and the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). The hon. Member for Gloucester, he could not help thinking, was a little too hard on the Government. It was admitted on all hands that the Corrupt Practices Act now in existence was not satisfactory in its operation, and he did not believe that there were many Members of the House who would be content to allow that Act to continue even for a year without alteration. In 1875, a Select Committee had been appointed to consider the subject, consisting of men of the greatest eminence, and they had

  873
  come to the unanimous conclusion that the tribunal for the trial of Election Petitions should be changed, and that they should be tried not by one, but by two Judges.
  MR. MONKsaid, the Committee were not unanimous, while the weight of authority in the Committee was opposed to the change.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEpointed out that the hon. and learned Gentleman had voted against the proposal himself.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER): The hon. Member for Chelsea, he was afraid, confused him with some of his late Colleagues, for whom he had the greatest respect, but for whose opinions he could not be held responsible. It mattered very little, he might add, whether the Committee of 1875 was unanimous or not. They, at all events, recommended that the tribunal should be composed of two Judges. Now, he did not wish to retract anything which he had said on a former occasion on the subject, and he was still of opinion that a tribunal of three Judges would be more satisfactory than one consisting only of two; but, unfortunately, they had not a sufficient number of Judges to admit of the former proposal being adopted. The Government had, therefore, to choose between two propositions—to retain the tribunal consisting of one Judge, and in cases in which personal corruption was imputed to a candidate to give a right of appeal, or to appoint two Judges. At first, the Government were disposed to adopt the former alternative; but the proposal was one which the House did not seemed disposed to assent to, and the Government had deemed it right to reconsider their position, and to act on the recommendation of the Select Committee. Instead of being censured, the Government ought to have special credit for their reasonableness; because, knowing the Bill would not be acceptable to the House unless it were an Amending Bill as well as a Continuance Bill, the Government had concluded to adopt the views of the Select Committee, which had been endorsed by a majority of the House. He would admit that it would be better to act upon the principle that they ought to have the concurrence of two minds when a Member was unseated, and that the decision ought not
  874
  to depend on the opinion of the senior Judge only. The Government were quite prepared to strike out the latter part of the Amendment, so as to secure the concurrence of the two Judges. It was quite a mistake to suppose that two Judges never agreed upon a question of fact; two or three often agreed about facts in the Courts of Appeal, and five or six in the House of Lords. The Government had yielded to the arguments that had been adduced, and he believed the tribunal would give more satisfaction to all concerned.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he thought he was one who might be allowed to speak on the question, as he had been unseated by one Judge, and condemned, in his opinion, to seven years' penal servitude. He thought it most unfair and unreasonable that one Judge should be allowed to reverse by his vote the decision in favour of a certain candidate by a large majority of any constituency; and, more especially, when the veto not only unseated the candidate who was at the head of the poll, but sent in another man who, possibly, had only one-fourth of the votes which the other candidate had. In his own case, he did not think if there had been two Judges that the same conclusion would have been arrived at; as he thought the restraining influence of the second Judge would prevent the other one from acting in an unfair manner, and would be of enormous advantage in the case of Election Petitions. In a case when, perhaps, a large number of people pronounced a verdict upon the Petition of a small number, a single Judge was sent down to dispose of the case. That Judge might be overpowered in every possible way; he might be asked out to dinner; ladies might strew his judgment-seat with flowers. He had seen that done himself, and could speak to it as a fact; and in many other ways the Judge might be so overpowered that he might think the opinion of the people was the opposite way, because he never met any of the exponents of the other side of the question. That could not take place if there were two Judges, because it would be perfectly ridiculous to send flowers to two Judges, and he only mentioned that as an illustration of what might be done. If a single Judge was sent his head might be turned; whereas the probabilities were that that would never

  875
  happen in the case of two Judges. There were also many other reasons why two Judges would be a great advantage. For instance, a single Judge might be attacked, and very powerfully attacked, by popular opinion; but it would be much more difficult to attack two Judges in the same manner. A single Judge might meet with a large number of political enemies in the trial of the Election Petition, and it was a very great temptation to a man in such circumstances; but the chances were very much against the same influences operating in the case of two Judges, for it would require a much more complicated combination of circumstances to produce the same effects in the case of two Judges. He had always objected to the whole of the Bill before the House from beginning to end. He had a very strong belief that no Assembly could get rid of its own right to pronounce on the election of its own Members, and he thought it was a dangerous thing for any Assembly to delegate that right to anybody else. He had said much the same thing in the House at 6 o'clock that morning; but he did not think it mattered much what was said at 6 o'clock in the morning on any subject. It might not do any harm now; but, in troublous times, it would be a very dangerous power to be allowed out of the House, and he should always raise his voice against it being so allowed to pass away to another body. He objected to the Bill, and he also objected to the absurd notion that the expenses of the elections were going to be decreased by the present Bill. He believed, on the whole, that the expenses of elections would be increased rather than decreased. There was another point in the old arrangement—a bill of particulars was always to be furnished, and no witnesses were to be allowed to be called except to speak to facts contained in the said bill of particulars. But the present Bill did not make the same provision, and that, he believed, would lead to additional expense. The man petitioned against did not know what he had to answer, and the petitioner was thus encouraged to go on, whether his case was good, bad, or indifferent. As a matter of fact, if the cases were in large towns, there could be no objection to bills of particulars being granted. He looked upon the Bill as not really diminishing ex-
  876
  penses, and, in addition, as open to a grave Constitutional defect. The whole Forms of the House were based upon the idea that one man was very likely to make a mistake; and, as two men were not so apt to err, he approved so far of the Bill, if it was necessary that it should be passed; and, on the whole, lie must thank the Government for this provision. He objected to the whole principle of the Judges trying Election Petitions; but, if they were thus to be tried, he would prefer to have two Judges. He had heard the Judges themselves object to this distasteful duty. There was this further advantage of the system of two Judges—that if they disagreed the Member remained seated. It was perfectly legitimate that the law should be thus laid down; because, if a large number of votes were recorded for any one man, there was a strong primâ facie case that that man should be the Representative of the constituency. When they got into the small boroughs of England with a few thousand votes, or a few hundred, it was quite possible there might be corrupt influence; but when they got into large constituencies, with from 200,000 to 300,000 of a population, then they might be perfectly certain that in 99 cases out of 100 the candidate who got a considerable majority was a good man, and had the good wishes of the majority of the constituency. If there was any fault to be found it would be with the small constituencies. As representing a very large constituency, he thought the Bill, now it contained what it did, would have done great good if it had been in existence eight or ten years ago, and he thanked the Government for the alterations they had made in it.
  MR. BRISTOWEsaid, he had listened to the speech of the Attorney General with the greatest attention. It was good-humoured, and tempered with good sense; but the hon. arid learned Gentleman totally failed to explain how the 2nd clause, which he now looked upon as so very important, had never been in the original Bill. Who was the author of this clause, and who would pay the expenses which it would double? The constituencies had never asked for two Judges to try Election Petitions. He, for one, should feel it to be his duty to oppose that clause.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEobserved, that at 5 o'clock in the morning a very important Amendment was introduced into this Bill at the instance of the Government; but that Amendment had been attacked by the Attorney General, and it was now to be withdrawn. The Bill itself only dated from Saturday last, and, since then, it had undergone the most extraordinary changes. The whole proceeding was absurd. He was in favour of the House exercising its jurisdiction in this matter, and not remitting it to Judges; but if the latter course wore adopted, he thought a case had been made out for two Judges, so far as concerned the trial of Election Petitions in Ireland. If the Amendment were pressed to a Division he should vote for it.
  MR. COURTNEYreminded the House that they were called upon to consider a new Bill, and that at the end of the Session. The Government were, in fact, endeavouring to rush important legislation through the House. He protested against that course being adopted, and he further protested against the Bill in its present shape being passed. The Attorney General had offered to the House an humble apology for the abandonment by the Government of the lines which they had assumed at the beginning of the Session. A small majority of the House had expressed themselves in favour of the recommendation of the Select Committee; eight or ten Members had used arguments which had convinced them, and, therefore, they disregarded the opinions of those who had voted, though they had not spoken; they threw aside their own previous convictions, and adopted the opinions which had been expressed and the decision adverse to them of the House. They had originally been in favour of trial by one Judge; now they relegated the decision of questions of fact to two Judges, but for that proposal there was no precedent in the history of English jurisprudence; and he might add that, in the opinion of a very eminent English Judge, to increase the number would be to diminish the sense of responsibility of each Judge. If the two Judges happened to be divided in opinion, then—as the Attorney General had himself stated in March last—they would have an hon. Member sitting in that House who, in the opinion of one Judge, ought
  878
  not to have been acquitted of the misdeeds alleged against him. The Bill should pass as a Continuance Bill; but, while he was quite willing that in Ireland two Judges should try and determine Election Petitions, he did not think the Irish Members should endeavour to force a similar law upon England and Scotland.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTpointed out that they might agree with regard to Elections that it was wise to have two Judges or not. One thing must be apparent to the whole of the hon. Members present. They could not have one law for Ireland and another for England. Much as he might agree with what the hon. Member-for Liskeard had said, he could not support the hon. Gentleman's proposal, which, if carried, would cast a great slur upon, and do an act of great injustice to, the Irish Judges. Perhaps some Irish Members had not the respect for their Judges which they ought to have. He, however, hoped that this slur would not be cast upon the Judges, and that the Amendment would not be pressed to a Division.
  MR. O'CLERYsaid, English public opinion, and the views of eminent Englishmen who were experienced in these matters, wore in favour of the principles laid down in the Bill. The Irish Members supported the Bill, because it was ill the interests of the Irish constituencies that Election Petitions should be tried by more than one Judge. For his own part, he should be in favour of constituting the tribunal of three Judges; but, in default of that, he should vote in favour of the proposal of the Government.
  MR. YEAMANremarked, that it was a matter of indifference to Scotland whether these Petitions were tried by one, two, three, or half-a-dozen Judges. There never were Election Petitions in Scotland. [An hon. MEMBER: Wigtown.] If there were, he was sure they were seldom heard of. He trusted the Scotch Members would support the Government. Two Judges were preferable to one, and three would be better than two.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, Irishmen had confidence in their Judges; but all the circumstances pointed to the desirability of having two Judges to deal with Election Petitions in Ireland, and he saw no reason why there should not

  879
  be similarly constituted tribunals in England. If the staff of Judges was not sufficient for the duty, why let it be enlarged. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Yeaman), Scotland was not an immaculate country. He had heard of a Petition in Falkirk, and two or three in Wigtown; and if he were to examine these matters as accurately as he examined matters of business, he would find that Petitions in Scotland, when compared with the numbers of the population and of elections, were as numerous as those which took place in Ireland. He failed to see the relevancy of the statements made by the hon. Member for Liskeard.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that although he had taken a great interest in all political matters in Scotland since the passing of the first Reform Bill, he could not say he ever heard any desire expressed for a second Judge at the trial of Election Petitions in Scotland. He could not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee as to Election Petitions in Scotland, for two had recently occurred in the Wigtown, and one in the Falkirk Burghs, and there might be others which had escaped his memory. Since the passing of Lord Grey's Reform Bill there had not been six cases of corrupt practices in Scotland. By taking more Judges than was necessary for the trial of these Petitions, the administration of justice was hindered; and if one Judge did as well as two—as he thought he did, except, perhaps, in Ireland—he did not see why two Judges should be thrust upon England and Scotland because Ireland thought two necessary.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, he could not understand why the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) objected to the proposition. Candidates and their supporters had been subjected to severe penalties by the findings of a single Judge. Those findings were now irrevocable. Yet, in respect to several of these election trials, not only had public opinion strongly condemned the decisions made as to facts, but they had seen the legal principles on which the judgments had been founded disregarded and reversed. If the tribunal had not been composed of a single Judge, the scandal of the Galway case would not have occurred. Not unnaturally, great
  880
  indignation had been aroused by that trial and its results. Rightly, as be believed, very, many considered it now established, by the decision in the Launceston case, that not only had a majority of the Galway electors been disfranchised, but a gentleman named by the Judge had, as their Representative, sat and voted in that House who had no more right to do so than any of the doorkeepers. He failed to see, looking at the importance of the duty to be discharged, why they should not have two Judges. The hon. Member for Liskeard contended that in England opinion and authority were against the change. In his judgment, however, the weight of intelligent opinion had pronounced even in England in favour of the trial taking place before two Judges. ["No!"] He did not care for mere verbal statements thus made. He relied on the evidence taken before the Select Committee of this House, and the recorded opinion of the majority of the Members who sat on that Committee. Mr. Baron Keatinge's evidence was adverse to trial by a single Judge. It was stated that Lord Justice Blackburn concurred in the same view. Other witnesses experienced in these election trials, and men of the highest eminence, might be cited as in favour of the proposed change in the constitution of the tribunal. In Ireland the weight of opinion was in favour of having three Judges. The Irish Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and other distinguished men, who knew all the surroundings of these inquiries, were in favour of the proposition now contested. It was a misapprehension to consider the dissatisfaction expressed with many of those decisions had been confined to those given by the Irish Judges. The Press and the public had in England been most severe in their comment and censure on those pronounced by English Judges. Loud complaints had been made in some five or six cases that their decisions had been contrary to common sense and reason. In trying Election Petitions, the very best aid that could be obtained was required. What question could be more difficult for a single Judge to determine than the complicated question of agency in such cases? Indeed, there was no precedent in our jurisprudence for such powers as were now given to a single Judge in Election

  881
  Petition cases. As to the argument that the expense would be increased by having two Judges, it must be remembered that the Judges were paid by salary, and that the only extra cost of having a second Judge to try the case would be the trifling charge of £10 or £15 for lodgings, &c. In mercy, then, alike to the candidate, the constituency, and the Judge, they ought to strengthen that tribunal.
  Motion, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration," agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. MARTEN MR. MARTEN moved the omission from Clause 2 of words providing that where two Judges differed the opinion of the senior Judge should prevail on certain matters.
  MR. CHILDERSasked the Government to explain what would be the effect of a difference of opinion between the two Judges on the question of the withdrawal of an Election Petition.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERunderstood there were certain rules that would be followed in a case of that sort which would really govern the decision, just as when the Chairman of a Committee gave a casting vote he gave it according to certain principles.
  MR. MARTENsaid, that when the words which he had just moved to omit were proposed that morning, the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) took notice that they were open to exception, and he had himself felt that they were liable to objection. The insertion of words giving, where two Judges were sitting together, the senior Judge such a power, would be entirely without precedent. They had an example in regard to the proper course to be adopted where two Judges sat together in the late Court of the Lords Justices of Appeal, where no such power was given; and if the two Lords Justices differed, from the necessity of the case there was no decision, and the matter fell to the ground. In respect to an Election Petition, they had, first, the decision of the constituency itself, then the application of the Petitioner to set aside that decision, and if that application were referred to two judicial minds it would be necessary to have the two Judges concurring on every material point to set aside the verdict. The
  882
  right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) asked what would happen if the two Judges differed in regard to the withdrawal of the Petition? Such a contingency was very improbable, though, perhaps, not impossible. But the answer was very simple. That would occur which always occurred when an application was made to the Lords Justices of Appeal or to two Judges of the High Court of Justice. If the two differed, the result was that the application was refused.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that the one thing desirable in this tribunal was that the two Judges should be of equal jurisdiction. If the senior Judge were considered the higher, public confidence in the tribunal would be taken away.
  MR. CALLANheld that while Election Petitions should be tried by two Judges, the question as to the withdrawal of a Petition might properly be left to the decision of a single Judge.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)thought it was somewhat unfortunate that the words which provided that upon certain matters the opinion of the senior Judge should prevail had been inserted. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Marten), who was so careful in his consideration of Bills, was of opinion that the words ought to be omitted, and had moved an Amendment to that effect. The Government came to the conclusion that it would be better those words should be struck out, and that, in all cases, they ought to have the decision of two minds. In cases where the two Judges did not agree, the result would be in favour of what he might call the defendant.
  MR. HOPWOODthought the Government ought to make an explicit declaration of their views on this part of the Bill.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONexplained, that the opinions expressed had induced him to think that it would be setting up a principle foreign to our procedure to give this overruling power to the senior of the two Judges in hearing Election Petitions, and he believed the House would do well to accept the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge—a clause which, he believed, would enact the

  883
  regulations which he thought ought to be performed.
  MR. BRISTOWEthought the discustion showed that they did not know the real author of the clause.
  MR. MONKagreed with the Secretary to the Treasury that the words under consideration had better be left out. He appealed to the Law Officers of the Crown for their opinion as to the reading of the clause. Two Judges were to be substituted for one for the hearing of any application for the withdrawal of an Election Petition. In case they differed, was their divergence of opinion to be interpreted as favourable to the withdrawal or to the maintenance of the Petition?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)said, the question was not difficult to answer. Two Judges were to be substituted in the place of one. If, then, these two Judges did not agree, then there would be no decision. In cases where Judges had to make a Report, or to certify on whatever might be the judicial act, then, if the Judges differed, the legal effect would be that the act would not be done.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, after the words "so differ," in the Amendment made in Committee in line 23, to insert the words "and if they differ as to an application for the withdrawal of a petition it shall be allowed to be withdrawn, and if they differ as to the statement of a special case to the court leave shall be given to state such case."—(Mr. Benjamin Williams.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENobserved, that for many years the principle had been, when Judges differed, that the matter in dispute should remain in statu quo, and he wished to know what reason could be assigned "for the totally new departure proposed by hon. and learned Gentlemen?
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, that he should vote against any Amendment that proposed to do what the public complained of—namely, to increase the cost of procedure by allowing appeals and the statement of cases for the Superior Courts.
  MR. CHILDERSremarked that hon. and learned Gentlemen seemed to be in direct opposition with one another as to the result when the Judges differed. Several sets of mutually destructive
  884
  reasons had been given by hon. Members who had discussed the question; and he, therefore, appealed to the Government to allow the insertion of words that would remove the whole difficulty.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the more convenient course would be that the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Marten) should be put first, and then the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. B. Williams) could propose his Amendment.
  Amendment (Mr. Marten) agreed to.
  Amendment (Mr. B. Williams) negatived.
  MR. COURTNEYproposed an Amendment, limiting to Ireland the operation of Clause 2, which provided that two Judges should try Election Petitions in England, Scotland, and Ireland. It appeared to him that only the Irish Members were favourable to the change involved in the law.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 26, at the end of Clause 2, to add the words "Provided always, That this Clause shall apply to Ireland only."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that Scotland having plenty of Judges, he saw no difficulty in getting two to try each Election Petition there; but he did not see in England where the Judges were to come from, their number not being so large in proportion to the work as in the North.
  MR. MONKargued that there were no additional Judges available in England for this duty, and that the appointment of three additional Election Judges would entail an expense of £20,000 a-year on the country.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, it was proposed that there should be two Judges instead of one, and he had come to the conclusion that even after a General Election the condition of business would not be such as to interfere with the progress of such trials. There was no ground for the Motion of the hon. Member for Liskeard. In fact, the hon. Member had not based his Amendment on the grounds of inconvenience. The hon. Member objected to

  885
  this alteration of the law. He entirely disapproved of the tribunal. He said, in fact, that a tribunal in the shape of two Judges was a bad tribunal, and they did not want such a tribunal in England; but he said—"Let us have such a tribunal in Ireland," his idea being that it would suit Ireland. He hoped the Irish Members would not concur in that proposition.
  MR. HOPWOODquestioned whether the judicial strength, especially after the General Election, would be sufficient to carry out the Government suggestion. The measure was a sham, and it was well known that it could not become operative without extra judicial assistance.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDconsidered it monstrous that there should be no right of appeal, when there was appeal in suits involving sums of £50. He would prefer that there should be three Judges.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 95: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 233.)
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) BILL— [Bill 246.]
(Mr. James Lowther, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) BILL— [Bill 246.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. J. LOWTHER,in moving that the House do go into Committee on the Bill, explained that it was introduced in redemption of a promise made to the House, and was designed to improve the position of the Irish teachers. It was intended to pay pensions to teachers optionally at the ages of 55 for males, and 50 for females, and compulsorily at the ages of 65 for males, and 60 for females, and to provide these pensions compulsorily deductions might be made from their allowances. The deduction would, however, be small compared with the pensions. He had already announced the intention of the Government to introduce a Supplementary Estimate next Session, providing for an addition to the salaries of teachers, so that they would be increased in the cases of the first class by 20 per cent, in the second by 15, and the third by 10. This would enable them to meet the contributions they
  886
  would have to make under this Bill to the pension fund. He would not detain the House by any further remarks, but would be prepared to give any other explanations that might be required.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. James Lowther.)
  MR. COURTNEY MR. COURTNEY moved that the House should, upon that day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee. He complained that they had had that evening, in the brief speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, an important announcement that the Government were going to do something which was not contained in the Bill itself. It was not only proposed to take a sum of nearly £1,300,000 from the Irish Church Surplus; but, next year, they were to have charges on the Consolidated Fund, in order to enable the teachers to make their payments to the pension fund. He suggested that it would be better at once to contribute what it was proposed to give to the fund, instead of giving it to the school teachers to be finally passed on to the fund. Hon. Gentlemen around him appeared ready to act on the principle of shutting their eyes and opening their mouths, and taking what Providence might send them; but if such a proposal as that of the Government was seriously entertained for a moment, anyone would have thought that in the statement made by the Irish Secretary there would have been an estimate of what it would cost, and how it would work, what were the estimated receipts, and what the estimated expenditure. Nothing of that kind had been told them; and there was, also, a provision in the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had not alluded—and that was, that if the fund contributed was not sufficient in itself, or with the amount contributed by the teachers, then the Commissioners of National Debt were to make a further payment to supply the deficiency. Contrast this with England and Scotland. In Ireland, the State paid nearly the whole of the teachers' salaries; but in England and Scotland the State contributed little or nothing. He was not there to dispute that the condition of the Irish National School teachers was unsatisfactory, or that many good things might be attained

  887
  by improving their condition. The school teachers of Ireland had a considerable influence on public opinion in Ireland, and no one would doubt that that influence had been exerted in a manner not entirely desirable recently. But he did submit that the improvement of the Irish school teachers ought to be made at the expense of the Irish people, and out of their own resources, and not out of a fund which might be left for better and worthier purposes. Why should not the Irish people make some contribution out of the rates to improve the condition of the school teachers, as was done in England and Scotland? That they ought to do so was not his opinion merely, it was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government; because the late Chief Secretary (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) introduced a Bill to enable local authorities, Boards of Guardians, &c., to contribute out of the rates. The right hon. Gentleman was urged to make the Bill compulsory, on the ground that, if optional, it would be futile, and that concurrent action on the part of the Boards of Guardians would not be obtained. But the right hon. Gentleman did not consent, and the Act had proved a dead letter. In England and Scotland, the school teachers had no pensions; but they were provided with adequate remuneration, so as to enable them, out of their own means, to make provision for themselves by establishing an insurance fund. That was the true policy with regard to Ireland also. What did the Government now propose to do? They proposed to make the large contribution of £1,300,000, which was to be the nucleus of an annual endowment of that pension fund. He contended that was meddling with a great resource which might be used for much better purposes. What had been the policy with regard to educational endowments in England? Not to provide gratuitous education for the children out of them; but, by the foundation of prizes and exhibitions, to promote the education of youth from the primary to the second class, and even in some cases beyond that, leaving the ordinary daily cost of education to be defrayed out of the rates. By the same means, the Irish fund might be made a useful assistance to education, but not by making it the means of meeting a cost which should be borne by the Irish people.
  888
  On both sides, parties had shrunk from imposing any burdens upon the Irish people in respect to education. Instead of that, they had suggested the wasting of this treasure which might be made so useful. He repudiated altogether the suggestion that, in taking part against the Bill, he was devoid of sympathy with the Irish teachers and the Irish poor. He wished, as much as anyone, to improve their condition, both by pecuniary advantages and giving them more independence. He would emancipate them from the influence to which they had too long been subjected. He regretted that the offer made to them some time ago by the Government to enable them to obtain some security of tenure in the offices they held was rejected; and he would now, as far as possible, improve the position of Irish teachers, both in means of subsistence and independence of position; but he opposed this Bill because its effect must be mischievous to Irish educational interests, and because it proposed a misappropriation of part of the great Irish fund. He moved that the House resolve itself into Committee that day three months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Courtney,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. MELDONhad hoped that it would not be necessary for him to intrude upon the House by any observations of his own; but after the remarks which had been made he must say a few words. If the speech which they had just heard had been delivered in 1874 it would have deserved grave consideration; but it came too late now, for the position of the National School teachers in Ireland had considerably altered since that time. In 1874 the case of the teachers was brought before the House, their complaint being that they were inefficiently paid, that they had no residences, and, that they wanted pensions. On that occasion the case had much assistance from the Liberal side of the House, and not a single voice was raised

  889
  against either of these grievances, and the Government admitted their claims; and one would have thought the question was finally settled, and that the pledges of the Government would have shortly been fulfilled, and, certainly, that they would not have been opposed from that side of the House; but circumstances arose to delay the promises of the Government being redeemed, and, in the following year—1875—an attempt was made to deal with two of these admitted grievances in connection with salaries and residences. An Act was passed dealing with the subject of residences, and that Act it was proposed now, in some slight degree, to amend, and, at the same time, the Government proposed that the local rates should be made to contribute to the payment of salaries. That Act had continued up to the present time, though with partial success only; but, however, it was not to be interfered with now. The question of pensions then had been fully considered by the Government; and, in point of fact, a scheme had been prepared similar to the present one. The principle of pensions had been decided, though the fund had not. On many occasions the subject had been brought up in the House, once, and sometimes twice, in each Session; and at last he had obtained, by an unanimous opinion of the House, a Resolution in favour of this subject of pensions for teachers in Ireland receiving the immediate attention of Parliament. Well, that being so, he thought he was right in saying it was too late now to come forward and discuss the matter on the point of principle. That principle had been established in 1874, and confirmed every Session; and it only remained to give effect to it. One word as to the question of pensions. Among the greatest evils of National Education in Ireland was the want of pensions. The teacher entered the service, and spent the best part of his life in it; but because the salary was insufficient to procure for him a pension he remained in the service after he was incapacitated, the managers not being hard-hearted enough to drive him into the workhouse. It had always been conceded that some remedy ought to be put to this state of affairs; and, in the interest of education, it was about the best step that had been taken to make some provision with reference to the claims put forward by
  890
  the teachers; but then they were told that the application of the Church Surplus was a waste of treasure in this case. What was it? In the first place, it was an application of the Surplus to the great subject of Education; then, it was a special Parliamentary application of the Fund to the very poorest; and he always understood that this was about the best application of the Church Surplus that could be made—namely, to relieve the poor and promote education. In the Bill inducements were held out to the poor to be self-reliant. Unless they were so, the Government would not give them assistance. If ever there was a scheme which it was desirable to pass this was one. As to the time when pensions became available, the teachers thought the age required was a little too great. If the teachers continued in harness until 65, certainly they deserved this pension; but he himself regretted that the Government had not seen their way to give pensions at the age of 55, or that they had not taken into account the length of service. He was most assuredly of opinion that this Bill ought to pass, and was gratified to the Government for the way in which they had dealt with that question. He hoped his hon. Friend would see his way to allow the Bill to progress, because it was a measure as to which the Irish Members were entirely unanimous.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, that the Government had descended in showers of gold on Irish Roman Catholic Gentlemen opposite. The Intermediate Education Act of last Session had provided Irish Roman Catholic scholars with prizes, and Irish Roman Catholic seminaries with result fees. The Irish University Bill would provide Irish Roman Catholic students with University emoluments. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had promised an increase of pay to the extent, he believed, of £40,000 to Irish Roman Catholic primary school teachers, and this Bill would provide them with pensions. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government, while redressing the grievances of Irish Roman Catholics, would not forget their Irish Protestant friends. He thought that the most microscopic examination of the Appropriation Clause of the Irish Church Act would fail to discover that it was the intention of the framers of that

  891
  clause that Irish National School teachers should be dealt with as provided in this Bill. It was true that in the Intermediate Education Act of last Session, which took £1,000,000 from the Irish Church Surplus to build up the fabric of a system of Intermediate Education in Ireland, there was a departure from the principle of the Appropriation Clause of the Irish Church Act; but, more recently, Parliament had decided that the infringement upon that principle should not be extended to Irish University Education. This Bill, however, was a departure, to a considerable extent, from that course of action by providing pensions out of the Irish Church Surplus for the teachers of primary schools. However, he would not have the House suppose that he intended to vote against going into Committee on this Bill, far from it. He had the highest respect for the Irish National School teachers, who had a claim for the favourable consideration of Parliament: but he wished to point out that whatever their claims might be the claims of the minor Irish incumbents on the Irish Church Surplus were much greater. By minor incumbents he meant incumbents with less than £200 a-year at the time of the passing of the Irish Church Act; and if the words of the Appropriation Clause of that Act were taken literally—if the Surplus was to be devoted to "the relief of unavoidable suffering and calamity," there was no class to whom the words of the clause were more applicable than to the minor incumbents. The numbers of the Irish minor incumbents at the time of the passing of the Irish Church Act were 450; but their numbers had been thinned by death and privation, and were now only 250. Parliament had, by a series of enactments, held out inducements to them to accept small livings on the distinct understanding that these livings would be increased in due course. A tax was levied by Parliament on all Irish benefices of more than £300 a-year, for the purpose of augmenting all Irish livings of less than £200 a-year to £200. That tax was still levied. All the incumbents with benefices of more than £300 a-year at the time of the passing of the Irish Church Act received from the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners a proportionately smaller annuity on account of this tax. The tax amounted to
  892
  £18,000 per annum at the time of the passing of the. Irish Church Act.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENrose to Order. He did not see the relevancy of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, he was pointing out that whatever the claims of the National School teachers might be on the Surplus Funds of the Irish Church, those of the Irish minor incumbents were greater. These incumbents said that there was a sum of £314,000 which was ear-marked, so to speak, for their benefit. That sum was formerly in the hands of the Irish Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and was transferred by the Irish Church Act to the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners. It was applicable in the hands of the Irish Ecclesiastical Commissioners to the augmentation of small livings. The minor incumbents contended that they had an equitable claim upon that sum. It might be said that there was no precedent for such an appropriation of the Surplus Funds of the Irish Church; but he could assure the House that there were several. The prospective interests of Divinity students of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland were taken into consideration, and compensation was given in respect of these interests under the Irish Church Act. He would not take up the time of the House at that late hour by going through all the precedents; he would content himself with citing one other—a remarkable precedent. The Roman Catholic owners of Irish advowsons were compensated under the Irish Church Act for their loss of patronage, although they could not have exercised it, unless they had conformed to the Irish Church. He contended that the granting of this compensation would not be any infringement of the Appropriation Clause of the Irish Church Act. The Conservative Party had endured five years of exile from power through their loyalty to the Irish Church. With Conservatives, at all events, it ought to be a point of honour not to leave these poor incumbents to starve. In the name of justice and humanity, he asked Her Majesty's Government to consider—and, he trusted, to consider favourably—their claims during the Recess.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, while thanking the Government for having in-

  893
  troduced this Bill, he could not help congratulating his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) for the manner in which he had fought this question, and for the success which had at last crowned his efforts. With regard to the observations of the last speaker, he would remark that the Bill did something more than assist the Irish teachers. It did something for the education of the Irish people. Their first duty was to provide primary education for the people. That could not be done without placing the teachers in that position which, thanks to the Government and his. hon. Friends, they would attain under the Bill. He could not understand the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), who, like other men of intelligence in England and elsewhere, was possessed of doctrinal opinions. That hon. Member, and others who were like him, believed they were right in the development of their nostrums. All he could say was that if they were practically applied it would be found that they were altogether impracticable. The hon. Member for Liskeard had alluded to what the Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated that evening as to the intention of the Government in the coming Parliament, and had said that that was the reason why he had put down his opposition to the Bill. The hon. Member must, however, know that he put down his opposition a fortnight ago. He failed to understand why religion had been dragged into the discussion, as this was in no sense a religious question, the body of National School teachers in Ireland consisting of Protestants as well as Roman Catholics. Those teachers were treated no better than shepherds were in England and Scotland; and now that the Government had made a fair proposal in order to improve their position, he objected to hon. Members coming forward to oppose it on mere doctrinaire grounds. He sincerely trusted that the Bill would be passed.
  MR. NEWDEGATEobjected to proceeding with this Bill on the 13th of August. The House was but a skeleton of itself, and its recent proceedings were calculated to wear out the patience and strength of the great body of its Members. This Bill was introduced on the 15th of July, printed the same morning, and read the second time late at night,
  894
  without discussion. The hon. Baronet who last spoke had entirely misrepresented the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley). The hon. Baronet was completely in error when he accused the hon. and learned Member of having reflected on the loyalty of Irish Roman Catholics. It was rather singular that there should be such touchiness on the subject of loyalty; and when one Member went out of his way to misrepresent what had fallen from another he deemed it necessary to protest.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENrose to Order, and inquired whether the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was entitled to attribute intentional misrepresentation to him?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire must confine himself to the Question' before the House.
  MR. NEWDEGATEhad imagined that the speech of the hon. Baronet was in Order, and that any Member of the House would be entitled to comment upon it. If it became a practice to introduce important Bills so late in the Session, it would either be necessary for hon. Members to remain up to the very date of the Prorogation, or legislation would be productive of discredit to the House. He felt strongly what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Salford. It was only on the previous day that a Bill was passed through that House stretching religious equality to the very utmost in favour of Roman Catholic education, and last year money was taken from the surplus of the Irish Church Fund for purposes which were essentially denominational; and now it was proposed that a further portion of the Fund should be appropriated for purposes not contemplated, if not forbidden, by the Irish Church Act, although there were claims, on the part of the denomination from whom Parliament originally took the Fund, still remaining unsatisfied. The latter omission was all the more painful, because a large part the Disestablished Church Fund had, under the original Act, been appropriated to wealthy members of the Protestant Church in Ireland, to the holders of advowsons, and others, who did not need assistance. The Fund had already been diverted from the purposes indicated in the Irish Church Act.

  895
  He held that before any more of this money was otherwise appropriated the claims of the poor incumbents of the Disestablished Church ought to be considered; and, on that ground, he should vote against the further progress of the Bill.
  MR. SYNANdesired to rescue the debate from the irregularity into which it had fallen, and to impress upon the House the necessity of avoiding the topics which had been introduced by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. What had the Bill with respect to the claims of the minor clergy, the Order for which had been discharged, to do with the present measure? The Irish Members would be quite ready, at the proper time, to listen to whatever arguments might be adduced in support of those claims; but why they should now be brought forward, with the view of defeating the admitted claims of the National School teachers in Ireland, was beyond his comprehension. He was also at a loss to understand why certain Members should endeavour to make this a religious question, as there were both Roman Catholics and Protestants among the teachers. The purpose of the Bill before the House was to provide, out of money belonging to the Irish people, a fund to help National School teachers in Ireland, and enable them to enjoy a pension in their old age. The matter had been discussed several times, and the claims of the teachers had been admitted. It had been suggested that the object of the Government was a corrupt one; but, so far as he could see, there was not the slightest foundation for the suggestion. Who, indeed, were to be corrupted? The Irish Members, or the Irish teachers? In what way were they to be corrupted? The aim of the Government was perfectly consistent with the Irish Church Act. The Fund created by the operation of that Act had already been used for the purpose of advancing Intermediate Education in Ireland, and was about to be used in support of University Education, and the object of the Government on the present occasion was again educational. He hoped, therefore, that no attempt would be made to defeat the claims of a most deserving body of men.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that before going to the point with which lie wished principally to deal, he muse take excep-
  896
  tion to the principle laid down by the hon. Member who had just spoken. The hon. Member for Limerick County seemed to imagine that only hon. Gentlemen from Ireland had a right to deal with a question of this kind; but that was a principle to which he altogether demurred. The Irish Church Fund was devoted by Act of Parliament for special purposes, and the House was now practically asked to repeal that Act, and allow the Fund to be applied to a different purpose. They were the Parliament, not of England, Scotland, and Ireland, separately, but of the United Kingdom; and he held that every hon. Member had just as much right to speak and vote on such a question as the purest born Irishman, though, no doubt, good feeling and good fellowship would make the House give considerable weight to the opinion of Irish Members. He did not object to the Bill as being unnecessary and unjust; but he objected to the monetary provision as coming from a wrong source. He thought the proper course was to raise the teachers' salaries in the same manner as they had been raised in England and Scotland. Why should not the fund for pensions be raised by means of a rate levied oh houses and lands? It was but a short time since that Irish Members had contended for the same law for Ireland as for England in the case of Election Petitions. Let them apply the same principle to this case. He found, from the Reports respecting Ireland and Scotland, that the whole amount of the education rate in Ireland in one year was £21,687, while in Scotland it was £320,000, or nearly 20 times more than in Ireland. So, again, in respect to school pence. In Ireland, the school pence amounted to £84,000; and in Scotland, although the population was much smaller, to £162,000, being just about double the sum raised in Ireland. These were the sources from which the salaries of teachers were so properly and sufficiently raised in England and Scotland, and these were the legitimate sources. The money to meet local wants should be raised from local funds, and these were the local funds. There were in both countries some small endowments, and the total sum raised from local sources of every kind in Ireland was £119,000. This was all that Ireland raised for the education of her children;

  897
  but in Scotland the sum was £529,000. Nothing could be more cruel and unjust than to pay an additional large sum to Ireland out of the Consolidated Fund, as would be done next year, according to the Secretary to the Treasury, and to make England and Scotland pay large proportions of that additional sum merely to relieve the pockets of the Irish landowners. As to the cost of education, he found that each pupil in Ireland, according to the Report of the Commissioners, paid 4s. 1d. per year towards the cost of his education; whereas in Scotland he paid 12 s. 9d. Well, then, if Scotland paid such a large sum, on what principle of justice could she be asked to raise another sum for Ireland, when the lands and property in the latter country were just as available for the levying of rates as those of England or Scotland? During the present year the Civil Service Estimates showed that £673,000 had been voted to Ireland, and £469,000 to Scotland. He did not complain that one sum was too large for Ireland, or the other too small for Scotland. But he mentioned the fact simply to show what the difference was. If population were taken as the rule, Ireland did not get too much; but if the rateable value of land and taxation were taken into account, Ireland cither got too much, or Scotland too little. As he had already said, however, he did not complain; but he wanted to know why the Irish landowners should not do their duty towards the tenantry on their own estates? These were considerations which ought to be taken into account before any patchwork Bill like the one before the House was passed, and he begged to support the Amendment.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,in one respect, differed from those of his hon. Friends who had spoken, because he thought there could be no more appropriate destination for the Surplus of the Irish Church Fund than primary education in Ireland. The clergy had had the lion's share of the Fund already. He had seen many of them in Scotland, and found that they had brought a great deal of plunder with them from Ireland. He believed that it was putting the Funds to a better use in assisting primary education than in endowing University Education in Ireland; but he had doubts as to the particular object of the providing of pensions for the teachers. There
  898
  might be a good deal to say in its favour; but it struck him as singular that neither in Scotland or England were teachers provided with pensions, and he could not see why it was found necessary in Ireland. He would not, however, complain, if this as an Irish object was met by the Irish Church Fund and thus settled the matter; but they had had the statement from the Chief Secretary that their pockets were pledged also to some £40,000 or £50,000 a-year, out of which England and Scotland paid the large proportion for salaries to these Irish teachers. Seeing very strong objection to this, he should support the hon. Member for Liskeard; because he believed that, in devoting these Funds to the purpose, they were paving the way to a large demand upon England and Scotland next February. The only interference English and Scotch Members objected to was the interference of Ireland with their pockets; and he thought the remark of an hon. Member was right that a shower of benefits was being conferred by Her Majesty's Government upon the Irish people, and particularly upon Irish schoolmasters. He hoped this was not being done merely for the purpose of gaining ground for the Government in Ireland in view of a General Election. He thought there was great force in the question of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) as to why all that was necessary had not been done by means of rates. It was, he thought, perfectly puerile to say that the existing law had as yet been fully and fairly tried. It seemed to him that the real truth was that our only reason for keeping Ireland lay in the fact that a considerable number of Englishmen owned property there—a fact but for which the British Parliament would have been prepared long ago to grant Home Rule to the Irish people, instead of granting funds from the Imperial Exchequer for the maintenance of the police and educational institutions in that country. England and Scotland having to maintain their own police, and to see to the education of their people, he saw no sufficient reason why Ireland should not do the same. Further, he saw no grounds for refraining from applying the Surplus Funds of the Irish Church to Irish education; but he thought that when that Fund had been exhausted the balance

  899
  should be raised by means of rates, payable by the Irish people, and not from the Consolidated Fund.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he was much surprised at the want of knowledge of Irish fiscal arrangements which had been shown in the course of the debate. Ireland contributed 5s. 3d. in the pound of her income under all Schedules to the Imperial Exchequer. Her fair proportionate contribution to that Exchequer was something short of 2s. 6½d. in the pound; but, at the same time, it was urged in some quarters that Ireland was robbing the Imperial coffers, as if more than her actual contribution had ever been devoted to purely Irish purposes. A great deal of the opposition sprung from the fact that hon. Members forgot, in the expiring days of the Session, that a debt was due to Ireland in the matter of the primary schools. He, therefore, hoped that, if the Amendment was not withdrawn, a Division would be taken as early as possible, in order that they might go home.
  MR. C. BECKETT-DENISONobjected to that portion of the Bill which sought to impose a portion of the cost of Irish primary education on the Consolidated Fund of the country. He should offer a most strenuous opposition to this portion of the measure; and should, when the Bill got into Committee, endeavour to make good what he had to say on this point.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Commissioners of National Debt may advance funds).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. COURTNEY MR. COURTNEY moved the rejection of the clause. He said that, whatever the Committee might think of the im-policy of devoting a part of the Irish Church Surplus Fund to the provision of pensions for Irish school teachers, they ought not to be asked to supplement in an unknown manner from the Con-
  900
  solidated Fund. This was a part of the Bill concerning which the Chief Secretary had not given much information. If it should be necessary to supplement the available portion of the Church Fund, Parliament ought not to be asked for this supplementary sum without full and detailed explanation as to the source from which it was to be derived.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that as the Committee was aware, the Government had already hypothecated certain sums for the purpose of providing the necessary funds; but it might happen, from time to time, that it would be necessary, in the case of interests which had to be bought out, to make payments at an uncertain rate, and at such times the Consolidated Fund might be called upon to contribute the money; but he did not anticipate that any such necessity would arise. In any case, the Consolidated Fund would only be called upon to meet temporary necessities, and would not have to bear a permament charge. He proposed to add words to the Schedule, fixing the number of those who would come within the Act. That number would be in excess of those now actually in service.
  MR. C. BECKETT-DENISONsaid, that he was bound to say that he did not think that the explanation of the Chief Secretary was in any degree a satisfactory one. He objected, as a matter of principle, to any charge whatsoever being placed on the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of primary education in Ireland. It was not the case in either England or Scotland. The proportion which the Irish nation paid per head was 16 s. as to 40 s. paid by England and Scotland. There was no particular reason for placing a charge of this nature on the Consolidated Fund. The Chief Secretary said that the charge was only temporary; but the principle was wrong. He should, therefore, feel bound to take a Division.
  MR. O'CLERYreminded the Committee that the system of national education, so-called, in Ireland was forced on the country 35 years ago. It was known then as the mixed system of education, and was contrary to the wishes of the Irish people. If the English and Scottish people chose to force the system upon Ireland, it was very hard that the Irish people should have to pay for it.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTthought that it was going much too far to seek to throw the payment of these pensions, or any part of them, upon the Consolidated Fund. He, at the same time, had no objection to what he understood as the original proposal—namely, that they should be paid out of the Surplus Funds of the Irish Church. He, therefore, agreed with the views expressed by the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. C. Beckett-Denison).
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had no explanation to give beyond that already made by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. It was estimated, on the basis of actuarial calculations, that the amount available from the Irish Church Fund would be sufficient; but there must necessarily be some little uncertainty as to the number of years in which provision would have to be made. It was estimated that the sum required to provide these pensions would be £1,300,000; but in a matter of this kind there must necessarily be fluctuations; and it would be rather hard that in a year in which the amount drawn was in excess of the sum provided there should be a deficiency of funds, when, in another year, it would be on an entirely different scale, and the one would right the other. Therefore, a Proviso was introduced that in such case an advance, which should be temporary, should be made out of the Consolidated Fund; but such advance was to be specially certified to Parliament.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not met the objections raised by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), and the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), as to devoting a portion of the Consolidated Fund to the payment of these pensions. If, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, there might be some years in which the sum necessary was larger than the sum provided, why should not that fall upon the Irish Church Surplus Fund, instead of upon the Consolidated Fund? When the question as to the provision of funds for the higher education in Ireland was again raised in the House he should not forget the line taken on the present occasion by supporters of the Go-
  902
  vernment so prominent as the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire and the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex. If the present debate had no other use, it would have been productive of not unimportant utterances in that respect.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 16: Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 237.)
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Extension of borrowing powers of Commissioners of Church Temporalities).
  MR. O. BECKETT-DENISONsaid, this clause required some explanation. It proposed to make certain alterations, and to extend certain borrowing powers; and he wished to know why it was not provided that the whole of the money required for the purposes of the Bill should be charged to the Church Surplus Fund?
  MR. J. LOWTHERreplied, that no actual charge would be made upon the Consolidated Fund; but in case of any unexpected demand of a reasonable character being made it Was thought desirable that there should be access to the Treasury for the purpose of meeting a temporary emergency.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 9, 10, and 11, agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Extension of power to make loans for residences).
  MR. COURTNEYasked for some explanation of its purpose, remarking that he did not understand why the mere advancing of money necessitated the alterations which the clause proposed to make.
  MR. MELDONpointed out that, under the Teachers' Residences Act, the managers of schools and others interested in them were enabled to go to the Board of Works and obtain a moiety of the necessary funds for the purpose of erecting the necessary building. By the provisions for the non-vested schools, the managers would be entitled to go to the Board of Works and borrow the entire amount of the purchase money, which was to be repayable by annual instalments at 5 per cent interest, and he understood the intention of the clause

  903
  was to place the vested schools on the same terms as those on which the non-vested schools were.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite correct. The clause would not impose any charge either upon the Church Fund or upon the Consolidated Fund. It was to enable money to be borrowed from the Public Works Loan Commissioners on proper security under their control.
  Clause agreed to.
  Schedule.
  MR. J. LOWTHER MR. J. LOWTHER moved to insert the following new paragraph:—
  "(10.) For the purposes of this Act, the several classes of teachers above the third class shall be deemed to consist of the following-numbers (hereinafter called 'he standard numbers'), that is to say:—

  Males.

  First Class—First Division

  150

  First Class—Second Division

  410

  Second Class

  1,850

  Females.

  First Class—First Division

  130

  First Class—Second Division

  350

  Second Class

  1,550

  Should the teachers actually paying premiums in any class above the third class reach at any time the standard number, a teacher thereafter promoted to such higher class shall continue to pay the premiums and be entitled to the pension of the class below, until a vacancy occurs in the standard number of the teachers paying the premium of such higher class, when he shall be entitled to claim to pay the increased premium assigned to his then age, and to secure the pension of the higher class. If the total number of male-classed teachers paying premiums exceeds five thousand three hundred, or the total number of female-classed teachers exceeds five thousand four hundred, the junior teachers in excess of those numbers shall not be entitled to the benefits of this Act until by seniority they come within such numbers, and their so coming within such numbers shall be held for the purposes of this Act to be their appointment to the service."
  The right hon. Gentleman said this was the Amendment which he had before referred to, as showing that the calculations on which the actuaries proceeded would not be liable to be set aside by any influx of new teachers. Under this proposal, new teachers, who exceeded the numbers stated, would, for the first few months or a year of their holding office, be placed in a position somewhat analogous to that of a student in view of a vacancy. In that way the new teacher would not be entitled to avail
  904
  himself of the benefits of the Act until there was a vacancy for him within the limits prescribed by the Bill.
  MR. COURTNEYwas afraid the defence to be afforded by this scheme would be very unsatisfactory, and, in practice, would not be found to be trustworthy. It was quite clear they would not be able to exclude from this scheme schoolmasters in excess of the prescribed number. He wished to ask at what rate of interest had these calculations been made? He observed that the sum for pensions to females was a good deal less than for pensions to men of the same age.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the calculation was of a very elaborate character, and had been carefully gone through by able actuaries. It seemed to be an average calculation, based upon the experience of Life Offices and Post Office annuities. The teachers were to provide a quarter of the pensions, and the other three-quarters would come out of the fund. Of course, in the case of existing teachers, the loss to the fund would be considerable, because they would be entitled to reap advantages which would accrue to them, they having remained in the service until they were 40 years of age; so that, in their case, it was difficult to say what average to strike; but the whole were taken together and represented by the whole capital sum which was mentioned. If a teacher quitted the service otherwise than by death before becoming entitled to a pension a premium was paid, and, to that extent the scheme would act very much in the light of a savings' bank.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he asked on what rate these calculations were based? What interest was to be allowed to depositors in the savings' bank?
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, it was not a savings' bank at all; it was an insurance.
  MR. COURTNEYknew that; but wished to know what rate of interest was assumed in working out the scheme?
  MR. J. LOWTHERreplied, that was an elaborate calculation. He submitted that it was of the nature of a savings' bank with regard to those who left the service otherwise than by death; but with regard to those who died in harness, or took their pensions in their turn, it was not a savings' bank at all.

  905
  It was an actuarial calculation, and it I was impossible for him to say what was the rate of interest.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would find out, because the actuary had gone upon the assumption that a certain sum of money paid in would meet all demands. That assumption was based on the supposition that a certain rate of interest could be relied upon, and he wished to know what was the rate of interest? One rate ran through the whole. It might be 3½ or 4 per cent.
  MR. J. LOWTHERinquired whether the hon. Gentleman meant the rate of interest used for the £1,300,000?
  MR. COURTNEY: Yes; upon that and upon the other funds coming into the hands of the Commissioners.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that was a different thing. He understood the hon. Gentleman to wish to know the rate at which the calculation was based as to contributions. The rate of interest was calculated at 3½ per cent.
  MR. GRAYremarked, as regarded the difference between males and females, it was a well-known actuarial fact that the chances of life were in favour of females, and that annuities could be granted to them at a lower rate.
  MR. C. BECKETT-DENISONsaid, first, he gathered from the scheme that at present there existed a system of grants for those who voluntarily retired at any time. Under the Bill there were pensions for all who retired after the age of 55. He wished to know at what period after the passing of this Act must anyone have served in order to entitle him to a pension under this Bill?
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, it was a matter of age, not of mere service.
  MR. COURTNEYwould like to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if the calculation was based on the assumption that 3½ per cent would be received by the Commissioners of the National Debt on the money in their hands it was inevitable that a large loss must ensue. The Commissioners did not make anything like that. They were only able to allow 2½ per cent to the Post Office, and 3¼ per cent to the ordinary savings' banks, and they lost largely in their dealings with the latter; and if they took to allowing 3½ per cent to these schoolmasters for the pension
  906
  fund there would certainly be a deficiency, which would have to be provided out of the Consolidated Fund.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the money was not to come from the Commissioners, but from the Church Surplus Fund.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, yes, a certain fixed sum; but that was paid to the National Debt Commissioners, and then became part of their funds.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. J. LOWTHER MR. J. LOWTHER moved, in paragraph 15, page 8, line 20, to leave out "teacher," and insert "male teacher under the age of fifty-five, or a female teacher under the age of fifty."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Preamble agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported.
  MR. J. LOWTHERbelieved it was the general wish of the House that the Bill should be able to proceed in "anther place;" and, with the consent of the House, he would move that the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

LOCAL COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL [Lords.] [Bill 146.]
(Mr. James Lowther.)
LOCAL COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL [Lords.] [Bill 146.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was sorry to say that, looking at the position of the Business, and considering that it was now too late to take this Bill to-night, he feared it would be impossible to proceed with it; and he would, therefore, move that the Order be discharged. He did so with regret, and he hoped in another Session to have an opportunity of bringing in a Bill which he believed would be very useful and very acceptable to a great number of the people of Ireland.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for Committee be discharged."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. MURPHYvery much regretted to hear the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Bill had been a long time before the House. It was brought in also last year; but at the instigation of some professional gentlemen it had not been allowed to proceed. ["No!"] However that might be, he trusted that the important constituencies of Belfast and Cork, which were so much interested in the Bill, would be satisfied with the assurance given, and he hoped that the next measure would be brought in in time to meet the obstruction which the lapsed Bill had met with.
  MR. CALLANshould have thought a glance at the Order Book would show that the Bill did not give general satisfaction, and was not likely to receive the approbation of the people of Ireland or the merchants of this country. Notices of opposition were placed upon the Paper by Representatives of some of the largest trading communities in Great Britain, and that was proof in itself that the Bill was essentially a bad Bill, and that, if another Bill were introduced next Session, it should be on considerably different lines. He hoped that any new Bankruptcy Amendment Bill would be, not a tinkering and meddling little scheme, but a general and well-considered measure.
  MR. J. P. CORRYsaid, the large and important borough he represented had looked forward to the passing of this Bill this Session. The organization which had stopped it had been got up by the practitioners in Dublin and their friends; and in that way a measure had been hindered which would be very useful to the large mercantile community of Cork and Belfast. However, he hoped it would be re-introduced next Session, and carried through at an earlier period.
  MR. M. BROOKSsaid, the Bill had been condemned by a large number of traders, not only in Dublin but elsewhere; and he hoped that next Session, if the Bill was re-introduced, more information would be given than had been forthcoming on the present occasion.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought a Bill of this important character ought to have been introduced earlier in the Session, and hoped this would be borne in mind next year.
  Motion agreed to.
  Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

BLIND AND DEAF-MUTE CHILDREN (EDUCATION) BILL— [Bill 93.]
(Mr. Wheelhouse, Sir Andrew Lush, Mr. Scott, Mr. Isaac, Mr. Benjamin Williams.)
BLIND AND DEAF-MUTE CHILDREN (EDUCATION) BILL— [Bill 93.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read the third time this day.—(Mr. Wheelhouse.)
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "this day," and insert the words "upon Thursday."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Third Reading deferred till this day.

MOTIONS.
  SOUTH AFRICAN COLONIES (TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION).

    RESOLUTION.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved—
    "That the Contract, dated the 9th day of May 1879, entered into by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury with the Telegraph Construction and Maintenance and Eastern Telegraph Companies, for establishing Telegraphic Communication with the South African Colonies, be approved."
    The hon. Baronet said, this subject had often been under the consideration of various Governments, in one form or another; but not until the present had it taken any definite form, either on the ground of expense, or because it was thought the difficulties in the way of construction were insurmountable. The present contract was for the payment of £35,000 a-year, contingent upon the proper working of the line; and he had no doubt that in a few months there would be a communication between the Colonies and this country—a communication, the want of which had been seriously felt in the recent South African complications.
    Motion agreed to.
    Resolved, That the Contract, dated the 9th day of May 1879, entered into by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury with the Telegraph Construction and Maintenance and

    909
    Eastern Telegraph Companies, for establishing Telegraphic Communication with the South African Colonies, be approved."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

  WATER SUPPLY (METROPOLIS).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in view of the fact that the Metropolitan Board of Works has been unable to pass any measure dealing with the water supply of London, this House is of opinion that it is a subject which ought, without further delay, to be dealt with by the Government."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.